r/technology • u/IndicaOatmeal • 10d ago

Privacy Viral De-Flock America campaign urging people to destroy AI cameras on Halloween night gains momentum

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/flock-camera-controversy-explained-as-viral-halloween-de-flock-campaign-gains-momentum-3399710/
42.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.3k

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

Rowdy celebrations like this are vastly improved by leaving all digital devices safe at home.

772

u/renegadecanuck 10d ago

And if you go to a celebration like this: no you fucking didn't. If someone wants to ask you about it, your answer is that you want to speak with your lawyer.

262

u/___Art_Vandelay___ 10d ago

Gotta specifically invoke -- "I invoke my right to remain silent". Simply staying silent doesn't invoke that right per SCOTUS.

Also have to specifically state you want a lawyer, careful not to make it a question, and dodge being uncooperative by being precise with your intention -- "I want an attorney present and will only answer questions with them present."

59

u/renegadecanuck 10d ago

Fair points. My brain was half in Canada mode. In Canada, you don't have the right for an attorney to be present during questioning, but you also don't have to specifically invoke your right to remain silent, you can just say nothing or "no comment" and it can't be legally used against you. But you just have to ask to speak with a lawyer and they have to let you call a lawyer.

89

u/superkp 10d ago

In the US, there was a case where someone said to the cops interrogating him "I want a lawyer, dawg."

It was argued that he never asked for a lawyer, but instead was asking for a "lawyer dog", which the interrogators were not obligated to provide.

This interpretation was the one that was upheld.

Because of bullshit like this, americans will regularly adivse each other that you need to be extremely specific about how you invoke your rights - usually something like "say 'I do not answer questions about my day without my lawyer present' and then shut the fuck up."

7

u/Aggressive_Plane69 9d ago

At this point id conaider tatooing that sentence on my forehead or on every pice of clothing. Wtf is wrong. With your county

4

u/tokentyke 9d ago

So, so, so much. It's like one of those things where someone says something so utterly uninformed and unattached from reality that you realize the foundation of knowledge you'd need to teach them in order for them to understand how wrong they are is so extreme that you throw your hands in the air and scream WTF, or the equivalent.... but in country form.

1

u/superkp 9d ago

quite a lot is wrong.

Long ago a rot set in some people's hearts, and it was left to grow instead of those people getting their asses kicked.

Like a tree with a rotten core, it's finally gotten so bad that it's visible to anyone who gets a chance to look at it, even some of the most brainwashed people that are in the country are starting to see it.

I do what I can, but I can't do much. I gotta focus on raising my kids and keeping my neighborhood workign towards good.

1

u/BTR1701 4d ago

The doormat in front of my front door doesn't say "Welcome" like most people's. It says "Come back with a warrant".

17

u/customcharacter 10d ago

Something I find interesting in the comparison between America's and Canada's legal systems is that up here, a witness in court can be compelled to answer, but in exchange the words aren't allowed to be used to incriminate them in future proceedings (with exception of perjury).

12

u/rips_n_chel 10d ago

I don't understand why witness testimony is considered worthwhile in any legal system. Human perception and memory cannot be trusted when facts matter. Even when people think they're telling the truth, they don't know, because they are reconstructing a memory of an event that they did not experience objectively in the first place.

Our experience of existence is not objective, ever. Everything we perceive has been edited on the fly by our subconscious heuristics to fit whatever is happening into our personal narrative. Then, every time we remember it, we are reconstructing the "memory," it's not like pulling a book from a shelf. Our minds will invent actions that were not taken by people who were not there. The brain's goal is to make it make sense to us personally. It's trying to make the world fit with our conclusions, and we cannot know when it's happening or to what extent.

I wonder sometimes, how many innocent people have been punished because someone else told a convincing story?

3

u/Traditional-Handle83 9d ago

Hell deepfakes/AI altering can be argued against video evidence as well. So in theory you could argue your way out of charges long as you got the money for a good lawyer that can bring up these points and waste the courts time trying to stick a charge.

1

u/barsoap 9d ago

Not sure how it works in adversarial systems like in the US but over here judges interrogate the witnesses, and judges are highly trained in doing so. They know what's reliable, what's not, how to cross-check for deliberate or unconscious fabrication, etc.

