[HN Gopher] Benn Jordan's flock camera jammer will send you to j...
___________________________________________________________________
Benn Jordan's flock camera jammer will send you to jail in Florida
now [video]
Author : givemeethekeys
Score : 140 points
Date : 2025-12-12 18:58 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| Noaidi wrote:
| It is time to start asking ourselves, in all seriousness; "What
| would you do right now if you knew that fascists were coming."
|
| Because it is so obvious that they are coming.
| yfw wrote:
| Theyre already here and affecting some groups. Just ask how
| privileged you are before youre next on the list
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| "Fascism, like the future, is already here, it's just
| unevenly distributed".
| metalman wrote:
| "Fascism, like the future, is already here, it's just
| unevenly distributed".
|
| SNAP!
| Noaidi wrote:
| I agree, but I was trying not to be so "controversial" but I
| see that did not help. Someone already thinks all of this is
| fine and not authoritarian without providing me with an
| explanation.
|
| Forums will make fun of you for saying that Nazi's are here
| until they are surrounded by Nazis wondering what happened.
| honeycrispy wrote:
| Michigan recently introduced a "save the children" bill that
| would ban VPNs in an act titled "anticorruption of public
| morals".
|
| https://legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2025-HB-493...
| metalcrow wrote:
| Buy a gun, and learn how to use it. This is good advice even if
| you don't believe it's necessary.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Find like minded people you can trust and know who will have
| whose back if something really goes wrong. Also have a
| passport and some cash, crypto and/or jewelry to get you out
| if this goes too far.
| LgWoodenBadger wrote:
| As if passports can't be revoked electronically now
| rationalist wrote:
| Even if you don't like guns and don't want to own one, you
| should know how they work and how they are used properly.
|
| Kids used to be taught gun safety in public school. Public
| schools used to have indoor ranges (I've seen one with my own
| eyes).
|
| When someone learns gun safety, they are less likely to
| accidentally shoot themselves or someone else if they come
| across one.
| quesera wrote:
| How could that help? The fascists have bigger guns and more
| brownshirts.
|
| If you survive the initial encounter, you're on the run and
| an enemy of the state?
| honeycrispy wrote:
| There was a protest against the election in Tanzania on
| October 29th where the police were ordered to gun down the
| protesters, this is a country that has strict gun laws.
| Hundreds died.
|
| One of the reasons that doesn't happen in America is
| because the protestors would promptly shoot back and there
| would be a rapid formation of a militia. Hard to do that
| when you don't have guns.
| willis936 wrote:
| Make a bug out plan. Assume roads and cars are not an option.
| Assume you will be able to claim political asylum in another
| nation. Pack a bag.
| ericmcer wrote:
| What nation? All the "democratic" western nations are moving
| in this direction.
| willis936 wrote:
| This is a survivalist exercise. You're not going to fix the
| world's problems while trying to avoid being put into a
| labor camp.
| quesera wrote:
| > _Assume roads and cars are not an option_
|
| Walk to Canada? That works from some areas.
| willis936 wrote:
| Yes. Or Mexico. It's a longer walk for some more than
| others, but almost all of the political targets live near
| coastal cities that are within a month of a border. This
| would not be a trivial journey, but it would also not be
| insurmountable for many determined people. Survival ends up
| being a strong motivator.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Asked and answered. We, collectively, elected Trump a second
| time and left a GOP majority in Congress.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Institutionalized racism. Police immune to prosecution.
| Government-backed monopolies. Oligarchy based on proximity to
| the supreme. Scapegoating various classes of people. False
| flags. Surveillance economy. Seems to me that whatever we have
| now is functionally indistinct from fascism. But if it makes
| you feel better to keep calling it democracy...
| Scubabear68 wrote:
| Wherever Robert Heinlein is right now, he is shaking his head
| sadly. Told ya so......
