LAPD ending deal with company operating license plate-reading cameras
abc7.com
The LAPD is ending its agreement with Flock Safety, a company that operates surveillance cameras throughout the city.

LOS ANGELES (KABC) – The Los Angeles Police Department is ending its agreement with Flock Safety, a company that operates surveillance cameras throughout the city.

LAPD announced that it will allow its agreement with the company to expire Saturday.

  • xenomor@lemmy.worldEnglish
    165·
    2 days ago

    “It’s uncertain whether the cameras will continue recording after the agreement expires.”

    I just realized that these cameras likely continue to operate and violate our rights after these cities terminate their contracts. The city I live in did this a month ago. Everyone, including myself, were very satisfied that we pressured the city council to do this despite pressure from the police department and some local businesses. A month later, the cameras are all still installed. I re-read the proclamation from the city and it says nothing about disabling or removing the hardware. It only says that our cops can no longer access the data.

    This is some diabolical bullshit, and people need to realize this.

      • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netEnglish
        15·
        2 days ago

        One of those spray-can extension poles would probably work pretty well without drawing much attention, especially if wearing a hi-vis vest and hardhat along with maybe a rubber mask so they can’t identify you. Buy a used cheap bicycle somewhere, spray all the cameras you can, then leave the bike on a street somewhere and walk to a secluded place without cameras to change clothing, and be picked up by a friend in a car maybe. Quite doable with enough planning.

        • ContactClosure@lemmus.orgEnglish
          17·
          2 days ago

          There’s at least a half dozen better calibers for the job but no firearm is a good answer due to the potential of killing someone on the other side of the camera.

          • StaticFalconar@lemmy.worldEnglish
            81·
            1 day ago

            Just how bad of a shot can you be that you conclude no firearm is the answer? Plenty of calibers that doesnt over penetrate the equipment itself. Plenty of calibers with a small enough MOA to accurately hit the lens.

            • waz@feddit.ukEnglish
              5·
              1 day ago

              Agree completely, I was thinking birdshot, not something for deer.

          • waz@feddit.ukEnglish
            71·
            2 days ago

            The reason I mentioned a type of shot gun, is that the distance it remains lethal is short, and if you’re shooting up towards something, it wouldn’t come down lethal like a pistol or rifle round, which could be dangerous for as long as it maintains a ballistic trajectory. But yes, not a wise thing to attempt in all seriousness.

    • whosepoopisonmybuttocks@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      11·
      2 days ago

      Im not just trying to be edgy here: If they don’t belong to the city or the police, if they’re privately owned but just kind if left in public, are they “abandoned”? Is it illegal to remove, dismantle tor obscure them?

      • ContactClosure@lemmus.orgEnglish
        10·
        2 days ago

        I want to know the answer to this for liability reasons. The cities say it’s their property and they have to pay to replace them when someone cuts one down, but when it’s a constitutional issue it’s flocks fault because it’s their equipment and software.