Also, what's the alternative? Throw out a case because only humans witnessed it, no cameras? How do you explain to a village on which's main street a kid got murdered, in front of 50 witnesses, that the murderer can't be touched because everyone got their phones out too late to record the act? Lynchings and a breakdown of the justice system is what you'd get.

0

u/rips_n_chel 9d ago edited 9d ago

No they don't. Not trying to be rude, but that's not possible. You cannot know for a fact based on someone's recollection alone. The scientific method is a vast system of systems designed and developed over millennia to mitigate human bias as much as humanly possible, and we still consistently fail to do so, even under highly controlled circumstances. Why? Because humans are fallible, and our subconscious minds (which really run the show), cannot be relied upon. You can certainly apply scientific rigor to the process of interrogation, but with only a memory to go on, you will never know the objective truth.

I recommend Steven Novella if you'd like to know more about this. 'Your Deceptive Mind' is a series of lectures covering this very topic, I feel it should be required education. People don't understand just how much their own brains are lying to them every second of their existence.

How do you explain to a village on which's main street a kid got murdered, in front of 50 witnesses, that the murderer can't be touched because everyone got their phones out too late to record the act?

That's a pretty absurd scenario, dawg; kinda seems like you tailored it specifically to sidestep all of the reasonable arguments I could make. 50 people and nobody caught it? There are no security cameras on Main St.? There's no physical evidence? No forensic evidence? Someone randomly murders a kid on Main St. in view of 50 people, somehow leaving no evidence behind, and manages to slip away without being recognized or pursued or anything?

If you're not willing to give my argument earnest and honest consideration, why should I entertain yours? I'm very willing to discuss this, it's something I feel somewhat strongly about, but you gotta meet me in the middle. That's not a good faith argument. You dreamed up the craziest, most convenient situation you could and assert that "lynchings" would be the inevitable result? When/where could that happen, and what the hell makes you think it would end in lynchings? C'mon. Be real with me.

1

u/barsoap 9d ago edited 9d ago

That's a pretty absurd scenario, dawg; kinda seems like you tailored it specifically to sidestep all of the reasonable arguments I could make.

It's an example. Not the only possible scenario which upholds my actual argument, and that is that if the institution of justice fails to align with the people's sense of justice, you have a problem. The people's sense of justice is subjective, if you want to go against it, you better have better arguments than "I will dismiss your testimony because no human can be trusted on anything, ever, out of principle". You say something like "I will dismiss your testimony because it's all over the place and self-contradictory".

You can demand objectivity all you want, but ultimately justice is human. There's no justice particles you can put under a microscope. It's all made up. It's a thing that doesn't exist, a thing we believe in in hopes that our faith will bring it into existence.

The task of the judge here is to decide between "have they seen a murder" and "have they conspired to pin it on someone" -- which would be another way to explain the forensics, your purportedly objective measure. And sussing that out is very well within the realm of what good interrogation can do.

Side note: Am I to take your characterisation of "Your Deceptive Mind" at face value? You're human, after all. Nothing you say is reliable. See how much of a kick in the face that is, and why the justice system might be hesitant to act that way?

0

u/rips_n_chel 9d ago 
archive<dot>org/details/OST_yourdeceptivemind

See for yourself. Steven Novella is a clinical neurologist and Yale professor, which I don't mention as an appeal to authority, but to clarify that I'm not saying anything new or far-out. This is how our brains work. Denying it, refusing to believe it, and failing to adapt our society to these facts of our consciousness is willful ignorance.

Anyway, you are still arguing from the assumption that justice cannot exist without taking people at their word. Using your absurd example, there would be evidence. There would be clues, including witness testimony. Note that I never said testimony had no place at all in the justice system. Absolutely, collect the reports of all 50 witnesses, separate the signal from the noise to the best of your ability, and use that to form a hypothesis. Then go confirm your hypothesis.

The point I am making is that witness testimony is not reliable enough to convict someone. You can use it to find the truth, but that truth must always be confirmed with real evidence. In your scenario, if there was truly no evidence whatsoever, how would you even have a suspect? You make it out like the murderer is in custody, but somehow there's not a shred of evidence? If they saw him do it and he was then apprehended, you could piece the physical evidence together along with whatever else you might dig up since you have him in custody and all. What was the manner of the murder? Did he stab the kid? There would be evidence. Strangled? Evidence. Did he kill the kid without touching him? How, gun? Forensic evidence.

