Again, they CAN catch criminals with all the surveillance at their disposal, they just choose not to. California just used a drone to issue one property owner a hundred citations for $1,000 each– one citation for every firecracker he launched.
While celebrating 250 years of freedom.
15 Comments
Joe Blow · July 14, 2026 at 6:08 am
…And yet you defend flock camera’s as people should not have expectations of privacy in public. You don’t see the duality there? I’m surprised.
Divemedic · July 14, 2026 at 7:27 am
The cameras themselves? Yes. Declaring public cameras to be a violation of people’s rights would create all sorts of second and third order effects. No more shoplifting cams in stores. No more cameras looking at your driveway. No more dash cams.
Cameras aren’t the issue. It’s how cameras are being used to create a searchable database that is the problem. A cop in Georgia doing a search for every dark colored car with a Grateful Dead sticker on the left bumper and getting s hit from a Flock camera in Detroit from 2023 is the dystopian violation.
A valid warrant requires probable cause, is supported by a sworn oath, and must specifically describe the places to be searched and the people or items to be seized. In the case of Flock, they aren’t bothering with any of that. They don’t have a warrant, probable cause, or a description of anything before adding that stuff to the database. They already know John Westguy owns a dark blue with a grateful dead sticker on the left rear bumper, and everywhere that car has been in the last 5 years, it’s tied to his cell phone location, and what credit card purchases he has made in the last year.
We know that’s being weaponized because that’s how they arrested so many J6 people.
Gryphon · July 14, 2026 at 4:56 pm
I strongly Disagree with your position that …”cameras aren’t the issue”. Yes. They. Are. The ‘government’ Cameras (whether ‘contracted’ or not) Exist ONLY to Document the actions of the Citizens. It is Un-Possible to have Cameras without Recorders; this would require that someone (a bureaucrat) would have to Watch every Camera, all the Time. Thus, a Database Exists, and No form of ‘regulations’ for its use will prevent its Abuse for political purposes.
Prohibiting ‘government’ Cameras in Public Places does Not, in any way, affect the Right of Property Owners to have Cameras, on their Property, looking AT their Property. But once those Cameras are “Networked”, they become an even more pernicious 4th Amendment problem- the ‘government’ Already has access to any Data posted to the Internet, and uses it without regards to the 4th.
Anyone who links a Camera to the Internet is just contributing to the ZOG ‘Surveillance State’, and is part of the Problem. Cutting Down ‘Flock Cameras’ is a good start, but as I’ve said before, until we have a “Butlerian Jihad”, and Destroy the Data Centers, and Eliminate those who Own, Operate, and Build them, we will continue to have an increasingly totalitarian ‘society’. (if you can even call it a ‘civilization’)
p.s. all the cameras on my property are Fiber-Optic Wired, and I have no ‘Wifi’ equipment that can be compromised.
Divemedic · July 14, 2026 at 8:51 pm
Flock cameras arent government cameras. There is no way to prevent what Flock is doing without restricting all cameras.
Jester · July 14, 2026 at 8:58 pm
They are not in name only, Flock makes money for every citation issued, the .gov can say they don’t track anything and thus they get free access to the database Flock maintains.
Divemedic · July 14, 2026 at 9:40 pm
Doesn’t matter. There isn’t a way to stop private owners of cameras without getting rid of all cameras: security cameras, dashcams, cell phones, all of it.
Jester · July 15, 2026 at 9:22 pm
I’m pretty much against the .gov having any public access to cameras with out a warrent to the individual that took those images. Not to Verizon, Not to Ring Ding, Not to dash cams. Not to the server of where this might end up in the could, the individual. If it’s contents are posted publcly by the one that took the footage, sure.
Divemedic · July 16, 2026 at 3:54 pm
The issue is this: You (or someone is the owner) of that camera and of any footage or pictures it takes. That’s why I say cameras aren’t the issue. They are private property, and as such, those who own that property can do with it as they wish. That includes Flock, and includes them selling the footage to anyone they see fit- including the government.
An image of someone robbing a store or stabbing someone on a train doesn’t require a warrant if the person who owns the camera willingly shares that image.
Your image is what you present to the public when you go out and you can’t say someone violated your privacy merely by taking a picture of your likeness when you are out in public.
However, the things you expect would remain private (pictures of things you cover with clothes, your travel history, your financial records, etc.) are not out there in public and would therefore be protected. Someone intercepting your electronic signature or your government required license plate is intercepting your private information, and that is where the violation is. Not the camera, not the video. The database. That’s why using a database to identify everyone who traveled within 200 yards of where a dead body was found in the 48 hours before it was found should require a warrant.
Birdog357 · July 15, 2026 at 5:50 am
None of that is true. Flock is paid an annual subscription for the cameras and the database access. It’s not free access for the government. My county pays 50k a year for 10 cameras. I frequently discuss this with our prosecutor but I can’t sway her into seeing how these things are bad.
Jester · July 15, 2026 at 9:20 pm
So with any citations does Flock get money out of finding the guilty? I mean the typical way is to say I got you speeding, pay the fine but it just “does not count against your drivers lisence” Effectively when you pay the city the money for a civil citation they, if they pay or not are still getting a money making service and once “paid off” are now free for their use.
Divemedic · July 16, 2026 at 3:45 pm
I would assume that different contracts say different things, so you likely can’t know that without seeing each and every contract.
Tom Hyland · July 14, 2026 at 11:24 am
A citizen reporter in Britain has created this amusing video describing the death and destruction of flock cameras. https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/85/94/54/859454fbe8828e54a4a9a1a295e4148d.mp4
ghostsniper · July 14, 2026 at 6:51 pm
The proper way would have been a cordless angle grinder in one hand and a 3 lb sledge in the other. When the camera came down slam it several times with the sledge to kill it permanently.
As he did it, those cameras can be reinstalled in a few hours. But, that is what it’s going to take to make it stop. Make the cost of the camera’s MORE than their benefit.
Robert · July 14, 2026 at 11:37 pm
Some of the FLOCK cameras around here are paired with additional monitoring cameras that have a 360-degree view of the camera base. That is to record anybody that approaches the base to cut them down.
It might be prudent to approach from cover and be wearing a mask while engaging in field upgrades to these systems. The video recording is inside a locked cabinet that is difficult to quickly open.
Tom Hyland · July 14, 2026 at 11:50 pm
“You are correct, sir.” – Ed McMahon
Spray painting the humiliated Eye of Sauron was a waste of good paint. Crush its skull in with a couple deft sledge hits and the coppers have to toss it in the dumpster.
Comments are closed.