| gruez wrote:
| 1. I highly doubt the adversarial image generated by Jordan
| actually works in practice, especially since it needs to be fined
| tuned for a specific model, not to mention that different
| angles/noise will probably break it even more
|
| 2. Louis tries to defend whatever Ben's doing by saying that it's
| basically like random specks of mud or bird shit, but he doesn't
| seem to realize that intent is a thing. Having random specks on
| your license plate isn't going to send you to jail, but if it's
| obvious that you intentionally crafted the specks to defeat the
| ANPR, that's a whole different thing entirely, even if they
| vaguely look the same.
|
| 3. As much as I don't like ANPR networks or government
| surveillance, haven't courts consistently ruled that drivers have
| less rights (ie. "driving is a privilege, not a right")? For
| instance, the constitution guarantees free movement, but you need
| a drivers license to drive and police can ask for your license
| without probable cause. You also can't refuse a blood alcohol
| test while driving.
| Noaidi wrote:
| > but he doesn't seem to realize that intent is a thing.
|
| He does realize this. The problem is the police can make up
| intent just to mess with people. How easy is it fro the cops to
| say "You purposely splattered mud on you license plate" and
| fine you or put you in jail. Or even use it as an excuse to
| pull you over.
|
| > haven't courts consistently ruled that drivers have less
| rights
|
| This is not about the right to drive. This is about a database
| of collected data on you that can be searched by anyone.
| ANYONE.
| try_the_bass wrote:
| > This is about a database of collected data on you that can
| be searched by anyone. ANYONE.
|
| Except this part isn't true?
| Noaidi wrote:
| Anyone, by that I mean anyone that matters, or a very large
| group of people that you should be afraid of to have this
| power. I mean, excuse my hyperbole, but is this not enough?
|
| Like an ex boyfriend: https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-
| government/article29105...
|
| Or the Feds: https://centralcurrent.org/federal-
| immigration-agents-access...
|
| Or a cop anywhere: https://data.aclum.org/2025/10/07/flock-
| gives-law-enforcemen...
|
| https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/how-cops-are-using-
| flo...
|
| https://atlpresscollective.com/2025/11/13/atlanta-police-
| flo...
| try_the_bass wrote:
| Seems like you're more moving the goalposts away from
| your original, inaccurate, and highly sensational claim?
|
| Maybe don't make the blatantly false claim in the first
| place?
| gunalx wrote:
| It was at least, because of shitty security practices.
| sallveburrpi wrote:
| I think he didn't mean that say "everyone" but rather
| "anyone who is some random person working for this private
| company or the cops or the government or whoever they
| inevitably sell this data to/gets access to the data when
| it inevitably leaks through some random unsecured s3
| bucket"
| try_the_bass wrote:
| If that's not what he meant, then maybe he shouldn't have
| said "anyone" twice? With the caps for emphasis, even.
| rationalist wrote:
| The data is available by FOIA.
| try_the_bass wrote:
| Is it? I thought only searches of the database were
| available that way? Like, the history of queries, not the
| raw data.
|
| I don't think FOIA requests can be used to run your own
| searches of these databases.
| rationalist wrote:
| Submit a FOIA for a specific area and time, and you can
| get all of the raw data for that, then you can do your
| own searches. You generally cannot submit a FOIA for
| _all_ of the data.
| try_the_bass wrote:
| I don't think this is true. Do you have some sources for
| this?
| reaperducer wrote:
| Journalists do this all the time. We used to get big
| 9-track reels of data where I worked.
| IshKebab wrote:
| > The problem is the police can make up intent just to mess
| with people. How easy is it fro the cops to say "You
| purposely splattered mud on you license plate" and fine you
| or put you in jail. Or even use it as an excuse to pull you
| over.
|
| That's not the problem. The fact that intent is considered by
| the law is a _good_ thing, because it allows you to use the
| defence "I didn't intend for the mud to obscure the number".
| Without that, the cops can just say "there _is_ mud on your
| license plate " and you have no recourse.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Unfortunately you are responsible for making sure your
| plates are clearly visible while driving. Mud doesn't
| easily coat your plate to the point of obscurity, you
| either were driving in lots of heavy mud (clean off car
| before going back on public roads) or haven't cleaned
| accumulated mud off in a while (not adhering to making sure
| your car is road legal).