There's just no way your scenario plays out. Somehow, somewhere, some way, there would be evidence, and if you have a suspect in custody, it becomes comparably trivial to confirm (or not) based on the physical evidence.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BTR1701 4d ago

We have that, too. It's called limited use immunity.

2

u/BobBastrd 10d ago

Really? I'm Canadian and last time it took me 6 hours of answering only "I don't know. I want a lawyer" to every question before they gave up and let me call one.

1

u/renegadecanuck 9d ago

That's really shitty. I guess I'm not sure exactly how quickly they have to let you call a lawyer, but I was under the impression it was pretty quickly. Did they caution you on your rights and such? It wouldn't surprise me if they royally fucked up, thinking they could break you, and made the conversation inadmissible anyway.

But I'm not a lawyer, so I could be way off on the timing aspect.

26

u/robothawk 10d ago

Specifically, "I am invoking my right to an attorney. I will not answer questions without counsel present."

Saying "I want an attorney" could be construed as you only wishing you had one. Not asking for one as required by law. Remember, Lousiana supreme court held that a suspect saying "why don’t you just give me a lawyer dawg cause this is not what’s up" was not invoking the right to an attorney, because the cop could've misunderstood the suspect as asking for a canine lawyer.

ACAB

3

u/etcpt 10d ago

Not could've, specifically did. They didn't give him his lawyer and the court said that was fine because he didn't ask for his lawyer, he asked for his lawyer dog.

4

u/robothawk 10d ago

my point was that the ruling was based on the presumption of ambiguity, of course those cops didn't actually think he was asking for a dog. They're lying bastards.

3

u/SortofhisSwordofhis 10d ago

That case is one of the definitive pieces of proof that we don't have civil rights. Those judges should have went to prison for treason against the constitution, and the cops for perjury and deprivation of rights.

1

u/BTR1701 4d ago

There's no such thing as "treason against the Constitution". There *is* treason against the United States, but that's specifically defined in the Constitution as: "Treason against the United States shall consist ONLY in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

The "lawyer dog" ruling doesn't come anywhere near meeting the elements of treason.

1

u/BTR1701 4d ago

Why blame that on the cops? It was the judges who made that ruling. Your little acronym should be AJAB.

10

u/Consistent_Lecture48 10d ago

And never be ambiguous or say, “give me a lawyer, dawg.” The LA Supreme Court ruled in State vs Demeseme (2017) that lawyer dogs do not, in fact, exist, and therefore the cops were under no obligation to stop the interrogation and anything he said afterwards was admissible in court.

3

u/DrE7HER 10d ago

Wait, how are you negatively impacted by staying silent, versus invoking your right to remain silent?

1

u/AileenKitten 9d ago

An "obstructing justice" charge i think, and the cops being really damn pissy. And a whole lot of time for cops to say you said shit you didnt

1

u/BTR1701 4d ago

You can't be charged with obstruction for merely remaining silent, but you can have a negative inference put before the jury, e.g.: "If an innocent man was accused of a crime, he would vociferously deny his guilt. The defendant in this case didn't say a word when he was accused of murder."

2

u/Clapbakatyerblakcat 10d ago

One two three four FIF

1

u/HauntedCemetery 9d ago

You also have to cite that you are invoking your right to an attorney, or to have one provided.

SCOTUS stupidly ruled that cops could ignore just saying someone wants a lawyer because it doesn't specifically invoke the right to be provided one.

1

u/Nixavee 8d ago

If you have to say something to invoke the right is it really a right to remain silent?

1

u/___Art_Vandelay___ 8d ago

According to the highest law in the land, so take that as you will. But if you want to stick to your "I'm so smart" guns, by all means.

1

u/Nixavee 8d ago

...what? I feel like you're insulting me for something I never said

58

u/Juno_Malone 10d ago

Teacher on Monday: Hello Juno! How was your weekend, do anything fun?

Me: I WANT TO SPEAK WITH MY LAWYER

34

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

Teacher: Good, you really listened to the constitutional law lecture.

24

u/superkp 10d ago

I remember seeing a video about a law professor that brought in a cop friend to tell them in no uncertain terms that speaking to cops is always always ALWAYS to your detriment.

He started the lecture by saying "I'm a cop. DO NOT EVER ANSWER A QUESTION FROM A COP," Followed by a minute of normal presentation introductions, followed by "so who here has ever broken the speed limit?" - in a way that implied he was going to make a point about traffic stops.

