Did you know that 3D printed covers for Flock cameras are easily printed and make cameras inoperable when you plop them on using a pole?

[crazyeddie@mastodon.social]

@mathowie

Actually, importantly, this isn't going to do shit to hurt the camera and everyone knows this.

I wonder if it would be easier to apply if the back was made of tabs that spread open and snapped it on. Then you could just slap it on and be gone. It would also reduce material costs and print time. Don't have to change much about the model--just remove some sections of the back and round them out.

Might also reduce the face plate area to just over the lens. Less is more.

[neusswave@neuss.social]

@mathowie Other cams to cover: Certainly for no obvious reason.

[r_3_t_3_c_h@defcon.social]

@mathowie I'd bet pointing a high powered laser into the lens from 3 blocks away would fuck them up for less $, time, and risk. But I am only speculating.

[pthane@toot.wales]

@mathowie I am not American so didn't pick up on the Flock camera controversy until recently. I'm missing the background. Why are they so much more of a problem then speed cameras deployed all over Europe? Is it because they are privately owned and operated for profit rather than installed by police/local govt?

[lukefromdc@kolektiva.social]

@pthane @mathowie They are connected to an AI network, and their purpose is to build records of everyone's travel. A speed camera (I do oppose these too) by comparison supposedly does not record any passing car that is not speeding, though there are now some speed cameras that double as license plate reader/logger cameras against ALL traffic. Thus all are targets

[pthane@toot.wales]

@LukefromDC @mathowie Thanks. So it's the date retention and misuse that's the problem.

[lukefromdc@kolektiva.social]

@pthane @mathowie Well, all use of data obtained by mass surveillance either is misuse or the thin end of a wedge that is guaranteed to lead to misuse.

A stolen car found by a flock camera today is a political enemy of a Mayor, governor, or President pulled over, maybe beaten by police, and unlawfully arrested tomorrow.

Flock cameras also force people to spend time identifying and using bypass routes and extra fuel to go around the cameras.

[mackaj@mastodon.me.uk]

@fullywoolly @mathowie

I'm guessing the idea is they can be disabled without damaging them, so a person can't be arrested for criminal damage.

[muddle@infosec.exchange]

@mathowie Why do tech people always reach for a tech solution?

#TechWontSaveUs

[netraven@hear-me.social]

@mathowie well, the camera at least.

[skjeggtroll@mastodon.online]

@mathowie

I wonder if, hypotethically and only for educational purposes, of course, if instead of covering the lens with an opaque cover it would be more effective to cover it with something that distorts the image it sees instead -- like a fog filter, or a pane of glass smeared with vaseline or similar. Something that might not be immediately apparent when looking at the output.

[netraven@hear-me.social]

@pthane @mathowie they contain high tech wireless tracking technology which can identify you by your phone and track individuals in their cars without the camera feature at all. Wifi mac addresses, bluetooth, cellular, anything identifiable wiill be tracked and assigned to a particular person's profile. Then there's the fact of how often these systems are wrong. Especially if your skin isn't white, because the training data was was overwhelmingly white people. Many people have faced police action and false incarceration when a flock camera in another state claims that someone who doesn't even live there has committed a crime and the police act before verifying. All kinds of "problems" which are actually features.

[netraven@hear-me.social]

@pthane @mathowie a simple search for "fuck flock" will be more revealing than what I can say.

[ahltorp@mastodon.nu]

@pthane @LukefromDC @mathowie This has been going on for ages with people using public transport, but since they are lower on the social ladder, it hasn’t been seen as much of a problem.

But this messes with car people, and boy shouldn’t you mess with car people.

All mass surveillance and data retention from it is bad, but there’s a strong smell of privilege over this outrage.

[mrzarquon@mastodon.social]

@mathowie that also looks like a good piece to mix slow curing resin in. How you dispose of it is up to you, but that curved bowl part looks ideal

[clayfoot@mastodon.social]

@mathowie Leave your electronics behind. Flock cameras now track phones, smart watches, ear buds, or any other tech device with a radio

[mardor@ruhr.social]

@mathowie “Let's say you want to go skinny dipping in your pool but don't want your camera to record you because you can't trust cloud providers to not have a data leak and then have your junk on the internet.”
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:7374832

[joepie91@fedi.slightly.tech]

@mathowie it's important to help weatherproof them, after all!

[joepie91@fedi.slightly.tech]

@ahltorp @pthane @LukefromDC @mathowie you're not wrong, but I suspect in this case you're going to catch more flies with "also" than with "but"... it seems like a good time to ensure that people include transit surveillance in their understanding of the problem

[pwassonchat@eldritch.cafe]

@mardor @mathowie this. Covering camera lenses on electronics for privacy reasons is a perfectly reasonable thing to do (we shouldn't have to, but oh well), and maybe we should start thinking about covering our other cameras when we don't need them.