The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras(theguardian.com)

56 points by bookofjoe 1 hour ago | 6 comments

When people feel like their voice isn’t heard, this is the inevitable result.

goodmythical 30 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.

polishdude20 12 minutes ago | | |

Yeah speech is the first way the populace indicates to the ruling what they want.

Physical action is inevitable if the speech isn't listened to.

superkuh 58 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...

toomuchtodo 1 hour ago |

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

Loughla 52 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?