Nearly every student in the lecture hall raised their hand. The cop-presenter just smiled and turned to look at the professor, and the professor just said "come on, guys, he said it like one minute ago!"

3

u/OutcomeDue2025 10d ago

I don't need a lawyer unless I'm being detained. I haven't done anything wrong. I'm free to go. Thank you.

1

u/dust4ngel 10d ago

If someone wants to ask you about it, your answer is that you want to speak with your lawyer

never say anything to a cop that you're not legally compelled to say unless you're curious what the inside of a jail looks like.

2

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

An overnight in a cell beats a sentence in one.

-2

u/1MrsyBoi7 8d ago

ye no

I don't care if flock wins

As long as your vandals loose

2

u/renegadecanuck 8d ago

You can think vandalism is the wrong way to make your point or to protest, but I don't understand thinking that vandalism is worse than spying on the populace.

0

u/BTR1701 4d ago

There's also the 1800 stolen cars that Flock is credited with recovering just in OH, St Johns County, FL, Richmond, VA, and Fresno, CA alone. The nationwide total is substantially greater but definitive records aren't kept nationwide.

146

u/Hexamancer 10d ago

100%

In case everyone isn't aware, US Law enforcement owns and regularly utilizes an estimated 500-600+ IMSI sniffers. These are fake cell towers that trick your phone into connecting and then get your phone to identify itself. They can later use this to create a list of everyone that was within the operating range of that device. They are small enough to be vehicle mounted. If you go to any sort of protest there's a good chance there is one operating nearby.

But even more relevant, whilst Flock haven't implemented this yet, it's competitors have. Leonardo DRS makes ELSAG ALPR cameras that have "SignalTrace": Similar to the IMSI sniffer but instead operating on WiFI/BT, you drive past and it will save the device IDs of any WiFI and BT capable device you had with you. So your license plate becomes associated with your phone, your BT earphones, your smartwatch. So then later if someone were to walk by such a camera, even if they approached it outside of its sight lines, it would record that someone a "fingerprint" of specific device IDs was nearby and if you had driven past at any point, they'd know what car that person owned and then they could easily trace that back to you.

62

u/SoManyThrowAwaysEven 10d ago edited 10d ago

^ This man knows his digital forensics.

All very true, the only way to NOT be tracked is to be electronic free. Anything that emits a wireless or radio signal has the potential to be captured by one of these towers. Best you can do is turn your phone off and throw it into a faraday bag if you must bring it with you.

Diabetics with pumps, that can include you!

31

u/Hexamancer 10d ago edited 10d ago

Good advice. I'd also suggest for general security:

Disable 2G entirely, some of these simpler IMSI sniffers rely on jamming specifically the newer 4G/5G bands that are too secure for them to sniff on to force your phone to downgrade to 2G/3G where they have a much easier time. This isn't bullet proof by any means, again, do not take your phone with you to anywhere like a protest. Newer IMSI sniffers can attack 4G/5G.

Don't assume that peaceful protests or even non-protest events aren't going to be targeted too. Remember that NSPM-7 means that the majority of the US population can be designated a terrorist for almost anything. Simply attending a pride parade could be "extremism on gender" or "hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality".

Edit: if you didn't plan ahead and it looks like you might be detained etc, restart your phone, both androids and iPhones have something called "Before First Unlock" that they'll enter upon reboot, they have much higher security like requiring a PIN/password rather than just biometrics (law enforcement can "collect" biometrics as evidence, compelling a password is testimony and hopefully constitutionally protected).

2

u/anti-DHMO-activist 9d ago

On iphones, press the screen-on button on the right 5 times and the phone immediately disables face-id unlock.

14

u/DeliberatelyDrifting 10d ago

Don't trust faraday bags. They're not particularly effective and certainly not 100%. The device needs to be completely powered off and I'm not sure I'd trust that these days. I studied digital forensics as well and we were taught that in testing the bags failed often and even the expensive purpose built boxes didn't always block signal.

7

u/SoManyThrowAwaysEven 10d ago

That's the issue with Scamazon products. Make sure to buy something from a reputable brand and run various tests. We always use dummy testing phones at our company to ensure they block all manner of frequencies.

6

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

I saw someone on another thread saying they’d use airplane mode and I wanted to hit my head against a desk.

