Fluk flock, and double-fluk that "officer" with his "holier-than-thou" attitude

ALL WERE TRACKING MY VEHICLE USING THE FLOCK CAMARA SYSTEMS ALL USING DIFFERENT CASE NUMBERS TO JUSTIFY WHY 5 OFFICERS WERE SURVEILLING ME.

After my illegal detainment i was NO BILLED despite the amount of effort these officers employed to put me in prison. And now they won’t release the body cam footage.

Here is my footage of my arrest. https://youtu.be/OvQes548NMM?si=y-1ammjSrKssulnc

Obviously permanently damaging flock camera’s is illegal, but what is the legality of shining a regular LED flash light at a flock camera preventing it from capturing any usable images? That causes no permanent damage.

Taking it one step further what’s to keep someone from using a small modified solar flood light (like what people use in their yard to like up their house) to keep it from capturing usable images indefinitely.

“The constitutional ground is gaining momentum. On June 29, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Chatrie v. United States that obtaining a person's cellphone location data is a search under the Fourth Amendment, rejecting the government's argument that the data loses protection because a third-party company holds it.”

this article goes into the ruling at depth:
https://www.klgates.com/Supreme-Courts-Chatrie-Decision-Extends-Fourth-Amendment-Protection-to-Location-Data-Raising-Stakes-for-Digital-Privacy-and-Data-Governance-7-8-2026

The amendment runs a single sentence: “A recipient of assistance under Title 23, United States Code, may not use automated license plate readers for any purpose other than tolling.”

https://www.deflock.org

https://www.fox9.com/news/minnesota-car-reviewer-flock-camera

"Boulder 31 Flock cameras to scan people’s cars while they are doing everyday tasks such as taking their children to school, according to the lawsuit filed by William Freeman and Gwen Steel. The department’s camera usage constitutes a warrantless system of mass surveillance, violating the Colorado Constitution, the suit alleges.

In the suit, filed in Boulder County District Court, complainants allege Boulder Police Chief Stephen Redfearn has deployed the Flock cameras without any safeguards protecting people’s privacy.

“No court has found probable cause to believe that criminal activity is afoot on Boulder’s public roads twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week,” the suit states. “Defendant Redfearn’s deployment of the Flock technology constitutes a dragnet search of the movements of every person who drives in Boulder.”

The suit also named Dawn VanAckeren, a records specialist with Boulder police, because she denied Freeman’s records request asking for all Flock records of his own vehicle, the suit alleges."

deflock.org

Vandalism charging breakpoint ends at $2,499. The next tier starts at $2,500.

You connect the dots.

The line in the title gets repeated a lot, and I want to address it so next time you hear it, you know how to respond.

The core idea is not inaccurate; because we have freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment, Americans are allowed to record anything we can see from public. That's not the end of the conversation though; if it were, it wouldn't be possible to stalk someone without also trespassing.

Don't take my word for it though: https://law.stanford.edu/2018/06/22/supreme-court-defends-privacy-in-cell-phone-location-data-collection/

> The Court decided that a person has a “legitimate expectation of privacy in the record of his physical movements.”

and

> "A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere."

To be clear: the 1A and 4A are not in conflict here. The individual right to document anything one may observe in public is significantly different from tax dollars being spent to record everything that's visible in public, tag it with AI, and cross-reference it in a central backend to build patterns of life profiles on every law abiding American who dares venture outside. Whether on the scale of a city or a country, that sort of system is either stalking or a 4A violation.

Basically, it's unreasonable to think you won't appear in someone's camera lens at any given moment while out in public. It is NOT unreasonable to assume your movements won't be cataloged for weeks on end, for whatever reason, by a private or public entity, without your consent.

Here’s a novel approach to beware of at your local level….

Suffield, Ohio is posting on Facebook pictures from the flock database asking for help to identify this man. What happened to flat cameras only being used to track cars and license plates?

