reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 describes Flock cameras, which are automatic license plate readers. This is not Palantir; it is a separate company, with multiple companies attempting to do this. The cameras are set up to look at a car and pick up the make, model, and license plate, as well as details like dents in the door and bumper stickers. A few months ago, Home Depots and, more broadly, stores around the country are using this technology in their parking lots, so if you drive to a Home Depot, you’re on that database somewhere. The use of this technology extends beyond retail parking lots: HOAs have contracts with Flock cameras; assisted living facilities and similar establishments are involved; police departments and municipalities are using it for traffic purposes. There is, therefore, a growing dragnet of license plate scanning. There is some controversy about this on the internet. In the speaker’s opinion, Flock cameras could be modified in their software to also recognize facial features. There’s no reason why they wouldn’t, and why they couldn’t. However, they are probably the types of cameras that are farther back; you might need better optical quality at range. The speaker believes it would be easy for them to modify, and that once they have the agreement in place, it would be easy to produce another camera.

The chief strategy officer at Flock (a surveillance company) contacted the speaker on X after the speaker called him a tyrant. The speaker says they did not notice the message until two days ago and then posted a public rebuttal on X. The speaker also says they have tried for years to reduce unsolicited commentary, but now are expanding concerns about surveillance technology. The speaker frames their concerns as forward-looking rather than only reacting to one company. They say their “chief concern is not a camera” but that the U.S. has “quietly allowed a national intelligence collection network” to emerge, and that Flock uses “active deceit” and “steamrolling any opposition.” They compare the issue to the aftermath of the PRISM disclosures: many people came to accept that surveillance exists, but the speaker argues that social media or consumer tracking feels less present than physical devices—describing cameras on playgrounds, outside bedrooms, along streets, and other intimate settings—so the monitoring feels different. They argue Flock is an example of broader problems and state that other systems exist, including Alexa recording in living rooms. They distinguish Flock from “regular security cameras,” saying accountability for privately owned or publicly operated cameras typically involves identifiable ownership and processes (e.g., city departments), while Flock’s systems are centralized and the destination of data is unclear. They add that domestic customer service and addresses can create more accountability options than overseas ones, and that it is different from data pipelines like a local DVR. The speaker says Flock’s transparency claims are not the same as transparency, describing Flock as starting with deceit, avoiding answers, and calling Americans “terrorists” for wanting to know camera locations while the cameras can “know where you are at all times.” They say concerns have intensified because Flock is rapidly deploying sensors “before anyone notices,” and they emphasize scale (comparing 100 cameras to 83,000). They say “these are not just cameras,” arguing the most important part is the broader sensor function. They discuss Flock as “automated license plate readers” while asserting this is a “huge lie by omission.” The speaker claims the system provides an “electronic fingerprint” of vehicles and people, using high-resolution imaging and AI object detection to scan vehicles (including color and defects), identify bumper stickers, and associate faces with cars and passengers. They mention the existence of technology for lidar scans of vehicles and people, suggesting that systems could generate high-resolution 3D models of whatever is in front of the sensor, “certainly not all” devices—then note the speaker is guessing because of lack of openness about technical specifications. The speaker argues that because of secrecy, decisions are being made without full information and that risks include data breaches and exposure of biometric face data to foreign actors. They also raise scenarios involving U.S. military faces being cataloged, data cross-referencing with other breaches, and scanning of convoys and nuclear-weapons transport vehicles. They ask what happens with presidential motorcades and whether IDs from nearby phones could be captured. They claim cargo shipments onto military bases could be logged through high-resolution sensing and AI inference, but state that “where it goes” is unknown. They say Flock states it does not work with ICE and does not track illegal immigrants, which they interpret as cherry-picking which crimes to report. They argue accountability is impossible because Flock is a private company serving the government: they are not subject to FOIA, and legal action requires proving harm without knowing enough information. The speaker then calls for opposition rather than dialogue, including treating Flock as a “catalyst” for broader conversation about surveillance technologies. They recommend “knowing where Flock cameras are located” and logging them on a public “deflock” database (via website and GitHub, with an app mentioned). They warn that using a smartphone near a Flock camera is a “huge no-no” because the system may log Bluetooth device IDs. They urge educating family by pointing out cameras and starting conversations, focusing on data security. They say to prepare for what comes next, including expansion to drones that could hover over properties. They also suggest political activism: calling representatives while being polite and respectful, and they use an analogy about dedication and opportunity costs for politicians. Finally, they discuss “carrot and stick,” arguing that cities should be rewarded if they stop or push back against Flock-like technologies. They call for support of “good cops” who push back rather than only attacking police, asserting that surveillance technology encourages treating the public like criminals and harms both sides. They conclude by rejecting what they describe as engaging with people like Flock’s leadership and say discourse should move “towards something good,” potentially “fight in the shade.”