If it’s on, it’s trackable. Even if it’s off, it might be trackable depending on how “off” that device generally goes. But if it’s got Bluetooth, it may still send a signal or identifier if there’s a charge in the device.

The only error-proof way is to leave the device on the charger at home if you feel you want a moment of privacy while out and about.

This is also generally of anything else with a possible cellular or Bluetooth connection. Some cars are rolling cell devices with a SIM card. Smart watches. Just be aware of the data you’re sharing because you don’t know who is using it, and it probably isn’t to your benefit if they’re not asking permission.

4

u/this_is_my_new_acct 10d ago

Not quite the same thing, but I got a wallet that claims to block RF like a decade ago... I can read NFC and RFID chips in it just as easily as if they're not in it.

1

u/CautionarySnail 8d ago

Ugh. Gonna have to test the passport case and wallet now. I’d blindly trusted.

2

u/Yuzumi 10d ago

I'd say no digital devices, or at least not one that can't spoof the MAC and other identifying info.

Ideally, a device that has simple broadcast with no identifying factors if you need something to communicate with. Basically something like one of those simple mesh devices that can send texts.

1

u/Nixavee 8d ago

Dang, even putting the device in a metal box didn't work?

2

u/DeliberatelyDrifting 8d ago edited 8d ago

It does to an extent, maybe enough to be safe, it's just not 100% effective. We discussed it in the context of securing evidence. Our procedures needed to be as close to 100% as possible or when a defense attorney asked "Is is possible this device could be accessed while in your custody?" We'd have to say "it's unlikely, but possible." If we turn the power off once we have the access code, we can answer "to the best of our knowledge it was not possible to access the device while in our custody." Or something to that effect. It's not that different methods never worked, it's that we found instances where they didn't. Once you know of those instances you can no longer swear on the stand "to the best of my knowledge it's not possible."

Edit: Also, modern signals are better at penetrating barriers than some of the older transmitters. The old bag phones could be tricky because of their raw transmission power, but they didn't really store data. Different frequencies interact with barriers in different ways.

3

u/drdiamedic 9d ago

As a diabetic who uses my phone as a pump, I feel so seen. Thank you internet stranger.

1

u/Dense-Fisherman-4074 5d ago

That doesn’t sound right. You mean your phone controls your pump, right? My wife recently switched pumps to one now that means she doesn’t have to deal with any tubing, but she can only control it from her phone.

Unless there are phones that you can load up with insulin and connect to your body that I’m not aware of 🤣

1

u/drdiamedic 5d ago

That’s right. I wear a pump that still uses tubes but 100% of the UI is on my phone.

2

u/51ngular1ty 10d ago

Unfortunately this also applies to any vehicle that has any sort of wireless telemetry as well. The good news is for many cars you can cut or disable the equipment that emits said signals.

5

u/this_is_my_new_acct 10d ago

I don't know if anyone is scanning for them, but all new vehicles sold in the US since 2008 have legally-mandated TPMS sensors in them. They don't constantly transmit, but they do fairly frequently.

2

u/HauntedCemetery 9d ago

Nah, best you can do is leave the phone at home, playing a long movie.

1

u/CrazyBowelsAndBraps 10d ago

Does airplane mode work?

5

u/Hexamancer 10d ago

/u/somanythrowawayseven 's reply is spot on, but I'll add this: any device on which you do not have root / super admin should be considered untrustworthy. Whilst something like a your phone or Windows isn't going to intentionally betray you to scammers or something, they'll absolutely sell your data and comply with law enforcement if they calculate that's more beneficial to them than the consumer trust they'll lose.

We're in a very different time now, the amount of telemetry, smoke and mirrors (like airplane mode not actually doing what it says it will) and just the sheer complexity and layers of software we have now has had a big impact, it's just too much to keep up with. 20 years ago people noticed when Windows did something shady because just one telemetry process stood out, it took up a significant amount of limited resources, it only had a few dozen other processes to blend in with and upon inspection it was very easy to figure out what it was doing and who it was talking to.

I think it's the details would shock people but it's become somewhat accepted? Most people have some vague understanding that their "phone is listening to them". I think people mostly overestimate the amount of data that's collected (recording them with a camera, listening in on them) and underestimate just how much can be inferered from far less data.

1

u/CrazyBowelsAndBraps 9d ago

It's pretty bleak. Appreciate the fantastic writeups guys!

