628
Nah it wasn't him. He was with me studying about Jesus.
(discuss.online)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
628 points (100.0% liked)
deflock.me
412 readers
894 users here now
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are AI-powered cameras that capture and analyze images of all passing vehicles, storing details like your car’s location, date, and time. They also capture your car’s make, model, color, and identifying features such as dents, roof racks, and bumper stickers, often turning these into searchable data points. These cameras collect data on millions of vehicles—regardless of whether the driver is suspected of a crime. While these systems can be useful for tracking stolen cars or wanted individuals, they are mostly used to track the movements of innocent people.
Learn more at deflock.me
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
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.
People removing surveillance cameras taxpayers didn't approve aren't "criminals". The proper term is heroes.
That's just not true. Sometimes they haven't even met the women they're stalking.
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.
That is simply not true. The first 60 seconds of this Benn Jordan & 404 Media video proves otherwise - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU1-uiUlHTo.
He goes on to talk about flocks condor cameras, which specifically track people.
Lol
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.
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.