The speaker describes a rented car equipped with built-in tracking technology, saying a cell phone tower is installed in the vehicle to track the driver continuously. They claim that while settings allow turning off features like Bluetooth and Wi‑Fi, the “cell phone” function cannot be turned off, meaning the car has an always-on connection for tracking. They further state the car uses location tracking and that apps in the vehicle also track location. The speaker points to a microphone feature they say can be turned off to prevent listening while driving and talking to friends or family. They characterize the overall system as everything syncing together so Google can access location and related data. The speaker argues that car companies sell built-in features approved by car manufacturers that enable access to the car’s location for assistance while driving, ticket generation, and police use to identify speeding based on GPS and location. They claim authorities can use an app to send tickets to a person’s house. They mention a “speed camera audio warning” feature, saying it informs the driver when a speed camera is coming so they can slow down, rather than banning speed cameras. They also reference a climate change or air quality feature, claiming the system reports “denied” climate and air quality access to location and associates it with “punishment.” Finally, they advise that under location settings, the driver must disable location permissions for installed apps; otherwise, they claim the car tracks location 24/7/365. They conclude by emphasizing that the collected data could be sold to Google.

"You have got to be fucking me. I mean, what the are" "Dude, what?" "What are you doing?" "You are going the wrong way down the freeway. You are committing a felony right now." "Okay. What what I'm doing, sir? Well, one, why the fuck going the" "wrong way down the freeway?" "Yeah. Turn around when you have a clear spot. Don't even move your truck. Turn your hazard lights on for one. Okay." "Turn your hazard lights on now. Your hazard lights. Your blinkers. Your blinkers. Your hat." "Turn your hazard lights on. They're on. Okay." "I'll do it." "I'm real. Turn off."

A credit card skimmer was found on a gas pump. If the buttons on a pump feel forced or don't pop up correctly, there is most likely a skimmer device. This skimmer is an overlay that captures data when a PIN is entered and transmits it. Another skimmer type can be placed over the card reader. If it feels loose and can be pulled, it is likely a skimmer capturing the card's mag strip or chip data. It is claimed that 98% of the time, gas station or convenience store workers are putting these skimmers on the terminals. It is suggested to use cash instead of cards at these locations to avoid fraud.

Use walkie talkie instead of calling. Note license plate number.

The speaker argues that the placement of a Flock camera is “especially suspicious” because it is installed directly in front of an outdoor store that sells guns. The speaker claims this placement would allow the camera to capture and catalog people entering the store. They say that although they have been told the cameras are license plate readers, the screenshot they took and zoomed in on shows the camera positioned on the opposite side of a pole, facing toward the building’s door. From this, the speaker concludes that the camera is not reading license plates but is instead documenting who is going in and out of the store.