|
| Negligence will still get you in trouble.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Yes, but it will usually get you into _less_ trouble than
| if you did it deliberately. That 's why almost every
| jurisdiction has a distinction between murder and
| manslaughter (and often first and second degree murder).
| There isn't just a "caused someone else to die" crime and
| everyone that does that gets exactly the same punishment.
| gruez wrote:
| >He does realize this. The problem is the police can make up
| intent just to mess with people. How easy is it fro the cops
| to say "You purposely splattered mud on you license plate"
| and fine you or put you in jail. Or even use it as an excuse
| to pull you over.
|
| Except in this case, it'll be pretty obvious that you used a
| carefully crafted pattern, because it's a custom printed
| license plate rather the state manufactured one. Moreover, of
| the list of plausible excuses capricious cops can use to
| arrest/ticket you, this is pretty near the bottom. Something
| vague like "speeding" or obstructing traffic (for driving at
| or below the speed limit, since most people speed) already
| exists, for instance.
|
| >This is not about the right to drive. This is about a
| database of collected data on you that can be searched by
| anyone. ANYONE.
|
| My point is that the courts (and to some extent, the public)
| have generally accepted that you have less rights while
| driving, so it's going to be an uphill battle. This is in
| spite of the fact that I oppose ANPRs.
| nkrisc wrote:
| Driving is a privilege, not a right.
| gleenn wrote:
| Same with flying they say. But how free are you if the
| government snaps its fingers and removes every reasonable
| mode of transportation unless you sacrifice your privacy?
| The cameras (which are 100% opt-out by the way, tell them
| NO) in airports are rammed down are throats as well. How am
| I supposed to privately move?
| nkrisc wrote:
| Congress could fix that. It could even be enshrined in
| the constitution. Maybe we should vote for people who
| would do that.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| Around here, folks wipe off the paint from their license plates
| with paint thinner. The plate still has the number, but an ALPR
| won't be able to read it.
|
| I'm told the reason is so that they don't have to pay bridge
| tolls (which are quite high).
|
| It's illegal, but I see cars with bare-metal license plates,
| all the time.
| Interesco wrote:
| (Assuming this is NY) Worth noting that NY license plates had
| a defect that caused the paint to delaminate [1]. I am not
| surprised that people intentionally do it, but this
| delamination used to be extremely common.
|
| [1]: https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/08/new-york-ends-
| contract...
| reaperducer wrote:
| This happened in West Virginia. But according to the
| newspapers, it was because the prison inmates were peeing
| in the license plate paint.
|
| This was pre-public internet, so no link that I could find.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| That makes sense.
|
| I suspect it gives cover for the ones that do it on
| purpose.
| Spivak wrote:
| If the plate is visible and clearly readable to a human but not
| readable by a machine has the law been violated? In my state
| there is no law that requires that my license plate be viewable
| by ALPRs so long as it's in plain view to a human observer.
|
| The software isn't a person and so I think there's a real
| question as to whether or not you can even say the license
| plate isn't visible to it because the software doesn't have
| eyes it can't observe anything, that's just our way of
| conceptualizing what it's doing. And I don't think this is
| theoretical because this idea that the machine isn't a person
| is argued by the state for why dragnet surveillance isn't a
| search until a human actually goes and looks at it.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > but not readable by a machine has the law been violated
|
| IANAL but I think that would be a violation, since it falls
| under the "detectability" of a "feature" being "recorded".
|
| > A person may not apply or attach [...] onto or around [...]
| which interferes with the legibility, angular visibility, or
| detectability of any feature or detail on the license plate
| or interferes with the ability to record any feature or
| detail on the license plate. A person who knowingly violates
| this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree.
|
| https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/?Tab=BillText
| Terr_ wrote:
| > he doesn't seem to realize that intent is a thing
|
| A bit of silver lining is that the law does require intent,
| which was a pleasant surprise since it reduces how easily a bad
| official could weaponize the law against an innocent person.
|
| > A person who _knowingly_ violates this section commits a
| misdemeanor of the second degree
|
| [0]
| https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/?Tab=BillText
| quesera wrote:
| > _A person who knowingly violates_
|
| Is there a legal specification of "knowingly" that requires
| intent? Or is "awareness" adequate?
|
| E.g. If you know (or would be reasonably expected to know)
| that your license plate was obscured by mud from your
| offroading adventures, does this verbiage apply to you?