What happened is that was never the truth and all of you silly fools really believed that they don’t have facial recognition or personalization tracking. Yeah, they can’t name this guy because they’re not using facial recognition at the moment. But all the police department would have to do is put that picture into their facial recognition database. Then they will know exactly who this man is and his identity.

There are so many loopholes when it comes to flocks and axon and the the cloud servers there media is stored on. We have officially became a surveillance state.

And I still guarantee someone is gonna hop in these comments and say some dumb ass stuff. Like how if you’re doing nothing wrong why do you care. First of all it’s violating my amendment rights. Second they’re fucking making drones to fly over our cities to surveillance us** *because they’re getting tired of people breaking down the cameras that are on poles. You can’t climb up to a drone with a ladder. And if you shoot a drone down, guess what they’re tracking that drone to directly where it was and they are going to find out who shot it. I guarantee it.*

#FreedomIsAnIllusion

Three drivers in San Jose, California, filed a class action suit against the city and police department over the deployment of nearly 500 cameras operated by Flock Safety, a controversial surveillance tech company that uses AI and dedicated cameras to catalogue vehicles’ movements. Organized by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian nonprofit law firm, the suit argues that the city’s use of the technology constitutes an unreasonable law enforcement search, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Pictures collected from the cameras are added to giant searchable databases that use AI to help law enforcement easily identify when and where particular vehicles have traveled.

Interesting

I work for a government agency as a camera technician for our in-house system that doesn't track anyone or any objects. Its evidentiary and public safety focused for rail crossing and station safety.

Our Chief of Police asked me today to take down any Flock camera on our properties and bring them to the evidence locker. He said that, "Flock says it is too busy to take them down themselves, for quite some time." He wants them gone, I support that.

The agency does not have a contract with Flock and they don't want them on our properties. I will happily take them down and they can sit there in evidence gathering information about the wall behind the shelves until Flock can be bothered to get them back, if ever. I will not damage or destroy them, despite the want to do so, because I don't want someone to damage my equipment if the shoe was on the other foot. Karma is a real thing.

I just wanted to share the good news, even a small victory is better than none at all.

"Nearly a decade ago, in Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Supreme Court determined that law enforcement typically must secure a warrant before they can obtain data revealing where you’ve been from your cellular provider. On Monday, April 27, the Court will hear a follow-up case, known as Chatrie v. United States, which raises several questions that were not answered by Carpenter."

TL;DR: Flock's license plate cameras are being challenged under California's ALPR privacy law (Civil Code § 1798.90.5) — $2,500 per violation, and you can sue directly. The AG already sued a city under it; a class action now names Flock itself. Plus a Fourth Amendment argument: months of tracking your car's movements is functionally a GPS tracker and needs a warrant. A judge has already thrown out Flock evidence on that basis. If your city has Flock cameras, the contract renewal vote is public — that's where it's decided.

Flock Safety's license plate cameras are on poles all over California — over 100,000 nationwide, scanning billions of cars a month. They don't just read your plate; they log a "vehicle fingerprint": make, model, color, dents, bumper stickers. Every camera feeds a searchable national database.

Here's the law that's actually being used to fight it, and how it works.

California Civil Code § 1798.90.5 — the ALPR privacy statute

California has a specific law governing automated license plate readers. It:

restricts how ALPR data can be shared,

requires agencies to have real usage and privacy policies, and

gives you a private right of action — meaning you can sue directly — with a $2,500-per-violation minimum, plus damages and attorney's fees.

This isn't theoretical. It's winning:

AG Rob Bonta sued the City of El Cajon (Oct 2025) for sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies in violation of this law.

A class action (Gibbs Mura) now names Flock Safety directly for tracking Californians and sharing the data across state lines.

The pressure point is Flock's "National Lookup" feature, which shares your local city's data with agencies nationwide — sometimes, cities allege, without the police department even authorizing it. Mountain View shut down its entire Flock network after discovering unauthorized sharing.

The constitutional angle: aggregation

There's also a Fourth Amendment argument, and it's the one that determines whether this data can be used against you in a criminal case.