ICE is using fake cell towers to turn your phone into a tracking device. It's a technology called Stingray. They put it in a vehicle and drive through a neighborhood broadcasting a signal stronger than a real cell tower. Your phone automatically connects to the strongest signal, so it connects to the fake one, and you never know what happened. Once you're connected, they can pinpoint your exact location in real time. Here's the most terrifying part: the Stingray doesn't just connect to the target's phone. It forces every phone in the area to connect to it. Your phone, your neighbor's phone, anyone just walking down the street, it scoops up data from hundreds of people to find one person. This isn't a theory. Forbes just uncovered a warrant showing ICE used one to track a person across a 30 block area in Utah, and they've spent millions on these cell site simulator vehicles. Your phone is constantly looking for a signal. You just have to hope it's a real one. ICE

Michael Chernoff says: I’m very fortunate to have the First Amendment here and different laws, like, I mean, you Michael Chernoff stepped over your rights and sent you back. The Germans arrested me, of course they were waiting for me. I had to serve my initial fourteen months then. They put me on trial again for books I had published while I was in England and the United States where this was a completely legal operation. So they prosecuted me for activities that are done in countries where it was legal. And the reasoning is, well, everything is accessible over the Internet. If somebody can read it in Germany, it’s a crime. So they demand jurisdiction over the entire globe as soon as something is—or the entire universe, if you want. The other person replies: Technically, I wonder if I could be arrested if I went to Germany. Yes. It’s crazy. Michael Chernoff: And have keep all that stuff when I travel now. The other person: Yeah. Don’t do it. Because your profile is high enough for them to bother. Michael Chernoff: That that I could literally be arrested for going to Europe now. Yeah. I’m sorry. Sorry. That just hit my mind, but go on. The other person: So we’ll put on trial for, actually, the pros give me for $9, every single one with up to five years. You do the math.

Money is a concern on certain platforms or distributors. Instead of spending, why not consider other options?

Rio Rancho police are investigating a series of vandalized license plate reader cameras, after ALPR (automatic license plate reader) equipment was destroyed and replaced with flags. News 13’s Bianca Hoops reports that police say the man behind the crime caused thousands of dollars in damages to the city. Authorities say the first incident involved the destruction of license plate reader cameras in Rio Rancho, where a camera was stolen and replaced with a flag. Police also said the same type of incident happened again the day before, off Meadowlark. In May, Rio Rancho police found at least three “flock cameras,” also known as license plate readers, destroyed. Police reported that the solar panels attached to the cameras were stolen, and then a flag was hung on top of the camera poles. Police indicated that the pattern of vandalism included the removal of the solar components and the placement of flags in a manner similar across multiple sites. As investigators worked, police said they were able to pull over a truck that matched the description of the vehicle associated with the flock camera incidents. Inside the truck, police reported finding multiple flags similar to the ones used in the vandalized camera cases. Police identified the driver as 44-year-old Jovan Martinez. Martinez was arrested on an unrelated warrant, and police said he has since been released. Police stated that when officers asked Martinez about the flags, he admitted to the vandalism. Police also said he took videos on his phone every time. During the investigation, police said they obtained a warrant and brought in a SWAT team. Authorities searched for missing equipment connected to the vandalized cameras, including the solar panels. Police reported recovering “more than $20,000 worth” of equipment, associated with the damaged license plate readers and their solar components. In a quoted exchange captured in the report, a person described as “gentlemen” referenced the cameras appearing around the area, saying the “flock cameras” were not “ours,” and indicated they were “popping around.” The segment also includes comments mentioning history and looking forward to a development, attributed to John Barnes, in reference to the case.

An individual is instructed to exit a vehicle and balance plates. The license plate number BPA6961 is stated twice.