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Just because you're a driver doesn't mean you get less rights.
| It means you implicitly consent to the laws covering driving.
| One such law that (thankfully) still protects drivers? No
| searching and seizing items from a vehicle without probable
| cause. You have the right to privacy in your vehicle, with this
| caveat: they can't search for just any reason, and they're not
| allowed to search random people. It has to be a specific
| person, with probable cause of a specific crime.
|
| It's illegal for the cops to put a GPS tracker on your car to
| track your movements without a signed search warrant. But it's
| legal for them to place so many cameras that they can do the
| same thing with no warrant? Bullshit. Recording every single
| license plate and its movements in perpetuity constitutes a
| search of random people with no cause. Searching for your
| specific movements constitutes a search, and therefore must
| require probable cause or a warrant.
|
| But the law doesn't protect us from this yet, because it's
| relatively new. When new technology comes out that current laws
| don't cover, the police abuse it. It's up to us to demand the
| laws be updated to protect us from this abuse.
| gruez wrote:
| >It's illegal for the cops to put a GPS tracker on your car
| to track your movements without a signed search warrant. But
| it's legal for them to place so many cameras that they can do
| the same thing with no warrant? Bullshit.
|
| It's not any "bullshit" then the fact that police don't need
| a warrant to follow you. It might be tempting to report with
| some variant of the "2nd amendment was only intended for
| muskets" argument, pointing out that the founding fathers
| never imagined a cop at every street corner, but then you
| have to deal with all the associated implications. For
| instance, does that mean first amendment protections don't
| extend to the internet?
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| No. The law doesn't prohibit it because it's simply automated
| gathering of information they could gather anyway. It becomes
| illegal when the police use technology to bypass barriers
| (for example, seeing your weed from a drone), but not when
| they simply use technology to automate handling with what
| they can see.
| programmertote wrote:
| I generally don't like the idea of relying on one private company
| to track private individual citizens' movement. So, I have an
| issue with this punishment (although I see that allowing that
| would also make it harder for automated toll charging systems to
| collect tolls).
|
| On a related note, when I lived in FL, I often saw cars with this
| opaque plastic cover on number plates. I think these are
| installed by the drivers so that they can avoid paying road toll
| (FL has many road tolls). I also noticed that these drivers tend
| to be more aggressive in driving than others (that's how I
| noticed their license plates are covered). Will the same
| punishment be applied to those drivers?
| try_the_bass wrote:
| > On a related note, when I lived in FL, I often saw cars with
| this opaque plastic cover on number plates. I think these are
| installed by the drivers so that they can avoid paying road
| toll (FL has many road tolls). I also noticed that these
| drivers tend to be more aggressive in driving than others
| (that's how I noticed their license plates are covered).
|
| I've noticed the same thing in my area of CA. Lots of folks
| with different devices to obscure their plates, and a strong
| correlation between the obscured plates and very poor or
| aggressive driving.
|
| I've started to quip that the obscured plates + tinted windows
| + blacked-out taillights is the "frequent moving violation
| starter kit".
|
| Or "tell me you violate the rules of the road without telling
| me you violate the rules of the road".
|
| > Will the same punishment be applied to those drivers?
|
| One could imagine that's actually the targeted demographic, and
| not the subset of folks trying to circumvent Flock cameras.
| OptionOfT wrote:
| I see these plastic covers a lot. Especially here in AZ they
| get UV damaged fast which makes them opaque.
|
| And the more and more I want one. Not to drive like an ass. I
| don't. I just want to drive around without being tracked.
