The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras(www.theguardian.com)
50 pointsby bookofjoean hour ago3 comments
  • ungreased0675an hour ago
    When people feel like their voice isn’t heard, this is the inevitable result.
    • goodmythical16 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.
  • superkuh44 minutes 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...

  • toomuchtodoan hour ago
    Related:

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

    • Loughla38 minutes 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?