Joel Fetter, an automotive journalist, experienced a tense confrontation after leaving Kohl’s in Plymouth, Minnesota, during which multiple Plymouth police cars surrounded his Range Rover. Fetter said officers pulled in from both sides and he was “boxed and pinned” with four police vehicles and lights on, and he repeatedly told them, including that he was not armed. Fetter followed officers’ orders, and although officers kept their hands on their holsters, they did not draw weapons. An officer later explained the reason: Fetter’s license plate was registered in a flock system as stolen. Fetter had documentation showing the plate was not stolen and learned he had been on police radar for a while. Fetter also said Plymouth officers told him the same missing-plate alert had appeared for other cars driving across Minnesota with similar dealer plates. Courtney Hoggard reported that flock uses cameras to read license plates automatically across the country. The company reports 20 billion vehicles pass its cameras each month and its readers capture 93% of license plates, and Plymouth has 15 intersections with flock cameras, including one that tracked Fetter into the Kohl’s parking lot. The transcript also notes that even correct camera reads can lead to errors due to human error, and that a small number difference mattered: Fetter’s plate was “3410 DTM,” while the system reported “34 DTM,” and the “10” difference allegedly did not seem to matter. Police said someone in Los Angeles originally reported a plate missing with small-number differences, where the “10” was on Fetter’s Range Rover. The transcript states flock has a 7% inaccuracy reading rate, and that when police receive no information or bad information, errors can cascade into unnecessary stops. It adds that exigent circumstances are usually emergencies and that Minnesota law allows warrantless monitoring or tracking via automated license plate readers only under exigent circumstances. The ACLU of Minnesota is tracking misuses of surveillance technology, including officers using alerts to stalk romantic interests. In this case, flock told the outlet that alerts should be treated as investigative leads and that officers should independently verify license plates, vehicle details, and surrounding circumstances before taking enforcement action. The transcript concludes with a separate update: in Wisconsin, Milwaukee detective Tehranji Chapman was accused of misusing the department’s flock system, allegedly tracking a victim’s car nearly two dozen times for personal reasons. He is charged with misconduct in public office and misuse of a GPS device.

Speaker 0 asserts that illegal immigrants are using Meta's Facebook to buy fake IDs and Social Security cards, access human smuggling services, and illegally work for Uber, DoorDash, and Instacart through online flea markets. Key examples and claims: - A page titled “obtain your license to drive from The United States here” advertises multiple fake driver’s licenses in several videos, alongside fake Social Security cards and even credit scores. The page claims the IDs can pass an authenticity check and can pass under a black light, revealing a hologram security feature typically applied to real government-issued driver’s licenses. Fake licenses are advertised for every state, and the page owner can create an ID for any required state; instructions were provided on what information would be needed. - This page is described as one of many across the US advertising the same service. - Variations exist for obtaining work: ads on Facebook pages promoting activation or rental of Uber Eats, DoorDash, or Instacart accounts. Migrants can buy an already activated food delivery account or rent one from another user. - A woman posted an image reading “rent account for DoorDash” in Spanish; she stated the rental price as $500. Alongside a driver’s license and Social Security number, a bank account is also needed to start a food delivery account, and bank accounts can also be rented. On a Latinos in the Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, and Brooklyn page, someone is advertised renting out a bank account for $25 a week. - Before migrants can access illegal work, they must enter the country. Facebook allegedly allows advertisements of human smuggling services. A page titled “Coyote five zero two” has almost 100,000 followers and regularly posts videos of large groups of migrants walking through and being smuggled through Mexico; comments suggest they can be brought over from Mexico into the US within twenty minutes, with smugglers offering faster and cheaper options. - A page named “Flea Market of Phoenix” posted a smuggling video showing migrants climbing over the border wall. The page has over 72,000 followers. After inquiries, the author described services as “El Brinco” (the jump) and stated his service would be fast, easy, and secure, sending two videos: the original ad of smugglers hoisting a ladder and another showing a trail to get over from Mexico to the US in thirty minutes or less. In further messages, the smuggler discussed pricing: $7,500 per person, plus a $1,000 per person finder’s fee for referrals. - The narrator notes that creating or obtaining fake identification or smuggling a person across the border would typically be a felony, and working illegally would risk deportation. Nonetheless, Meta is described as allowing this illegal activity to take place on Facebook daily, with online flea markets found in cities and states across the US, even in places without sanctuary laws for illegal immigrants.