| try_the_bass wrote:
| > Not to drive like an ass. I don't.
|
| Color me skeptical
| OptionOfT wrote:
| This is the physical manifestation of "I've got nothing
| to hide, so you can track me".
| deltoidmaximus wrote:
| Once I started looking for the plastic plate covers I was
| actually shocked how common they are. Of course enforcement is
| so lax these days many people seem to be using a paper
| temporary plate that they printed out. No word on how many of
| those are even real, I can't even read the numbers on them
| through the window.
| fullstop wrote:
| Did you see the one which used an electromagnet to hold fake
| leaves in place? If they got pulled over, they could push a
| button which would allow the leaves to fall off.
| anonymars wrote:
| Need I remind you, 007, that you have a licence to kill,
| not to break the traffic laws
| nine_k wrote:
| Leaves are not ferromagnetic, so they won't stick to an
| electromagnet. A few small holes with a small pump that
| constantly sucks the air from them would help stick a real,
| unmodified leaf to the surface. and release it at will.
| This would require tampering with the license plate, even
| though in a very minor way.
| mikestew wrote:
| _Leaves are not ferromagnetic_
|
| Fake leaves, as OP said, probably are.
|
| https://fallplate.com/en/product/fallplate-kit/
| tbyehl wrote:
| In my town some of the police cars have darkly tinted plate
| covers.
| saxonww wrote:
| The opaque covers (and essentially all license plate
| decorations, frames, covers, etc.) are illegal as of October 1
| in Florida. I believe initially the plan is stop-and-educate,
| but the law provides for a $500 fine and up to 60 days jail
| time for obscuring your license plate.
| almosthere wrote:
| It is weird to me that we got to a point where we are being
| literal about the law again, instead of the spirit.
|
| I guess laws should no longer say:
|
| A license plate should be attached to a car.
|
| Instead it should say:
|
| All vehicles that don't display their license plate for
| cameras of any kind are illegal, the spirit of this law is to
| make it so we can identify through the number assigned to the
| vehicle from the state that identifies it is obvious if a
| picture is taken of the vehicle from the front or the back.
|
| Better yet, judges and legal experts should just stop playing
| these games with words and figure out a new way to make
| things that are supposed to be legal, legal.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| As aomeone much funnier than me once said, there's nothing
| more uniquely American than the ability -- nay, the right!
| -- to _get off on a technicality_.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Some escape on a technicality and some are doomed on a
| technicality, and unfortunately the difference depends on
| how rich and connected you are.
|
| Still, this is arguably a step up from _not needing_ any
| technicalities at all to get the same result.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Yeah. People getting off on technicalities is the reason
| legalese exists.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> All vehicles that don 't display their license plate for
| cameras of any kind are illegal, the spirit of this law is
| to make it so we can identify through the number assigned
| to the vehicle from the state that identifies it is obvious
| if a picture is taken of the vehicle from the front or the
| back._
|
| Quarter inch high license plates are now legal. It's hardly
| the motorist's fault if the camera is too low resolution :)
|
| Regular license plates are illegal, because they're
| unreadable to a type of camera - thermal cameras :)
| buran77 wrote:
| > It is weird to me that we got to a point where we are
| being literal about the law again, instead of the spirit.
|
| The "spirit" of any law requiring license plates on
| vehicles is that the license plate can be read under normal
| conditions. The letter of the law may have been more
| generic, although many countries define very precisely
| everything about the plate, its condition and legibility.
| So demanding visible plates is exactly in the spirit of the
| law. What's the point of a license plate that nobody can
| read?
|
| People exploited the letter of the law by having a license
| that was illegible somehow. Covered, faded writing, flipped
| under the motorcycle seat, etc.
|
| > vehicles that don't display their license plate for
| cameras of any kind are illegal
|
| License plates predate traffic cameras and the requirement
| for readable plates has been in force in many countries
| since for almost all that time. The license needs to be
| visible first and foremost so humans can easily identify a
| car. It can be police or a witness when someone runs you
| over.