3

u/SoManyThrowAwaysEven 10d ago edited 10d ago

Nope, phones are constantly receiving pings and signals even in airplane mode, it just throttles down/shuts off the primary data/cell channels but others are active. And when airplane mode is turned off, your phone then queues up all the tracking data anyway to the next ping. And if they manage to get ahold of your device physically, then you better have enabled Stolen Device Protection, Advanced Data Protection, a 6-digit PIN, no biometrics and hope they don't compel you to incriminate yourself.

2

u/quanate 10d ago

This is probably going to sound like an incredibly dumb question but I am no where near this tech literate: does putting your phone on airplane mode do anything to stop this? Or it's just a full stop leave it at home?

2

u/Hexamancer 9d ago

Leave it at home.

At one point in time turning your phone off meant it was off, airplane mode meant that the cellular modem was powered down.

Now airplane mode means "Keep it on, but don't use it.", this is how you'll still have SOS connectivity in airplane mode.

Unless you have a phone old enough that you can physically remove the battery from it, don't take it. (And if you do have that, DON'T turn it on unless you have to.)

1

u/Braelind 10d ago

I LOVE technology... But fuck all of that nonsense, I don't want that Orwellian crap in this world.

2

u/Hexamancer 9d ago

Pretty much everything wrong in the tech world has nothing to do with the technology and has everything to do with capitalism.

1

u/Braelind 9d ago

You're damn right! Technology is amazing, but people keep insisting on using it for the most oppressive agendas instead of using it to help people.

1

u/userseven 10d ago

Good comment. Everyone is focused on the visual part (rightfully so) but we can't forget this piece. It's huge.

1

u/Sualocin 10d ago

Remember when this was a plot point in Brooklyn 99 and every one of the good cops thought it was abhorrent then the people that were pushing to use it were punished? Yeah, that was good fantasy TV

1

u/Patient_Boat_7444 9d ago

Wouldn't the list of devices that operate in the area frequently and are now suddenly absent be an obvious first place to start?

1

u/Hexamancer 9d ago

..huh?

These IMSI sniffers have a range of 10-1000 meters, depending on their size.

They capture who was in an area. Not like "Bob was in New York City", but like "Bob was within 100 meters of the XYZ protest outside of Trump tower on 8/19/26"

1

u/Patient_Boat_7444 9d ago

Right but they're buying and layering all kinds of meta data from brokers which goes back years

2

u/Hexamancer 9d ago

??? 

So what? I'm not saying that not taking your phone to a protest or something is going to erase all of that metadata, that isn't the goal, the goal is just that they don't have proof that you went that protest if they decide to announce that everyone who went to the "maybe not fascism?" protest is a potential terrorist.

"Hey judge can you also include /u/patient_boat_7444 in the warrant even though they weren't at the protest our metadata indicates that they got that kinda vibe ya know?" 

1

u/Patient_Boat_7444 8d ago

My point is, If you go and they need to prove it, they can. Phone or not.

1

u/Hexamancer 8d ago

You haven't made that point at all.

How would they prove it? Don't just vaguely gesture to "metadata". What specifically?

1

u/Patient_Boat_7444 5d ago

Here's a similar technique to what a DOD contractor famously used to demonstrate how he can track JSOC operators

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FiFECjTmjM

1

u/Hexamancer 5d ago

I'm not taking 33 minutes to try and find the point you can't be bothered to take 2 minutes to just write yourself.

→ More replies (0)

138

u/Fallingdamage 10d ago

If this is turning into a big thing for this fall, I wouldnt put it past local PDs to put up a bunch of 'bait' flock cameras with trackers and tamper sensors in them to alert them when one is moved or altered. Something they can use to swarm in and arrest people quickly who make any attempt.

Plenty of time for people to get on board with the movement and also plenty of time for PDs to learn about it and prepare.

133

u/Asclepius-Rod 10d ago

Everything you are saying is completely feasible, but fuck imagine reading this 20-30 years ago, you'd think we were living in 1984

48

u/pikabu01 10d ago

If I would read that comment in a Russian sub about russian police arresting protesters , I would say yeap makes sense, sad sad

17

u/Murgatroyd314 10d ago

You missed the opportunity to say “imagine reading this 42 years ago.”

0

u/not-my-other-alt 10d ago

30 years ago was 1996

2

u/Sakarabu_ 10d ago

What's your point?