A few weeks earlier, using a commercial search engine, John Gaines and 404 Media were able to locate administration interfaces for dozens of Flock Safety cameras. The number of exposed interfaces quickly grew to nearly 70. The footage and data were not encrypted, and there was no username or password required. The cameras were public-facing and could be accessed without expertise; viewers could view individual people, vehicles, and activities from the last 31 days either live or by selecting archived footage, similar to browsing on-demand video. Live streams could be opened in VLC or cast to a television. The transcript states that modifying the cameras is illegal, but that the access allowed deletion of video footage or evidence via a button, with visibility into where evidence files were located on the file system and access to hashes and signatures. Many devices were described as familiar Falcon cameras, alongside a majority of Phlox “Condor” cameras designed to detect and track people. These Condor cameras were described as PTZ (pan/tilt/zoom) cameras using AI to zoom in and follow people automatically. In the process of verifying vulnerabilities, examples of what could be observed included: a family in a North Carolina Lowe’s parking lot loading an infant and merchandise; cross-referencing license plate information with the ParkMobile data breach to identify where stored items might be kept; a man leaving a house in the morning in New York; a woman jogging alone on a Georgia forest trail with multiple cameras; and a series of events including rollerblading where the AI zoomed in, and then watching related rollerblading content on a phone. The transcript also describes watching a couple arguing at a street market in Atlanta. It further claims that the subjects were not anonymous: within two minutes using open-source intelligence and a commercial facial recognition engine, one person was said to have just finished medical school, another was said to be dealing with chronic irritable bowel syndrome, and additional details were described, including that the couple had a baby the previous year, had a concerning debt-to-income ratio, and traveled about 45 minutes from their suburban address to attend church in Atlanta before checking out the market and buying a sweater. The transcript also describes observing an Iowa law enforcement and ambulance escorting a man having a mental health crisis, stating this was possible because the Cedar Rapids Police Department maintains a public database of every emergency call and daily arrest reports with names, addresses, ages, and genders. Finally, it describes an exposed Flock Safety camera permanently pointed at a playground near the Bay Area in California, openly and publicly broadcasting live and archived video of young children playing unattended. The transcript recounts an emotional moment of watching a man swinging in an empty park, connects it to the Hawthorne effect (behavior changing when people know they are observed), and argues that mass surveillance deters not only crime-related behavior but also escapism needed for personal growth and self-expression.

The speaker says the placement of a “flock camera” is especially suspicious because it is positioned in front of an outdoor store that sells guns. The speaker argues that placing a surveillance camera at a gun store could capture people walking through the door, catalog them, and monitor what is happening. Although the cameras are presented as license plate readers, the speaker claims this location suggests a different purpose. After screenshotting and zooming in, the speaker says the camera is mounted on the opposite side of a pole, so it is facing directly toward the building’s door. Based on this, the speaker concludes that the camera is not reading license plates and instead is documenting who is entering and leaving the store.

In China, there are 700 million cameras as part of a mass surveillance program. These cameras use facial recognition and body movements to identify individuals. They are linked to China's social credit system, where not following rules results in losing social credit points. This can lead to consequences like higher mortgage rates, taxes, slower internet, and expensive public transport. So, if you're in China, think twice before breaking any rules because you are being watched and will face consequences.

Automotive journalist Joel Fetter’s stop by Plymouth police became a case study in how automated license plate reader technology can misidentify people. Fetter said that after leaving Kohl’s in Plymouth, he saw four police cars surrounding him with lights and sirens while he was boxed in and pinned in. He followed officers’ orders, including answering whether he was armed, and officers kept their hands on their holsters without drawing weapons. Officers eventually told Fetter the reason for the stop: his license plate was registered as stolen. Fetter said he had enough documentation to convince them it was not stolen and learned he had been on their radar for a while. Plymouth police described receiving a list of vehicle plates placed on the Flock system on June 26 and June 28, including on the day they surrounded him. Reporting described how Flock operates through tens of thousands of cameras and license plate readers. The company reported that 20 billion vehicles pass its cameras every month and that its readers accurately capture 93% of license plates. Plymouth was described as having 15 intersections with Flock cameras, including one that tracked Fetter into the Kohl’s parking lot. Even when the system reads a plate correctly, human error was cited as a factor, including a mismatch where Fetter’s plate was identified as “3410 DTM,” while the “Flock” picked up “34 DTM,” with a “10” not appearing to matter. Police believed someone in Los Angeles originally reported a plate missing with different small numbers where the “10” was on the Range Rover. The transcript also noted that Flock’s 7% inaccurate reading rate can result in about 1.4 billion instances per month when police get no information or bad information. Misuse of surveillance technology was described by the ACLU of Minnesota as including officers using alerts to stalk romantic interests. In this case, Flock told Fox 9 that incidents like this are taken seriously and that alerts should be treated as investigative leads, with officers independently verifying license plates, vehicle details, and surrounding circumstances before enforcement action. The transcript referenced legal concerns as well, describing arguments that tracking without a warrant would be unlawful absent exigent circumstances and that exigent circumstances are usually emergencies. The overall message emphasized that even innocent people can become caught in surveillance systems, and that the ability of these technologies to amplify human error can lead to stops regardless of whether someone is doing something wrong.