|
| Cameras automate this so they make abuse far easier. But
| the need was always there for various legitimate reasons.
|
| Almost no law would survive if everyone was allowed to just
| take some literal interpretation of their own choice. The
| attitude that "well technically the law says" is usually
| shot down by any judge for good reason. Someone could have
| a lot of fun with your right to "bear arms".
| loeg wrote:
| License plates have always been required to be legible;
| that's the whole point. Obscuring them is clearly against
| the spirit of the law, whether or not that particular
| method is specifically codified.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Yeah. License plate frames started out with a legitimate
| purpose--plates bend a lot more easily than plates in
| frames. But they've gotten crazy.
| rolph wrote:
| imthinking of a shell game -sort of.
|
| dont obstruct the plate, obfusicate it with bumperstickers
| that have license plate like fonts, but are clearly not
| plates to human perceptions.
| wingspar wrote:
| Those covers in FL are now fully illegal (Oct 1) along with
| most license plate frames.
|
| Have a friend who got pulled over recently and given a warning
| for the clear cover on his plate. Apparently, they can be a
| felony in some cases.
|
| I recall on an old Top Gear episode years ago, in the UK,
| people were selling mud in a spray can. You apparently sprayed
| the mud up the bumper and across the plate so it looks like
| it's just slung mud, but it just so happens to block the plate.
| Plausible deniability in a can...
| snypher wrote:
| Sorry for the terrible source, but I always admired the
| tactical leaf;
|
| https://nypost.com/2022/11/26/unbe-leaf-able-scofflaws-
| dodge...
| jjkaczor wrote:
| Just don't keep the can in your boot, uh I mean trunk -
| plausible deniability would go-out-the-window...
| woah wrote:
| Just use natural mud
| tclancy wrote:
| Can I hide it in a boot in a trunk in the frunk?
| tehwebguy wrote:
| > On a related note, when I lived in FL, I often saw cars with
| this opaque plastic cover on number plates.
|
| Daily Show segment on a guy who "uncovers" these in NY
| including cops' personal vehicles:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1J5nuA1QNs
| opengrass wrote:
| It's a payday for ride share companies.
| greyface- wrote:
| The time is ripe for ALPR-based sousveillance. If these types of
| countermeasures are outlawed, legislators and police could use a
| reminder that the legal principle that enables Flock imperils
| their privacy just as much as ours.
| Noaidi wrote:
| Flock does not just read license plates, it makes a fingerprint
| of your car. This is far beyond ALPR.
| phil21 wrote:
| What does this mean exactly? Pretty much any reasonably
| modern ALPR system also records make/model/type/color of
| vehicle along with the plate reading these days. Obviously
| some are better at this than others, but even my Unifi
| cameras do this these days.
|
| The "secret sauce" of Flock is the extensive nature of the
| camera network and database correlation.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Directly from the serpent's mouth:
|
| "No more gaps - just evidence.
|
| A license plate is just a start. Flock's Vehicle
| Fingerprint(r) tech turns footage into evidence that solves
| cases by pinpointing vehicles by make, color, type, and
| unique characteristics like decals, bumper stickers, and
| accessories. This capability proved to be instrumental in a
| recent case in Catoosa, OK where police were able to track
| down the suspect connected to a mass murder after their
| vehicle was spotted by a Flock camera."
|
| https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/6-benefits-of-lpr-for-
| law-e...
| lisbbb wrote:
| So we need color changing cars and we need to make
| changes to stickers, wheels, and accessories more
| frequently. It will be like the characters in cyberpunk
| novels with the odd face paint and stickers that they can
| change so as to frustrate facial recognition.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| magnetic bumper stickers are the way to go.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Color, make, model, body damage, panels that are a
| different color to the rest of the body, wheels, decals,
| bumper stickers, tow hitches, roof racks, etc., so even if
| they can't read your plate they can try to build a vehicle
| identity, and when they do get a plate capture, they can
| retroactively apply that to all other sightings of the
| vehicle.
