If the surveillance cameras can’t even catch the persons who removed all of their cameras, then they have proven to be worthless at catching real criminals, with their only proven worth is stalking police officers ex wives.
All Flock cameras do is identify cars. If you aren’t a car, they can’t see you. They aren’t just mindlessly recording everything like an ordinary camera, so police can’t look through the recordings to identify you.
They won’t create a searchable database of faces, assuming they work as advertised. However, the footage is streamed to a server (sometimes publicly accessible) and available for manual review.
Edit: also BT/Wi-Fi MAC addresses of devices, whether on cars or not, are recorded, and can link drivers to their licence-plate-equipped cars even when they’re walking with the same phone or earpods
Correct but Flock’s own system, if their public statements can be trusted, doesn’t do facial recognition itself. The main use is tracking vehicles using license plates and all kinds of visual cues, and Bluetooth/Wi-Fi devices by their MAC address and properties, and linking this huge swath of data together. Still, faces are recorded as video that can be checked manually or processed by third-party tools, including “AI” facial-recognition ones. Therefore, if a pedestrian destroys all Flock cameras and has Bluetooth earpods on them, there will be an easy way to link the events, and then the police will check if their face is visible in surviving footage and check the country-wide database if the person ever used the earphones in a vehicle near the cameras.
Yes, the searchable DB is the big problem. But they work like regular IP cameras too: do you think police would buy them as much if they didn’t? Or did stream but blurred out anything that wasn’t a vehicle? If a crime happened recently near a Flock camera and they know when, they can absolutely use whatever it saw. Not to mention, third-party “AI” tools can be always used on raw footage from any camera for face recognition, event classification etc. so you’re not safe even as a pedestrian without the police having “probable cause”. And the camera going offline is probable cause*.
* Here, probable cause would ideally mean legally justifiable reasons to check the recording. However, in practice, it’s just any excuse for a police officer to justify spending time retrieving and watching the footage.
If the surveillance cameras can’t even catch the persons who removed all of their cameras, then they have proven to be worthless at catching real criminals, with their only proven worth is stalking police officers ex wives.
That’s just not true. Sometimes they haven’t even met the women they’re stalking.
People removing surveillance cameras taxpayers didn’t approve aren’t “criminals”. The proper term is heroes.
All Flock cameras do is identify cars. If you aren’t a car, they can’t see you. They aren’t just mindlessly recording everything like an ordinary camera, so police can’t look through the recordings to identify you.
There are face tracking flock cams out there too. Benn Jordan recorded part of his video essay on one that was open to the public on a walking path.
FALSE.
https://www.404media.co/flock-exposed-its-ai-powered-cameras-to-the-internet-we-tracked-ourselves/
https://www.flocksafety.com/webinar/introducing-condor-live-and-recorded-video
Me when I’m a liar who’s eternally loyal to peter theil:
I’m against Flock cameras. I didn’t expect to run into people on the anti side who are in denial about how the things work. Like, Flock truthers.
They won’t create a searchable database of faces, assuming they work as advertised. However, the footage is streamed to a server (sometimes publicly accessible) and available for manual review.
Edit: also BT/Wi-Fi MAC addresses of devices, whether on cars or not, are recorded, and can link drivers to their licence-plate-equipped cars even when they’re walking with the same phone or earpods
All the news stories I’ve seen talk about concerns over tracking movement. This is the first I’ve heard about people worried about the actual video.
Look up Benn Jordan’s videos on these things. They are NOT just license plate readers.
Correct but Flock’s own system, if their public statements can be trusted, doesn’t do facial recognition itself. The main use is tracking vehicles using license plates and all kinds of visual cues, and Bluetooth/Wi-Fi devices by their MAC address and properties, and linking this huge swath of data together. Still, faces are recorded as video that can be checked manually or processed by third-party tools, including “AI” facial-recognition ones. Therefore, if a pedestrian destroys all Flock cameras and has Bluetooth earpods on them, there will be an easy way to link the events, and then the police will check if their face is visible in surviving footage and check the country-wide database if the person ever used the earphones in a vehicle near the cameras.
They can’t.
Yes, the searchable DB is the big problem. But they work like regular IP cameras too: do you think police would buy them as much if they didn’t? Or did stream but blurred out anything that wasn’t a vehicle? If a crime happened recently near a Flock camera and they know when, they can absolutely use whatever it saw. Not to mention, third-party “AI” tools can be always used on raw footage from any camera for face recognition, event classification etc. so you’re not safe even as a pedestrian without the police having “probable cause”. And the camera going offline is probable cause*.
* Here, probable cause would ideally mean legally justifiable reasons to check the recording. However, in practice, it’s just any excuse for a police officer to justify spending time retrieving and watching the footage.
Lol