The transcript covers a wave of community pushback against surveillance and data-center developments, highlighting how residents are challenging authorities and big tech projects in their towns. - Surveillance cameras (Flock) controversy: The piece opens with cases suggesting that what’s marketed as public safety can be misused. A poster mentions Brandon Upchurch, whose license plate 7 was misread as 2 by flock cameras, leading to a police stop at gunpoint, a K-9 release, an arrest, and jail for a crime that didn’t exist. Andrew Kaufman notes flock cameras are being destroyed so fast that police in Kentucky are withholding their locations after the devices were released and promptly destroyed. The argument is that communities don’t want to be monitored and should have right to privacy; Flock cameras are going up across towns often without public input. In Pine Plains, New York, a resident saw a flock contractor install 12 cameras without town-board approval; the cameras were not installed, but the incident exposed contract-authorization confusion. The takeaway is to stay vigilant, talk to neighbors, attend town meetings, and make clear that surveillance is not desired. - Data centers: widespread, rapid pushback across multiple communities. The broader thrust is that communities are resisting data centers due to concerns about power, water use, land, privacy, and local impacts. - Utah – Provo data center rejection: Robert Bryce reports that Provo, Utah rejected a data center project, citing no city interest and concerns about power demand. He notes 53 data-center rejections or restrictions in the U.S. in 2026 so far (more than all of 2025). The proposed load was initially five megawatts, potentially up to 50 megawatts, which would strain the Utah Municipal Power Agency’s 415-megawatt capacity. - Additional examples of pushback: A video from New Jersey shows hundreds of New Brunswick residents celebrating a protest that led to the plans being canceled. Stark County, Indiana, enacted a twelve-month moratorium on data-center construction after sustained community pressure; a public meeting featured residents opposing the project and some calling for a total ban. Northwest Indiana residents voiced alarm about Big Tech’s data-center incursions and the AI agenda, arguing it would not benefit them and would affect electricity costs. In several counties (Indiana, Georgia, Missouri, Illinois, and beyond), moratorium measures or restrictions were adopted to pause or ban new proposals, with claims that capacity issues and local concerns justify stopping projects. - Apex, North Carolina: Over 100 Apex residents packed a town hall to oppose a data center proposal, citing strained power grid, massive water usage, wildlife disruption, and industrial noise. A community organizer, Melissa Ripper, led the Protect Wake County Coalition; Natelli Investment withdrew its applications, described as a “small victory.” - Tucson: Community members organized to reject a data center proposed by Amazon, citing drought and water-use concerns; the video emphasizes that Tucson became the first city to reject a massive data center proposal due to a large local uprising and distrust of assurances about water reclamation. - Kentucky landowners’ stand against offers: Ida Huddleston and her daughter Delsia Bear rejected multimillion-dollar offers from an anonymous tech company to build a data center on their land. Huddleston declined $60,000 per acre for 71 acres; Bear declined $48,000 per acre for 463 acres. The company behind the project has not been revealed, which adds to residents’ concerns about transparency. The proposed site is Big Pond Pike in Mason County, with claims the project would create 400 full-time jobs and more than 1,500 construction jobs, though Bear says many jobs may not materialize. - Closing sentiment: The speaker argues that “they simply cannot pull the wool over the eyes of a country folk,” noting the daughter’s rejection of $22,000,000 and Ida Huddleston’s insistence on staying put to protect her community, underscoring a broader theme of local resilience and community solidarity against large-scale, opaque projects.