| tamimio wrote:
| Yep, I have seen it used IDing cars without plates
| websiteapi wrote:
| Is this any surprise. Messing up other peoples stuff generally is
| a crime.
| gs17 wrote:
| > Messing up other peoples stuff
|
| The "jammer" is an adversarial pattern applied to the plate.
| The cameras are undamaged by it.
| websiteapi wrote:
| Not relevant. Does it stop legitimate use cases like toll
| roads which use the same underlying tech?
|
| Also, from the video the license plate is modified, which is
| illegal - it's like modding your passport. As the video
| states...
| Shalomboy wrote:
| I would very much like to leave the "free state of Florida". All
| of the benefits of living here that I grew up knowing by heart no
| longer exist and the state government's only concern seems to be
| punishing people for wrongthink. It isn't cheap to lease or buy
| property anywhere near a metro area, the coral reefs and sponge
| beds have mostly disappeared, the beautiful wildlife in our state
| parks has been curtailed by constant wildfires, and the schools
| have atrophied to a shell of their former selves. What's the
| point of living here anymore, or raising my kids here?
| pengaru wrote:
| I hear Austin, TX is the bees knees
|
| definitely avoid CA
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Why leave Florida just to move to Texas?
| mbg721 wrote:
| Texas can be pricey, but it has huge and diverse growing
| urban areas with a lot of job opportunities, where
| someplace like Miami is really cutthroat and _very_
| expensive.
|
| Or you'd move if you like Mexican food more than Cuban and
| South American food.
| wnevets wrote:
| > I hear Austin, TX is the bees knees
|
| Talk about a lateral move.
| Shalomboy wrote:
| Austin is alluring, but I can't seem to get my foot in the
| door at any of the big chipmakers in town. Not to be snarky,
| but I already have enough problems with power outages during
| hurricane season - ERCOT doesn't inspire much more
| confidence.
| lisbbb wrote:
| The schools were ever good? FL, and the entire US south, for
| that matter, have a long track record of poor K-12 performance.
| websiteapi wrote:
| A very common trope but performance basically is the same
| when you normalize for socioeconomics
| nullbyte808 wrote:
| Simple solution, ditch your car.
| munificent wrote:
| It's very hard to be a functioning member of society in Florida
| without a car.
|
| Public transit is minimal, everything is spread out, 8 months
| of the year are extremely hot, several months get monsoon
| rains.
| Shalomboy wrote:
| That's a non-starter if you want to maintain any sort of upward
| mobility in Florida.
| LogicFailsMe wrote:
| This would seem like a form of State AI regulation forcing you to
| submit to flock AI surveillance. I thought the dear leader was
| going to make any sort of regulation of AI illegal nationwide?
| Looking forward to the absurd lawsuit asserting exactly this.
|
| Especially when the boss move is just to retrain the network with
| a bunch of examples with the flock camera jammer applied. And if
| that's beyond the pythonic acumen of the employees of flock,
| that's their problem.
| frogperson wrote:
| This is fascism, the rules coudlnt be clearer. Enemies bad,
| friends good. You dont need laws or logic for that.
| SamInTheShell wrote:
| Seem to recall license plates are required to be illuminated as
| well. What's stopping someone from just adding an additional IR
| light to those enclosures? Couldn't you just slap an additional
| bright enough IR light in that makes it impossible to even see
| the plate clearly through cameras?
|
| Personally, if I cared enough to obfuscate my plate info from
| these devices, I would just taint their data by wrapping my car
| in a wrap with various different "plates" themed art. I like cars
| and the exterior has traditionally been treated like art.
| Tainting data is just as effective at making the core dataset
| useless as omitting data in the first place.
| snowfield wrote:
| Don't think that really works.think that's been debunked
| SamInTheShell wrote:
| Which thing?
