Disable them by removing them yourself.
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2025
328 points (99.7% liked)
News
33231 readers
1871 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
See the problem there is that it doesn't scale. You can only take down so many cameras.
Now if you convince the local scrappers that the things are full of copper...
Well, don’t sell yourself short—one camera per person destroys them all. It’s gotta start somewhere.
I’m sure those cameras would probably resell somewhere. Sell them back to flock 🙃
Sure. If all you can do is steal one camera, then steal one camera.
But...
Steal one camera, stop surveillance for a day. But teach a cracky to steal cameras for cash, stop surveillance for a generation.
Haha cracky 😂
Made me lol, too!
load more comments
(2 replies)
"Genious Gray Hat creates open-source software to repurpose second-hand flock cameras for personal use; Flock cameras start flooding Craigslist and eBay"
Problem is that many are clustered and in high-traffic areas. There's a triplet of them in one area near my neighborhood, covering entrance and exit of said area, so it's impossible to avoid detection.
Remove the devices. Like, go up to it and destroy it.
Obviously, wear a mask and common clothing
I bet they'd search for cell location records, in order to find who damaged the cameras. I hear that even turning your phone off won't help. Surely they'll be caught unless someone also leaves their phone at home.
Well, don’t commit crimes with person items on your body of any kind.
You should always leave your phone at home for that kind of thing. The same goes for protests.
- leave your phone at home
- instead of destroying it, wrap it in duct tape or something like that, because afaik obstructing a camera owned by a private company which happens to be placed on public property is not illegal
load more comments
(14 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I wonder if a laser of some sort could mess up the camera sensors
Lasers are absolutely capable of this. A 1-watt laser could probably do it and, last time I checked, you can order 44-watt lasers online.
A 1w laser will permanently blind you instantly. You can buy/build them very cheaply and easily, but a class 4 laser isn't a toy.
For perspective, the regular red laser pointers from your local store are like 5mW at most.
A 44w laser is probably an IR fiber laser used for tattoo removal or some industrial application. You can get them cheap, but they are not handheld. Also lasers that powerful tend to be pulsed.
Nichia makes 5w+ 445nm diodes that are small enough to fit in a flashlight
I'm familiar. The 44W lasers I mentioned are blue diode lasers from consumer-grade laser cutters/engravers. They actually consist of multiple diodes with some optics that combine all the beams into a pretty small kerf. Last time I checked I was only able to find IR diode lasers up to 2W. I'm hoping to get my hands on an IR diode laser some day that I can stick on my CNC mill and make it a laser cutter as well but realistically those will have to be 2 separate devices. An IR diode laser would be a lot more stealthy for taking out Flock cameras...
Somewhere I have a 1W blue handheld laser that I bought in college and used to light blunts with. Wearing laser shades, of course.
At a place I worked at for a little while they had 16kW fiber lasers that could cut through steel like butter. It was magical.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wondering if something like this would be enough?
Doubt it, <5mW is a laser pointer and I don't think is powerful enough to damage an eye.
So you're saying my 5W laser could work? On it.
Maybe something like a small battery powered laser engraver could zigzag across the lens and eventually damage the sensor.
However, to get that power from a distance would be large and prohibitively expensive for most people.
Good thinking though… a damaged sensor might be difficult to diagnose at first, leading to a longer replacement period.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I heard Flock and other traffic cameras have had issues lately with people using paintball guns on them. Something about how easy it is to buy those and they can be quietly used. Real shame these punk kids keep vandalizing these corporations products, it must be terribly expensive.
Baseball bat
load more comments
(3 replies)
Fuck Flock!
Ring is partnering with Flock so I'm in the process of replacing my Ring cameras.
Here's the legwork I did, feel free to add to this:
Blink is out because they're also Amazon and if Ring is partnering with Flock, it's only a matter of time.
TP Link Tapo - Four 4K cameras w/ local network storage. $629.95. "5BLACKFRIDAY" code drops it to under $600.
Eufy - Four 3K cameras w/ Network storage. $749.95. They have a more advanced camera that has a fixed 4K but only a 2K pan/tilt and that setup with local network storage is over $1,000.
Arlo - $18/mo. subscription. No thank you.
Wyze - No network storage, SD cards only.
Aosu is notably cheaper ($429.99 for 4 cameras + network storage), but is only a 2K camera, and in a security situation, I can't imagine that being a good idea. 😟 The price is GREAT though, so I guess if all your footage is close up, it would work well. If you need to read a license plate at distance? Er, em...
I'm really happy with Reolink Trackmix cams.
That's pretty slick too! Only drawback I see there is that the home hub is SD card based and maxxes out at 1 TB and other systems have 2.5" drive bays or NVME slots.
But hey, anything is better than Flock adjacent! 😉
load more comments
(1 replies)
Eufy had those widely published security issues previously, they have apparently been addressed since - but their initial response has always left a bad taste in my mouth.
I’m happy with my TAPO C420 local recording and doorbell setup, but I know that they have also had a number of security concerns and required firmware updates.
If money is no issue, or rather - it can fit within your budget - Ubiquiti would be my pick, but it also requires an bigger investment into their ecosystem.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Death to flock and palantir
They are software based and either have bluetooth or wifi. Can't some wise person hack them and/or brick them?
The result would be more of your tax dollars going to Flock, for repairs or replacements.
The correct solution would be to ban them.
Don't underestimate the tactic of making it untenable by increasing the expense.
I wish that was still as valid, but sheesh, these days operating for years on a massive loss with zero profits and empty promises is a Silicon Valley standard.
You'd have to convince enough investors that it was just a big cash black hole that was going nowhere.
Gotta convince maga to tariff surveillance cameras
It will be easier to ban them if they are shown to be ineffective because of constant vandalism. There's much less incentive to keep them and it becomes an easy win for politicians.
Yup. "We don't have the funds to replace them this year." Next year, "We're not going to buy new ones because they'll just get destroyed and we'll have to replace them again."
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›