Privacy concerns and multiple incidents have led many citizens to take it upon themselves to block or disable Flock cameras. They often do this either by placing black trash bags over them or by spraying paint or insulating foam onto their lenses. Now, the former can be dangerous, especially if you don’t have equipment, as you need to reach high enough to cover the camera and secure the plastic bag over it. The latter can get you into deeper trouble, as paint or foam can damage the camera. So, 3D printing enthusiast SquidInk decided to create an easy-to-use model that would take seconds to install without damaging the camera and posted it on Maker World.
While the public was initially concerned about their privacy with Flock’s AI-powered cameras, this concern eventually turned into outrage after it was discovered that some police officers had been misusing the system. There were also a couple of high-profile incidents where procedural errors led to the mistaken apprehension of innocent people. Because of these incidents, some jurisdictions have voted to remove these cameras, to the chagrin of some of their most ardent supporters. As for towns and cities that voted to keep their Flock AI cameras operational, some citizens are taking matters into their own hands and deliberately blocking these cameras to prevent them from capturing video. Note that actions like these are probably illegal and will get anyone caught doing so in hot water. Possible charges include vandalism, criminal mischief, property damage, tampering with public infrastructure, obstruction, and more.
The Flock Sock itself doesn’t encourage anyone to commit a crime. Its description says, “The Flock Sock is a slip on cover designed to help protect a Flock camera from the harmful radiation of the sun. Your city spent their very own hard-earned tax dollars scattering these cameras everywhere to keep you safe, all it cost you was a little privacy. The very* least* you can do is help protect these valuable civil servants from getting a bad sunburn.”
The creator also said that Flock commonly uses three different models, and that they’re working on profiles for the other two so that there’s a 3D-printable Flock Sock for every Flock camera you may find in the wild.
Aside from being easy to print, it’s also easy to use and deploy. It slides onto Flock cameras in seconds, and you can easily lift it into position with a 1-inch broom handle through the built-in adapter. They also highlighted that it’s 100% non-permanent, saying, “No glue, no screws, and zero structural changes. Because it pops off instantly with absolutely no damage caused and costs exactly $0 to revert, it conveniently avoids some of the troublesome labels that Uncle Sam might stick to you. It's just a removable accessory.” While SquidInk recommended using ABS/ASA for its excellent heat and UV resistance, they also suggested using PLA “if you prefer your Flock Sock to develop a long term relationship with the summer heat.”
Again, tampering with Flock cameras in your city may get you in trouble, as it most likely constitutes a crime or misdemeanor. Nevertheless, public anger at Flock and its misuse has reached the point that a few are taking physical action against the cameras.
FollowTom's Hardware on Google News, or* add us as a preferred source**, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.*
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.
Despite the disclaimers this article should never have been published/ posted.Reply
Why give people ideas or otherwise provide means to those who will (for whatever reasons) ignore the law and go foward with actions anyway?
Not useful or informative.
Will defer to the lawyers (I am not a lawyer) regarding how defendents might be able to still use the article as a defense when charged.
Guilt by association can have a long reach.
ReplyRalston18 said:Despite the disclaimers this article should never have been published/ posted.
Why give people ideas or otherwise provide means to those who will (for whatever reasons) ignore the law and go foward with actions anyway?
Not useful or informative.
Will defer to the lawyers (I am not a lawyer) regarding how defendents might be able to still use the article as a defense when charged.
Guilt by association can have a long reach. If a law is created that hurts society as a whole, society should feel a moral obligation to break that law.
So someone knows there are cameras and then attempts to make stupid stuff to help them commit crime more easily.Reply
For someone smart enough to do this must know how these cameras are used.
All depends on if the police are willing to track them down. When you see on the news about cities that use these in their "real time crime centers" it is fascinating. They catch car jackers within minutes.
Unless they can somehow disable all the flock cameras and all the other crime cameras at the same time the police will just use the other cameras to catch them. Sure they can wear a mask or cover the plate on their car but the cops will just look at other cameras and back track the person based on clothing or color of the car. At some point they will get a photo without the mask or plate covered. If there was some sticker or dent on the car they could look back days before.
These systems when used properly are impressive.
The solution to the misuse is to make a mandatory jail time requirement. People will be more fearful of misusing it if they knew someone actually got put in jail rather than just getting fired from their job or maybe some silly term of probation.
Reply Being raised on "China is a surveillance state and you're on camera everywhere and it's bad to have mass surveillance because communism China bad" and have that propaganda still somehow work and think China is bad because of mass surveillance.... while people like you are defending having a surveillance state of our own, including wanting harsher penalties for people who protest the surveillance in the only meaningful way.bill001g said:So someone knows there are cameras and then attempts to make stupid stuff to help them commit crime more easily.
For someone smart enough to do this must know how these cameras are used.
All depends on if the police are willing to track them down. When you see on the news about cities that use these in their "real time crime centers" it is fascinating. They catch car jackers within minutes.
Unless they can somehow disable all the flock cameras and all the other crime cameras at the same time the police will just use the other cameras to catch them. Sure they can wear a mask or cover the plate on their car but the cops will just look at other cameras and back track the person based on clothing or color of the car. At some point they will get a photo without the mask or plate covered. If there was some sticker or dent on the car they could look back days before.
These systems when used properly are impressive.
The solution to the misuse is to make a mandatory jail time requirement. People will be more fearful of misusing it if they knew someone actually got put in jail rather than just getting fired from their job or maybe some silly term of probation.
I'll keep saying it. Legal and Moral are two different things. You have to pick a side at some point. Darth Vader was Lawful too.