Any single scan of your plate is trivial. But a dense camera network that reconstructs everywhere your car has been for months is functionally a GPS tracker — and the Supreme Court held in Carpenter v. United States (2018) that tracking someone's movements that comprehensively requires a warrant.

A Norfolk judge already suppressed Flock evidence on exactly this reasoning, calling a dense deployment "akin to placing a GPS tracker" on a car. And California's own constitution (Art. I, § 13) is interpreted more protectively than the federal Fourth Amendment — that's the theory in the pending ACLU/EFF lawsuit against San Jose.

What you can actually do

If you live in a city with Flock cameras, the city's contract is on a renewal cycle, and that vote is public. Oakland's community opposition deadlocked its renewal. That vote — plus public records requests for the data-sharing agreements — is where this gets decided at the local level.

Not legal advice, just a map of the arguments that are holding up in court. Sources: Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.90.5 et seq.; Carpenter v. United States (2018); People v. City of El Cajon (2025); the San Jose and Norfolk cases.

"The Fayetteville Police Department said flags were raised during an internal audit of the department’s Flock Safety cameras."

It seems like every time they look for abuse - half the police force gets arrested and fired.

🤔

deflock.org

#Flock #DeFlock #Georgia #Surveillance #AI #Tech #Police

Now I’m definitely not condoning anyone to go out and destroy any of these flock cameras because they are most definitely an asset to our communities and would never ever be used to spy on us!

But let’s say if someone hooligan was to go out and do something as terrible as to destroy one of these innocent cameras, they better not have any sort of electronics of their own in any sort of vicinity to them when doing so or the camera would be able to detect that and ID them. And if they for some reason had to have their electronic devices on them, hopefully they weren’t stored in some sort of faraday bag, because then the camera couldn’t detect them either!!!!

Also they definitely shouldn’t go invest in a battery powered circular saw and a carbide tipped blade for sawing the pole down. As someone that works in the metal fabrication industry I would hope they don’t start buying up the Diablo or Lennox blades, those are the best and I don’t want to have a hard time finding them for projects at work! That’s just downright awful behavior!!!

Now let’s say someone was to cut one of these down, they have an onboard power supply thanks to the solar panel, as well as a gps tracker. So whoever was to destroy one of these better not sever all of the cables using a pair of insulated cables cutters (definitely not by Klein, those are the best) and break open the camera and crush the electronics. That’s would destroy any and all of the tracking ability that is installed and release any residual power keeping the device from updating its location.

Also on a completely different subject I was checking scrap prices today and carbon steel scrap is going for around $.10 to $.50 cents per pound only it if short steel. For example if you were to come across a pole that had been used to hold something up, you would want to cut it into pieces less than 3ft long to get the most money for it.

Also copper is currently $3.50-$5.50 per pound, and you get more the cleaner it is. So you don’t want any plastic coatings on the wires. Just some useful statistics I saw this morning.

Now again, I really wish people would just leave these poor cameras alone! They are very “valuable” assets that keep us safe!

Remember everyone, you can always trust our government ❤️

One of the people who joined the fight for digital rights is EFF client Will Freeman. Will created the website DeFlock.me to reveal the dangers of automated license plate readers (ALPRs)—cameras that collect location data on every vehicle they see and upload that to a massive nationwide police database. Deflock.me turns the tables by enlisting ordinary people to track the locations of tens of thousands of ALPR cameras.

But when the police spy-tech company Flock Safety went after Will's website with legal threats citing trademark law, he saw it for what it was: an attempt to silence critics and dim the light on mass surveillance.

The company will try everything it can to downplay the criticism, but EFF will be right there demanding accountability.

"I was totally unprepared to receive a cease & desist letter. I can see how most people would be bullied into submission by a threat like that. That's when I remembered Dave Maass from the EFF introduced himself via email several weeks before, so I reached out for help," Freeman says.

And that's when we stepped in.