32 pointsby 01-_-5 hours ago6 comments
  • K0balt2 hours ago
    Need to make a device specialized for breaking these things. An industrial vibratory device might work pretty good, especially if it had seeepable speed. Just hit the harmonic and the devices will be destroyed in a jif.
    • doublesocket2 hours ago
      Shouldn't a sufficiently powerful laser be able to cook the sensor quickly and easily?
  • altairprime4 hours ago
    Ugh, it’s so disappointing to see incompetence. Flock could understand that they’re vulnerable to “just cut the pole down” and thus made the cameras easy to remove because that’s cheaper and because it doesn’t result in people cutting down municipal infrastructure, but the reporting fails to consider that possibility. And the people that did this getting their faces caught on the literal cameras they’re taking down is just chef’s kiss stupidity on a platter. I do enjoy the irony of Flock cameras being relegated to the same ‘nuisance litter’ category as those scooters, though :)
  • boston_clone4 hours ago
    My favorite part of the article is a sentence of almost soft encouragement to other privacy-minded vigilantes:

    > These units sit on open roadside poles — reachable, visible, and currently without any publicly announced tamper-resistance plan.

    Direct action rocks!

    • Simulacra2 hours ago
      Seriously: I'm actually surprised that more of these have not been attacked for their resources. As I understand it, 2 pounds of copper and 2 GB of RAM.
  • mindslight3 hours ago
    "Engaged citizens confiscate and dispose of paraphernalia used by creepy stalkers"
  • exabrial3 hours ago
    >Pole-mounted Flock cameras lack tamper-resistance, exposing a critical design vulnerability municipalities must address.

    How about fuck no they don't.

  • Simulacra4 hours ago
    Don't think they were mate.