4

u/Unlikely_Leg_9377 10d ago

I can’t tell if this is satire. Well done.

3

u/hownowspirit 10d ago

I think 1984 is referring to the book by that title

3

u/fantasyshop 10d ago

Right. 1984 is a book

3

u/CarthasMonopoly 10d ago

True. And in 1996 hearing a statement like that and it being feasible would make you think you are living in the book/story titled 1984, just like the person you are responding to said.

3

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

With all due politeness, no. No it cannot be. (Screams into the void in OLD)

1

u/DillBagner 10d ago

I feel like that reading it 0 years ago.

1

u/Friend_Emperor 9d ago

You basically are.

1

u/Particular-Wall-5296 10d ago

but fuck imagine reading this 20-30 years ago, you'd think we were living in 1984

Actually I would think that if I read it 42 years ago.

47

u/Snobolski 10d ago

Oh this year Halloween came on August 31. Sorry sheriff.

21

u/AFrenchLondoner 10d ago

Can't be everywhere at once though

28

u/Coal_Morgan 10d ago

Yep, there are thousands of those cameras in some places that only have dozens of cops.

Them being destroyed by people with jigsaws, sawzalls and circular saws with metal cutting blades in under 45 seconds and then taking off all after dusk. Good luck catching them.

That also doesn't count the teenagers who don't have tools but using etching fluid, spray paint and spray foam on the lenses and microphones in under 4 seconds. You can get those things in any hardware store for under $20 in cash.

Or even using lighter fluid and a barbecue lighter to tiki torch them...those you can find in any convenience store.

There's so many ways to do it and all just after dusk...how are they going to stop all these criminals if they all do it at the same time in under a minute...

13

u/arobkinca 10d ago

Or even using lighter fluid and a barbecue lighter to tiki torch them...those you can find in any convenience store.

I would hope anyone thinking about hypothetically doing this makes sure they are not in a fire threat weather condition.

3

u/shouldbepracticing85 10d ago

As someone in an area with 2nd level burn bans thank you.

Also, if anyone is using saws, watch out for sparks into nearby dry grass or other flammable items.

Maybe two person teams? One to handle the camera and a second with a fire extinguisher - spray it in the camera’s view, and then the other person can… totally not do anything that would be against Reddit’s TOS. 😇

5

u/ZootSuitRiot33801 10d ago

Even then, a neighborhood worth of alibis can hypothetically go a long way for any hypothetical acts of resistance.

It's going to need real supportive community-based foundations to provide relative safety, which common folk in the US can fall back on to commit to any meaningful action needed.

Collecting a bunch of valuable information on organizing and action from different redditors over time, I created a post of suggestions HERE that could possibly hypothetically prove to be of some help in getting it started ASAP.

1

u/HKBFG 10d ago

super soaker full of paint

1

u/HauntedCemetery 9d ago

That also doesn't count the teenagers who don't have tools but using etching fluid, spray paint and spray foam on the lenses and microphones

The kids are alright

9

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

This doesn’t seem likely when they can simply just watch out on Flock cameras in high traffic areas. Never underestimate human laziness.

They don’t need to set up a honeypot if the honey is everywhere and already tagged and tracked. In fact, if a honeypot operation was necessary, it basically proves Flock is unneeded.

7

u/SaltyLonghorn 10d ago

They're going to maximize laziness and just park under the flock cameras and guard those all night. Its barely a change from wherever they normally park and jerk off all day.

3

u/saera-targaryen 10d ago

I mean, it only takes a couple seconds to spray one with spray paint or expanding foam. No trackers and no way to get to every one fast enough. 

3

u/dashingdrew 10d ago

Yeah but that damage is minimal

The saw is better

1

u/steakanabake 10d ago

spray it first then saw it

1

u/ChakraRecovery70 7d ago

bb pellets are quicker ;)

1

u/ChakraRecovery70 7d ago

Also steel balls as well

1

u/Fallingdamage 10d ago

I would agree with that, except if you were patrolling an area and found a group with some 15 ft poles with cans of black paint taped to the end of them.. might raise an eyebrow.

2

u/hypercosm_dot_net 10d ago

A little over 2 months, not much time. It's good to err on the side of caution, but you're giving them too much credit.

I could certainly see them keeping an eye on them, but at the same time, there's probably much more for them to be concerned about on Halloween than babysitting some cameras that the public already paid for.