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| Surely the sensor would detect the IR separately from the
| visible light and could easily filter it out?
| SamInTheShell wrote:
| Genuinely don't know. The hack here is exploiting artifacts
| from over exposure for the camera sensor. As to if they have
| mitigating features to filter non visible light, I'm actually
| curious.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I doubt it, that is a lot of extra cost against an attack
| that doesn't exist today.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Most digital cameras see farther on the low end than humans
| do and it can do some odd things. It made the news with the
| Sony? camera that had a mode specifically to use this--turns
| out it sort-of sees through many swimsuits. Or a video I've
| seen of firefighters caught in a burnover--the fire looked
| very weird!
| pedalpete wrote:
| I find it interesting that the law states "affects the ability to
| record".
|
| The license plate can still be recorded. A human viewing the
| license plate recorded would still be able to visualize it.
|
| There is nothing shown in this video in the law that states that
| the license plate has to be legible to a computer or specifically
| an AI.
| pickledonions49 wrote:
| It can be recorded, but the dots make it so some systems can't
| recognize it. I perceived "record" in the context of
| identification/logging.
| tamimio wrote:
| I thought it was supposed to be the golden age!? Instead we have
| technocratic elites who are after mass surveillance whether in
| forced digital ID or AI surveillance for cars and humans, and the
| worst part is if you try to protect your privacy you are a
| criminal now, like using VPNs or countering the AI. What's next,
| using cryptography is illegal and is considered terrorism? And
| public justification is ready; it's either "illegal immigrants"
| or "protecting the kids" depending on your political views.
| lisbbb wrote:
| I'm planning on dystopian cyberpunk, which is how we already
| live, tbh. There was never going to be a golden age because
| humans are not capable of such.
| milesvp wrote:
| BTW, if you don't know Benn Jordan, his YouTube content is fire.
| I happen to be in the intersection of things that he likes to
| think about, but every video I've seen of his lately deserves
| front page HN treatment. It is that good.
|
| This one was particularly good, given the technical difficulties
| of recording low frequency sounds. I can't vouch for his
| conclusions, but the effort he goes to to record these sounds is
| crazy.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvr8L5v8u8
| butlike wrote:
| Indeed! His content is really good. Unfortunately, I can't find
| the video right now, but there's one of him recording natural
| reverb in a tunnel that was really good. A 20 mile bike ride in
| the dark makes the video very dream like and pleasant.
| wvbdmp wrote:
| He's also The Flashbulb. Probably some other aliases, too, idk.
| But The Flashbulb is good shit.
| dtj1123 wrote:
| Benn Jordan holds a special place in my Youtube viewing habits,
| in that he was the influence that ultimately broke my Youtube
| addiction. I no longer engage with their recommendation
| algorithm in any way.
|
| You have to respect the integrity needed to use such a hard-won
| platform to de-platform yourself, in the interests of your
| audience.
| wyre wrote:
| Was there a video in particular? I admire Benn but haven't
| seen any of his videos on the YouTube algorithm in
| particular.
| Aloisius wrote:
| Intentionally modifying a license plate in order to prevent it
| from being read?
|
| The only thing I'm shocked about is that it hasn't wasn't illegal
| before.
| websiteapi wrote:
| Exactly. I have no idea anyone would be surprised that
| modifying your license plate so it cannot be read would be
| illegal.
| patrickmay wrote:
| The plate can still be easily read by a human, just not one of
| the Flock cameras.
| websiteapi wrote:
| Or toll booths...
| pickledonions49 wrote:
| Wow now I am being stalked by AI algorithms instead of that
| twitchy psycho from work.
|
| Jokes aside I think this is an issue for the reason of hypocrisy
| (not that I want to track people) and usage of the technology.
| lisbbb wrote:
| Every time someone hits back in the name of individual rights and
| privacy, the same thing happens. The state (aka government) does
| not want us to be able to protect ourselves from its intrusions.
| The US has become a surveillance state, it's plain as day where
| it is heading. The weird thing is, we aren't prosecuting actual
| crimes when they are discovered. So one must assume that the
| surveillance is political in nature, much like what the USSR did
| or China currently engages in. It is for repression.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-12 23:01 UTC)