The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

Flock was pitched as the triumph of technology over criminality. It's surveillance network was supposed to end crime. However, when people witness extreme criminality thriving unpunished at the top levels of U.S. politics, the lie becomes evident. Flock isn't about ending crime. It's a tool of control to be used by criminals.

Who watches the watchers? Everyone.

Passed an old guy sitting on the side of the road with a lawn chair today, he was holding a pool skimmer with cardboard attached at the end to block a flock camera. There was a local news story about it [1]. Happy to see it.

[1] https://www.cltampa.com/news/a-77-year-old-republican-man-is...

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

Someone should start a surveillance company and put up their cameras pointed at the politicians houses.

If they then try to get them taken down using legal action they could sue under equal protection clause.

Edit add: Make data stream of cameras public for general population but charge if LEO or aggregate data search.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This isn't a vigilante movement. These cameras are being installed without any constitutional basis. And people don't need legal authority to correct an unlawful camera installation problem that cities are not handling.

So they knock out Flock. Then Axon comes in and replaces them with superior version, built into streetlights and municipal infrastructure. The sentiment seems reasonable but any expectations that our overlords will ever abandon total control and surveillance is delusional. Something far more sophisticated than vandalism would be necessary, and I'm not sure anything exists. The value of public opinion is at an all time low and schedule to continue dropping.

They’re hiring software engineers!

Undecided on Flock.

Totally decided against vandalism. Violations of the social contract suck.

I think it should depend on what residents living in the street want with several tiers. Public cam, paywall, law enforcement 24/7 or for a specific case, encrypted court order only, fake cams.

Each with different aproval requirements. A public cam would require 100%. Fake cams req only one vote. etc

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...

Congratulations, Flock, on establishing the most successful honeypot of all time!

No matter what the level of corruption, no matter which side of the surveillance state you support, no matter which side of the cameras you're on, Flock has a way to shine a spotlight on you and bring you out of the closet!

Currently following a YouTuber who knows all the roadside regulations for signposts and he points out how the Flock poles are all installed dangerously wrong, and will surely impale the next driver to crash out on the shoulder!

I think I may have a minority view about surveillance. At least I need someone to explain something to me.

Is the backlash really about privacy, or is the real problem a complete lack of trust in government?

Because if I thought someone would actually use the cameras to enforce the law, that's not actually such a bad outcome. You aren't supposed to speed, you aren't supposed to let your dog poop without cleaning up after it, and there's a bunch of other offences as well.

Why would I not support a hypothetical police that enforced these rules? Guy takes his dog for a walk, doesn't pick up, boom, cameras plus AI finds the person and issues a fine. Enforcing a social norm, cheaply. There seems to be evidence that it works with speeding: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/04/250402181306.h...

The kind of story that I've actually come across is that someone with access to the public database abuses it. They peek into their ex girlfriend's records, that kind of thing. Obviously nobody thinks that's ok, and I can understand if the main pushback people have is that none of the first thing will happen and lots of the second thing will happen. But that doesn't seem to address the principle itself.

So what exactly is the argument for why we shouldn't have cameras catching people who break the law? Presumably we would have no issue with a cop seeing someone breaking the law, and enforcing. The issue comes up when we replace the policeman with a system that is always on and way cheaper to run than a cop.

EDIT

Just to be clear, I understand it if people don't trust the government. What I'm looking for is an argument other than that. Thus far every response has been along the lines of "you can't trust the government to use this fairly/correctly".

That's known, everybody can see that argument.

I want to know if there's a reason beyond that why widespread surveillance shouldn't be a thing.

Related:

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

Flock is definitely not the only provider of this kind of surveillance. What is the real reason that this is getting so much media attention?