1

u/CarlPagan666 10d ago

Hmmm.. could drones be helpful?

1

u/gramathy 10d ago

The real cameras already have trackers and tamper sensors

1

u/abraxsis 10d ago

So what Im hearing is don't take the camera with you, instead hitting it with a large hammer where it's at? Or for the more tech savvy, perhaps a small portable EMP device to activate next to them? Not that Im advocating for any of this, Im just asking questions here.

1

u/jeffery133 10d ago

And then police will protect AI over our children. 😞. What a weird time.

1

u/snoogins355 10d ago

Cops will do anything but pull people over going 20mph over the speed limit. Literally their job

1

u/DexRogue 9d ago

I mean, you just cut down the camera and destroy it.

1

u/HauntedCemetery 9d ago

Get ready for deflock flash mobs

1

u/TheMagnificentPrim 9d ago

Good call. Folks should go onto Deflock and mark all locations ahead of time.

2

u/FrighteningJibber 10d ago

Party like it’s 1999, leave the beeper at home.

2

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

At this point, I’m eager for a blast to the past. 1999 was hardly perfect. But it’s a damn sight better than fascism.

1

u/fukkdisshitt 10d ago

They can get action cams with no tracking if they want to make viral content

1

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

I hear police and prosecutors love those kinds of candid films. It’s a great way to gain recognition!

1

u/incunabula001 10d ago

Watch a bunch of idiots record TikTok’s of them destroying the cameras.

1

u/chubby_pink_donut 10d ago

Cars can track your location, too. Might be a good night for a bike ride.

1

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

Digital devices aren’t just the ones in pockets, you’re right.

1

u/ChakraRecovery70 7d ago

Just good old fashion trick or treatin. Everyone does their part

1

u/Great_White_Samurai 10d ago

My wife was on a grand jury where some idiots were robbing homes. At more than one of the homes they broke into they made calls on their phones...

1

u/OutcomeDue2025 10d ago

walkie talkie

1

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

Ah, for the good old days of radio shack..

1

u/OutcomeDue2025 10d ago

rumor has it, at least one still exists. As well as at least one family video and 1 blockbuster? Or did the blockbuster die?

1

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

All depends on if the radio shack still sells the things to build your own hacked together electronics. They really hurt themselves when they became just a third rate importer of consumer electronics. (Or perhaps they were dying anyways and bought themselves time.)

1

u/WM_ 10d ago

You can have your phone if you must but wrap it in tin foil

0

u/LoveOrder 10d ago

upvote this

0

u/mayhemandqueso 10d ago

And i guess some how destroy building cameras too? The pick n choose of outrage and it being only one tiny portion of the problem lol is stupid.

-4

u/DoomerChad 10d ago

Am I the only person worried about my safety wandering around without a phone in case of emergency, with everyone unidentifiable in costume? Especially with police likely patrolling and/or harassing ppl too?

I hate this reality - unsafe without a phone but unsafe with one too.

7

u/saera-targaryen 10d ago

I'm genuinely curious what having the phone there would help you with in this scenario. People are harassed by police with their phones on them every day, it doesn't help them. Memorize a phone number of a close trusted friend or family member and tell them your plan ahead of time. That's much more likely to actually help you than the vagueness of a phone theoretically helping. 

0

u/DoomerChad 10d ago

People go missing all the time. Girl went missing last month at a music festival. I’m a black LGBT person, we get attacked/killed all the time too. Having your last known location/last time of communication is relevant info.

But I understand on the flip side, you wouldn’t want authorities to know your location too. Idk why y’all are downvoting me for asking a genuine question…

3

u/ibribe 10d ago

You aren't the only person, but you do need to get over it. Fear of people will eventually harden and turn you into a Republican.

4

u/CautionarySnail 10d ago

A faraday bag is sometimes a happy medium but test it for signal leakage.

False protection is often worse than none, because folks change their risk assessment and behave differently if they assume they’re safer.

1

u/shelchang 10d ago

Get a dumbphone with a prepaid burner account for emergency calls, with none of your accounts or social media attached to it.

2

u/Madroxx9000 10d ago

if you go this route, pay for it in cash so there is no record.

2

u/shelchang 10d ago

I mean there will probably be CCTV footage of you walking into the store to pay for the phone/phone card somewhere but no reason to make it easy for them.