Hacker News

The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

77 points by bookofjoe 3 hours ago | 22 comments

Passed an old guy sitting on the side of the road with a lawn chair today, he was holding a pool skimmer with cardboard attached at the end to block a flock camera. There was a local news story about it [1]. Happy to see it.

[1] https://www.cltampa.com/news/a-77-year-old-republican-man-is...

georgemcbay 16 minutes ago

I'm sure my politics are very different than that man's, but at least we agree on the fact that Flock fucking sucks.

madrental 4 minutes ago

Despite differences in political beliefs you probably have more in common with this man than any of the politicians that claim to care about your or your values.

ungreased0675 2 hours ago

When people feel like their voice isn’t heard, this is the inevitable result.

altcognito 2 minutes ago

NO! Even if your voice is heard, the state doesn't need to track your every move.

theendisney 6 minutes ago

Violence and destruction are perfectly natural ways of communicating. Some animals use sounds and almost all use body language.

One could even argue communicating over the phone or internet lacks the destructive component. Irl behavior is heavily modified by it.

Verbal communication is a work in progress. We really want it to work. Sometimes you have to make people listen. Get them back in the program :)

ElProlactin 2 minutes ago

> Violence and destruction are perfectly natural ways of communicating. Some animals use sounds and almost all use body language.

Except that animals don't have knives, guns, bombs and nuclear warheads.

> Sometimes you have to make people listen. Get them back in the program :)

Works great until you're the one being made to listen.

goodmythical 56 minutes ago

I had this thought just the other day. It is not possible for any governing body to completely ignore the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action. There will always be a petition/revolt/exodus which results in the governing body hearing the governed.

polishdude20 38 minutes ago

Yeah speech is the first way the populace indicates to the ruling what they want.

Physical action is inevitable if the speech isn't listened to.

georgemcbay 33 minutes ago

> Physical action is inevitable if the speech isn't listened to.

see also: "The Four boxes of liberty"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty

mannanj 23 minutes ago

> the governed unless the governed have no issues that that lead to speach/action

What about if the speech is censored, shadow-banned, limited etc in some other ways? Where the governed does not know their speech was limited in reach, censored etc? (which btw is a real approach social media companies are taking today).

samrus 13 minutes ago

Theyll see no effect of their speech, and try something else. Like voting, protests, and violence. In thay order

customguy 3 minutes ago

... or infighting, or self-destruction, or doomscrolling... the pressure will go somewhere but not necessarily into channels that relieve it. That takes more effort and persistence, and also a society (our consumer societies hardly rate as such in my books).

felixgallo 11 minutes ago

the right to free speech has nothing to do with what social media companies do. Social media companies are not compelled by anything, in law or otherwise, to amplify your particular post.

thex10 21 minutes ago

They’re hiring software engineers!

superkuh 2 hours ago

Lets instead talk about the growing vigalante action by Flock corporation refusing to allow cities to remove cameras from their property after the contract is cancelled. Some cities have been forced to cover the cameras with trash bags.

https://www.404media.co/flock-objects-to-our-removing-their-...

https://www.wmtv15news.com/2026/06/05/dane-county-covers-flo...

helterskelter 25 minutes ago

Local politicians need to coordinate to remove their Flock cameras at the same time and pass laws to prevent any new one from being put up. Flock doesn't have the resources to sue every single one of them, especially if every city commits to dragging out the process for as long as possible by creating as many legal hurdles as they can, all of which Flock would have to have a court rule on.

Kind of like how practically every Scientologist filed suit against the IRS over CoS having their tax exempt status revoked, to which the IRS eventually relented.

Avicebron 7 minutes ago

It's also wild to me we live in a country where people who _live_ in a region are not allowed to make decisions about something as foul as surveillance cameras. If people who live, work, and are affected by these don't want them that should be the end of the conversation.

It should be to the people who live in an area to make decisions about it. With the legal ability to tell a company like Flock to fuck off.

mylifeandtimes 8 minutes ago

If I were a city government, I would just start charging Flock rent.

ButlerianJihad 24 minutes ago

Congratulations, Flock, on establishing the most successful honeypot of all time!

No matter what the level of corruption, no matter which side of the surveillance state you support, no matter which side of the cameras you're on, Flock has a way to shine a spotlight on you and bring you out of the closet!

Currently following a YouTuber who knows all the roadside regulations for signposts and he points out how the Flock poles are all installed dangerously wrong, and will surely impale the next driver to crash out on the shoulder!

toomuchtodo 2 hours ago

H.R.9800 - Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act - https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/9800...

Loughla 2 hours ago

Not to be too cynical but

>No Federal agency may purchase, deploy, operate, access, or contract for any automated surveillance system that identifies, tracks, or records individuals [. . .]

Emphasis mine.

Am I wrong or does this 1. not outlaw the purchase of the data, just the systems themselves, 2. not outlaw the use of the data unless it was obtained by the federal government through a system they have purchased, and 3. not outlaw local or state law enforcement from buying it, just outlaws the use of federal funds to buy these systems.

So flock feed the data through brokers instead of directly, correct? Or am I reading this wrong?