Historically, the speaker says they stay out of the city and the city stays out of their business, but they received a ticket from an AI red light camera the city considers “necessary infrastructure.” The speaker claims the alleged incident occurred in Seminole, Alabama, and argues that they could not have been in two places at once. They say the “only logical conclusion” is that they were not there and claim this type of enforcement has been deemed unconstitutional because it “unduly shifts the burden of proof” to the vehicle owner to prove innocence rather than the state proving guilt, resulting in the speaker being “guilty by default” and convicted by a computer program. They compare this process to typical red-light enforcement, saying that usually the issue is resolved by a police officer pulling someone over and witnessing the driver in the vehicle. The speaker says the AI camera performs no driver verification. They then describe what they call the hoops required to obtain “constitutionally mandated due process,” including an “Automated Enforcement Division” (AED), described as a private company in Orlando, owned by another corporation, “Novoa Global,” owned by Carlos Hofstedt, a “Chilean Swedish millionaire.” The speaker claims the process involves private parties and that DMV records and personal registration information are accessible by a foreign actor. They say AED sends paperwork and that, to fight the ticket, they cannot simply request a hearing through a police department or courthouse. Instead, they claim the process requires going through Carlos’s company and website, printing and filling out the required form with enough information “to take out a home loan,” having it notarized, mailing it to Carlos in Orlando, and waiting for someone to provide information about a hearing. The speaker calls this an undue burden to begin seeking due process, while paying is portrayed as easy. They add that PPD does not accept cash and “Carlos” does not accept cash, and they cite 31 USC 5103, claiming that all U.S. currency and coins must be accepted for government obligations, including fines and fees. They conclude that the system violates constitutional due process and federal law by not accepting U.S. currency to satisfy a government action. They end by saying they will become a more frequent voice “working to expose frauds and petty tyrants.”

Don't get publicly shamed in China for jaywalking. It's serious there.

Speaker 0: Hey, what's up? We're in Virginia right now. Check this out. I'm gonna roll up the window. Hold on. Slow down. I need to capture this. I don't care. Look. Look. Look. I wish I could see the driver, but I won't approach them. Anyway, this is crazy.

The speaker first assumes the device is a Flock Safety camera, but says it is not. They describe it as a surveillance camera used by local governments and law enforcement. The speaker claims law enforcement uses and hides these cameras by disguising them inside utility-related enclosures, including adding “fake electrical logos” to boxes so they appear to be electrical or utility infrastructure. The speaker characterizes the devices as covert pole cameras used to monitor the public. They point out an example of “fake and repurposed meter boxes” attached to utility poles. The speaker then references reviewing the video again, stating that when the footage is pulled forward, it shows a fake utility box connected to a pole.

Speaker rents a car for repairs and asserts, 'These new cars are cell phone towers. That's what that is right there. See that?' and, 'you can't turn them off.' They suggest buying an old car to avoid being blasted with radio frequencies the entire time checked out, like a cell phone tower while you're driving around. 'So when they ask where all the chat GPT information is coming from, guess what? Here you go.' They mention 'GSR speed assist app.' 'This tracks your speed so that Google gets your information the entire time,' and claim, 'Google knows and they can get send you a ticket.' Finally, 'In the newer cars, you're not allowed to turn this LTE off. You can turn off Bluetooth and Wi Fi, but you can't turn off your car being a cell phone.'

UK police are using drones to catch dangerous drivers by tracking speed and checking insurance, MOT, and road tax. This is being trialed in Devon and Cornwall to reduce road fatalities. Public concerns about driver distraction have been raised. If successful, drones will be used nationwide.