392
submitted 1 day ago by LiamTheBox@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] _druid@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 hours ago

There's a few in a town nearby, owned by the city, looking at a roadway. Then there's three, with no owner information, all looking into a Lowe's parking lot.

[-] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 14 points 20 hours ago

I'm so glad this is slowly getting more solid traction. For more viewing and reading pleasures on the topic,

Videos:

Breaking The Creepy AI in Police Cameras - Benn Jordan

Breaks down the technology and deployment of the systems. Builds his own and shows strategies to beat the analysis of your data.

Austin City Council is playing games & I've had enough. - Louis Rossmann

Liveview's facial recognition discussed in person with sales director.

Citizens address Austin Mayor on AI Surveillence cameras; AS EXPECTED on September 25th part 1

Louis Rossmann attempted to address the surveillance systems in his local town, couple of other videos on his channel showing the hurdles and bureaucracy that's making it harder to address these situations.

Everyone Should Ask Their City Council About This... - The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder

Another video detailing ALRP's (automatic license plate readers/flock safety systems) and their uses in local and interstate areas

EFF Members' Speakeasy: Police Surveillance and ALPR - The Electronic Frontier Foundation


Articles:

Data Driven: What Is ALPR? - The Electronic Frontier Foundation

Lots of articles listed in here, one of the major groups trying to spread information on these programs.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 179 points 1 day ago

The city I work in installed Flock cameras. City Council was clear they were only to be used to flag license plates for active felony warrants, silver alerts, and Amber alerts.

In less than 48 hours they were using them to give out tickets and track people who had turned in Open Records requests regarding the police department.

[-] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 1 day ago

Guess it's our job to go around destroying them then

[-] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 61 points 1 day ago

They are a tool for terrorism. ACAB

[-] AtariDump@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago
[-] TheUnicornOfPerfidy@feddit.uk 2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

A. C. R. A. B.

All Crabs Really Are Brilliant

[-] HowAbt2day@futurology.today 33 points 1 day ago

I’ve heard of Amber alerts for lost kids but are silver alerts for lost older folk?

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 day ago

Yup. In California we even segregate the alerts based on race for some fucking reason. Black people don’t get the same normal alert that every other ethnicity gets, they get an EbOnY aLeRt.

[-] burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 19 hours ago

Wtf? I know there were several that you don't see very often, but for race? wtf!

[-] Corridor8031@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago

what i duckducked and its true lmao

[-] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 9 points 23 hours ago

this is the first time I've seen someone use that term

I like it. keep it up

[-] MoonMoon@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago

Hmm, needs a bit of workshopping IMO. How about "I duckduckwent" instead?

[-] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago

Just duck it...

[-] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

I've duckduckgone

[-] bigfondue@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

Yea, but they are usually more about someone with dementia finding the car keys and driving off than kidnappings.

[-] HowAbt2day@futurology.today 2 points 1 day ago

That happened to my grandfather more than once. He was in the neighborhood but would lose his bearings, not realizing that we was three blocks from home. A bit nuts.

[-] unexpected@forum.guncadindex.com 5 points 19 hours ago

I found this to be the most interesting part:

You might think this sounds like it violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. Well, so does the American Civil Liberties Union. Norfolk, Virginia Judge Jamilah LeCruise also agrees, and in 2024 she ruled that plate-reader data obtained without a search warrant couldn't be used against a defendant in a robbery case.

Last time I read about this issue was before this happened. Finally the ball is bouncing back a little. Hope to see more of it.

[-] hereforawhile@lemmy.ml 56 points 1 day ago

Neat map that compiles how many weekly contributions are made around the US to the deflock map

https://alprwatch.org/flock/map

[-] mrgoosmoos@lemmy.ca 6 points 23 hours ago

man that is fucked up

why are republicans not going crazy over this?

[-] unexpected@forum.guncadindex.com 3 points 21 hours ago

same reason most democrats don't

[-] Pirky@lemmy.world 59 points 1 day ago
[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 4 points 20 hours ago

it said "worldwide" on the website but its actually just the us

[-] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 day ago

Damn there are a couple in my tiny rural town, they appear to be high up though.

Anyone have tips or ideas about how to disable or destroy them?

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 5 points 23 hours ago

Maybe a paintball gun would be effective? I'd make sure you aren't in view and wearing proper equipment though.

[-] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 22 hours ago

Ah! I didn't even think of that, and I own one. Good call.

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

These also have Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. I'm convinced that they also connect mac addresses of your devices to determine who is driving. I also suspect that they use facial recognition when possible.

[-] Anivia@feddit.org 1 points 10 hours ago

Don't most modern Phones randomize their Mac Address for every wifi? My Samsung does by default, you need to manually disable it so you don't get thrown into the captive portal every time you reconnect to a public wifi

[-] primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The facial recognition would be done by whoever they send footage to.

Wouldn't be shocked about the hardware addresses though.

[-] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

The cameras themselves are simply trail cameras with GPS and a cell signal. The images get sent to a server for processing. I'm also sure that they send at least some images to be read by humans manually.

[-] humble_boatsman@sh.itjust.works 48 points 1 day ago

I feel that this should be the biggest issue in US national news. And although I do not consume much main stream news I have only ever seen blogs and small circulation articles on the issue. Like how can any one on either aide of the political divide be ok with shit?

[-] 0x0@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago

Watch the Louis Rossmann thing in the Austin hearing... the mayor of whothefuckever he is actively out-of-ordered anyone mentioning those cameras... except the representatives of the company that makes them, who got to speak, twice, uninterrupted.

[-] hereforawhile@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

There is good traction on the federal lawsuit in Norfolk. Your absolutely right this is a bipartisan issue. It will set huge precident if IJ wins the case. At the very least, LEO needs warrants to use the system. Right now it's the wild west.

IJ posts updates of the case here. They have already tried to derail the lawsuit multiple times but they have been able to push through all the appeals thus far so it can actual go to a jury trial.

[-] humble_boatsman@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago

Thank you for sharing this

[-] unexpected@forum.guncadindex.com 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

several reasons:

they both think they're in control of it... but mostly because the people funding most of them (same people) are telling them not to.. often in the form of police unions and relevant organizations

any party large enough to win anything is going to be mostly co-opted... you gotta vote for individuals... not parties.

[-] AlecSadler@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 day ago

Because Trump supporters will say, "I don't do anything wrong so it doesn't matter, it'll only catch libruls"

And Trump administration people will say, "Well they won't use it on me ever and we can use it to inflict maximum suffering on our enemies"

[-] unexpected@forum.guncadindex.com 2 points 19 hours ago

Most Democrats will and have said the same thing.

Oddly... Trump admin people know better than that... but I'm not expecting them to actually do anything differently than what you suggest. Probably both are already captured by whatever data has already been found on them.

[-] desmosthenes@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago

so much for the fourth amendment

[-] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

The Third Party Doctrine obliterated the fourth amendment.

this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2025
392 points (99.5% liked)

Privacy

42322 readers
644 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS