reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @s2_underground
@s2_underground - S2 Underground
No, We're Not Doing This. https://t.co/oENr9gpgao
Video Transcript AI Summary
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.”
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: A couple of weeks ago, the chief strategy officer at Flock, the infamous surveillance company, contacted me on X, because I called him a tyrant in one of his posts. At the time, I didn't really think much of my own comment, though I certainly stand by it, and I did not notice his message at the time, but I saw it two days ago. And though I do not reply to messages like this, I thought I'd strike while the iron was hot, because this certainly struck me the wrong way, and I wrote a public rebuttal, which you can read on my Twitter page if you want. Many of you know that I have tried to reduce unsolicited opinion on things like this for a while, but this guy pissed me off, so now you get the old S2 and I'm not going to let this one slide. If you have not done so, I would encourage you to read my short response on X, which sums up my own concerns regarding this technology. But since many of you asked, if you will permit me for a moment, I will expand on the concerns a little bit more so that we can maybe have a different perspective on what is really going on here. And first of all, let's take a timeout. As of two days ago, I have been doing this for six years. So for anyone out there who has been following me for all this time, the OG crew, you guys ask yourself, why is S2 so upset about this? Why this issue? Of all things, and why now? I do not want you to agree with me just based on, trust me bro, I've spent years trying to discourage that actively. All I request is for you to pause and consider why I might be so concerned about this. Is it just because I hate this one company, or is there something else going on here? What do I know? Could it possibly be because I'm not reacting to what we see right now, but thinking forward to what is coming next? Just food for thought. I could fill an entire miniseries documenting my concerns, but for everyone's sake, I will keep it brief. My chief concern is not a camera, or even a network of cameras. it is that we have quietly allowed a national intelligence collection network the likes the world has never seen before to pop up in the United States, and there is not only active deceit being used by this company, but they are steamrolling any opposition to their actions. You see, the flock cameras are a good analog for a lot of larger problems. It's certainly not just about one company. When Edward Snowden leaked the PRISM project years ago and was exonerated by the courts, which said that the programs he leaked were in fact illegal, the result of that was that many people generally know that they are now being spied on, just parenthetically or generally speaking, but beyond that, nobody really seemed to care in the long run. Or maybe they thought there was nothing they could do about it, so why worry about it? When you log onto social media, you cannot see a little FBI logo on the corner of your screen. When you scan a bunch of bananas at the grocery store, the CIA's logo does not appear on the screen to tell you that your purchase has been monitored. You know generally that you are being watched. Logically, you know this, but you don't really feel it. It's not a part of your existence. A flock camera, however, is a physical object. It is a monument to the National Intelligence Collection apparatus and it's planted on your child's playground, outside your bedroom window, and up and down your street. Driving your newborn back from the hospital, looking forward to a new era of happiness with your family. Flock is there, watching. Your child's first words will probably be recorded by a flock camera. Teaching your son how to ride a bike on a quiet summer night, Flock's gaze lingers on your child, scanning every facial feature. These are the concerns that nobody thinks about when gaslighting and complacency has become the normal American lifestyle. And for those who think that all of this animosity toward Flock is misplaced when really we should be concerned about not just Flock but other things, you're certainly right. Flock is not the only company doing this. Alexa is recording your living room right now and you've probably known about that for years. difference with flock is that you are not getting anything in return even the claims of public safety are dubious at best you don't even get your bread and circus this device is planted in your world just to monitor you you might say but what about regular security cameras aren't there concerns there too yes there sure are but the concerns are much much different Say, for instance, you have a children's playground and there is a security camera pointed at the jungle gym. If it's a public park, we need to find out who owns that camera. Chances are it will probably be the parks department or maybe the city. And usually there is a process for accountability there. However hard it might be and however much government red tape might be involved, there still is a process. You can go to a city council meeting, you can raise awareness, and you can demand accountability. Whether you get it or not, well, that depends on the situation and the circumstances, but generally speaking, you have something to work from. It's the same difference between a company who makes a product and they have their customer service in the U.S. versus overseas. With a domestic phone number and a domestic American mailing address in your local area, you have a lot more options for accountability. Also, chances are the minimum wage employee sitting in the Parks Department office probably doesn't pump that data feed into a centralized federal database. I mean, this might be a false assumption now, but you get the idea. The DVR machine in the back room of a 7-Eleven is not exactly the same level of concern as having every single square inch in a city being logged in a data center where you literally have no idea where the data is going. It is absolutely true that surveillance is a spectrum, and perspective matters. In many cases, we want cameras on our streets, and in many cases, we want them to be owned by private business owners that can get footage out to the public before anyone with power has a chance to delete the tapes, if you know what I mean. But at a certain point, we go too far, and in the opinion of nearly everyone, Flock has gone too far. They started right out of the gate on a footing of deceit, and they have never once actually followed through on their claims of transparency. Saying you are transparent is not the same as being transparent. Of course, I know that this debate is nuanced. The chief argument right now, used by the pro-surveillance factions and useful idiots who support not just Flock, but the entire intelligence apparatus, is that, well, you just don't like Flock, or you never had a problem with them before, or why are you now just getting upset? Well, the rebuttal to that is pretty simple. I don't like any company or entity that is engaging in similar practices. Flock only gets this attention because they have gone above and beyond in using subterfuge to achieve their goals, and they shirk providing answers at every single possible opportunity. They call the American people terrorists for wanting to know where flock cameras are located, but those same flock cameras can know where you are at all times. That is the act of a hostile adversary, and there is no other way to put it. As for the timing, Flock has been concerning for a long time. However, these concerns get dialed up to 11 because they are absolutely sprinting to get these sensors in place and embedded in infrastructure before anyone notices. If someone cannot understand how we might not be so concerned about one company with 100 cameras and one company with 83,000 cameras, well, I can't really help you. Scale is the problem there. Once the internet started looking into what Flock has done, we learn more, and the sunlight shown on the issue illuminates the scale of the problem. In short, we should have been concerned about this years ago, but now that we know how bad the problem really is, opposing this now is a better-late-than-never situation. So we know that this is a pretty hot-button topic, don't we? But what do these cameras actually do? Well, first of all, we need to change our vocabulary. These are not just cameras. In fact, I would argue that the camera portion of these sensors is probably the least important part of it. Flock calling these automated license plate readers is a huge lie by omission. Yes, these cameras can indeed log license plates, but that's not their primary function. Their purpose is to provide an electronic fingerprint of vehicles and people. To accomplish this, they of course have high resolution cameras and AI driven object detection. They scan the entire vehicle, not just getting the plate, but the color, any kind of defects in the vehicle, any kind of bumper stickers, the passengers in the vehicle to associate the face with the car that's driving it or the passengers. They're logging everything. cannot directly confirm if flock itself does this with every device so i will speak parenthetically and hypothetically to avoid getting in trouble but the technology does exist to conduct lidar scans of vehicles and also people which provide a more accurate dimensional map of whatever goes in front of the sensor in short it is possible that a lot of these cameras are providing high resolution 3d models of whatever goes in front of them certainly not all maybe not the ones that we can see Maybe the ones we can't see. Just speculating there. Unfortunately, because Flock has not entirely been forthcoming regarding what their sensor platforms actually do, and the technical specs of each individual device, where they're located, and what the internal sensors are, we have to make a best guess sometimes. And my personal opinion is that I think that these devices are doing more than what they say they are. There has always been a battle between liberty and safety, and a lot of police officers like the cameras that they have access to because of the capability that they provide in quickly catching criminals in some cases. Turns out, Flock also lies about that much of the time too, and because Flock has such an aversion to telling the truth, we cannot take anything they say at face value. They don't even want us knowing where these Flock cameras are located, much less what the guts of the insides look like. To be sure, a lot of the concerns we have with Flock are grounded in confirmed fact, not fiction, hyperbole, or emotion. Flock's entire business model is the complete opposite of transparency, and because of this extreme secrecy, we have to make educated guesses as to what they might be doing with this sensor network, and we have to take those theories and we have to investigate further. But that's not even the most important part. We have to be able to make decisions without knowing all of the information. My question for you is how much information do you need to make a decision about what this company is doing, the future of this technology, and how much of this technology you want outside your bedroom window? What happens when Flock suffers a data breach and the biometrics of your face are leaked to China? What happens if you're an American soldier whose face is now cataloged by Flock, a private company? And when combined with a previous breach from the Office of Personnel Management, a foreign adversary can cross-reference that data to now know where you live, your wife and children's names, and everything about you. What about the U.S. Air Force convoys moving nuclear weapons around the country? Flock is logging them and scanning those vehicles. And who's to say they can't sell that data to China? What about the presidential motorcade that drives by a Flock camera? Does Flock have the Bluetooth device ID of Barron Trump's cell phone? I don't know, but I'd say probably. What about the cameras that are logging cargo shipments onto military bases and noting the size and shape of those cargo shipments? Their cameras are high resolution enough to measure the suspension sag of vehicles. And using AI to determine the weight of that cargo combined with the general shape of a concealed object, they can probably get a lot of valuable data. Where it goes? Nobody knows. But hey, what about illegal immigrants or other criminals? Well, now that is a great question because Flock explicitly states that they do not work with ICE and they do not track illegal immigrants. This is a dead-to-rights confession that Flock picks and chooses which crimes they want to report to those who enforce the law. they are publicly cherry-picking which laws they decide are worth following. What if they decide to protect the identity of a bank robber, but if you wave an American flag or wear a certain color of hat, then you are public enemy number one. That is, of course, a hypothetical situation. But in that situation, how do we hold Flock accountable? That's the whole point. There is no way to hold them accountable because they are a private company. You would have to take them to court and sue them. But the only way you can sue them is to know that they've harmed you in some way. And since they are a private company, they are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. They don't have to tell you if they are spying on you, but their only customer is the government. So you get the worst of both worlds. You get the federal intelligence apparatus, but also not even the tiniest shred of accountability. Or even a process to get that accountability. Here's the thing. We don't actually have to let Flock explain themselves. I personally think that they had a good idea at first, and they could have been the next SpaceX of security and of catching criminals. They could have had a good thing. But no. They had to mess it up by instantly betraying trust. And because of that, I think we should make an example out of them. By bankrupting their company and hopefully motivating the next company, I'm looking at you, Axon, to maybe rethink their actions. We do not have to sit here and listen to this company at all. We can oppose them outright. We don't have to have good faith conversations with them if we're up for it. No, your only client is the government, and I am a taxpayer that pays your salary? You work for me, and you don't talk to me like you're an HR representative giving me a reprimand. You should be groveling down on your hands and knees begging the American people for your privilege to receive tax dollars. You do not get to treat the American people that way. That is the brutal honest truth here. Did we not learn from COVID and what people like this on all sides of the spectrum did during that time? You do not give these people one single inch. We must nip this in the bud right now. In that vein, what can we do beyond the obvious steps which are being undertaken around the country right now? I would remind us all that this is not just a meme, this is a whole-of-society approach. Not just pushing back against Flock, but against all of the other similar companies that are racing toward this dystopian future at breakneck pace. The very bare minimum that you can do right now is know where Flock cameras are located and do your part in logging them on the map. The D-Flock group has a website and a database for this, and they just launched an app too if I'm not mistaken. I would remind you though, using your smartphone in close proximity to a flock camera is a huge no-no. So just be aware of that. They're logging your Bluetooth device and they know that it is you, your Bluetooth ID from your phone that is next to a flock camera. So just know about that moving forward. This deflock database is also public. They have it on their GitHub as well. And I'm trying to figure out how I can pull it into my own maps as well just for informational purposes if that's allowed by the licensing I don't actually know but they are adding hundreds of cameras a day flock is and the people around this country are logging probably way more than that just trying to catch up to the ones that are already out all around the country so this database is changing quite quickly but again deflock can't recommend them enough they are trying to do the best they can and I think that's a good effort The next step is to educate your family. Most people are oblivious to what's going on around them. So something as simple as pointing out a flock camera every time you see one, that's probably going to be a good idea. You don't have to be super paranoid about it all the time. Of course, right? There's nuance to this and there's balance to life just in general. But if you're driving down the road, you can say, Hey, you know what that is? That's a flock camera. And there you go. There's your conversation starter. So starting the conversation is very, very important. And again, flock is not the end goal here. Flock is just the catalyst to get the conversation moving. Once people realize the insidious behavior that Flock has been engaging in over the years, maybe they're going to be more inclined to ask questions about other surveillance stuff that's going on in society that we don't know about maybe this is a good way to start talking about other technologies as well like the alexa in your living room or your smart tv or maybe the cell phone is in your pocket you see we can go a lot of different directions from this it's just that flock is such a perfect issue to start with because it is right there is in your community and this company has demonstrated that they are malign actors this leads into the next topic which is to start thinking about data security once again i'm not saying that i would recommend always carrying your phone around in a signal-blocking Faraday bag or to go out and outfit your whole wardrobe with anti-AI ball caps and clothing and stuff like that. I mean, you can if you want, but for most of us, this is just not feasible. We have to live daily life even under the umbrella of mass surveillance. We've been surveilled for 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 years by the federal government anyway, and it's going to be a hard sell to get people to realize that this is a clear and present danger, because a lot of people just have surveillance fatigue. So, start the conversation. Start thinking about data security. Now is the time to start these thought processes. If I needed to not be surveilled by Flock, How would I do that? That's all you gotta start with. The next thing you can do is be aware of what's next. This line of thinking is likely to encourage you to start researching Flock and similar adjacent technologies now that Flock is starting to expand to the use of drones. Instead of these rather nefarious looking black boxes on poles, within a couple of years a Flock drone is going to be hovering over your property and there's nothing you can do about it. or at least nothing I can encourage in the public forum, so I'll leave it there. The next thing you can do is political activism. If you are so inclined, engaging in political activism in your own way is the bare minimum. I know, everybody groans when we say go call your congressman because they think it does no good. Ladies and gentlemen, if a Taliban fighter can sit on a mountaintop in the Hindu Kush, high above the tree line, with a rusty AK and three rounds of ammunition in the magazine, He hasn't eaten in three days and he's been up there for weeks now, just waiting for the chance to pop off a single round at a helicopter flying miles away. If that guy can sit on that hilltop and be that dedicated to such a hopeless mission, then I think you can stop doom scrolling for five minutes to fill up the voicemail inbox of your congressman. Be polite and respectful because your phone calls are being logged and recorded. But make sure they know what you think about flock cameras and other similar technology. Think about it this way. Money talks and you have to leverage any advantage you have. And if the office staff of a politician is spending 80% of their day fielding and logging phone calls from constituents, that's time not spent talking to potential donors. You are not spamming your congressmen to get them to listen to you. You are spamming them because of the opportunity cost in dealing with you costs them time. Make them earn their paycheck or at least take up the time of the unpaid interns answering the phones. The final thing to think about is the carrot and the stick. We must hold people accountable, but we also must reward the good behavior too. For the towns and cities that decide that flock and other adjacent technologies are a bridge too far, we have to give them the good credit. You may not want to. I don't know of a single board of commissioners or a single city council anywhere in the country that is not filled with some of the most evil people on the face of the earth. But if they decide to vote to... Stop this flock stuff. to start pushing back against this surveillance effort then you have to reward them in some way if nothing more than just verbal praise and also if you are a police officer and your department uses flock you can decide whether or not to open up the laptop in your patrol car we are not asking you to make a big scene all we're asking you to do is be the good cop that we know you can be we are done with this era of low iq arguments against the police we're done with that stuff and you're not going to be able to associate a distaste for flock with the blue-haired freaks that have been throwing bricks at you for years it's not the same argument and you know it we are not the drug dealer who's trying to turn a speeding ticket into a felony most Americans are not like that and we're not like that either we do not want to alienate people in society who have the potential and the access to do good but we also don't want you to alienate us either you have to admit that it's a pretty screwed up world you know this better than anybody being on the inside good cops get fired for no reason because somebody screeched loud enough but the bad cops guess what they seem to stay on the roll no matter what technologies like flock encourage all cops to treat us like criminals and it encourages us to view our cops as wardens. And that is good for absolutely nobody on either side. That alone should be justification for removing them nationwide. When you turn the whole country into the Stanford Prison Experiment, very bad things happen to both sides and I do not want that. We know that the average beat cop has zero power to change this at the department level, but what you can do is push back wherever possible. And if you do that, it is our duty to back you up for doing the right thing. That responsibility extends to all of us. Remember the thousands of military service members? It was about 8,000 if I remember. who protested against the jab a few years ago, and in doing so they got separated from service? How many of you applauded them for doing so and said that that was the right thing to do? Now how many of you gave them a job after you encouraged them to quit because they were serving a tyrannical entity? It's the same thing now. If we want good cops, we have to support the ones that do the right thing. And right now, it seems like many cops who do the right thing eventually get fired. We have to remember that. No matter what we do, we have to get serious. We have to do everything within our rights as Americans to not just push back on these efforts, but also refuse to let people like this dictate what it means to be an American. For far too long, we have entertained the concept of reaching across the aisle to the point that we compromise our own beliefs by even having the argument in the first place. Mr. Radul Sidhu here is insinuating that we have to engage with them. No, we don't. I am an American, and it is my right to dislike you or your company for any reason whatsoever. I don't have to view you as an equal to me. I don't have to give you the talking stick, and I don't have to grant you any leeway to twist my words against me. We are done with the era of debates, at least with people like this. While it is instrumental to talk out these things amongst ourselves, we are not obligated to listen to the opinions of people who want to enslave us, or in some cases kill us for our views. Once you cross that line, as Flock has, we are done. And we're going to not just stop this discourse, but we're going to move it back in the other direction, towards something good. Even if we have to, for now, and while we still can, fight in the shade.
@s2_underground - S2 Underground
First of all no, we're not doing this. I do not answer DMs from a company that is trying to do damage control AFTER they have ruined the trust of Americans. I do not have "good faith" debates with people who want to enslave me in a fishbowl that they can monitor at all times. Guess what guys: We don't actually have to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, or engage in "good faith" debates with bad actors. I don't have to justify my concerns about Flock to anyone. But since this condescension pissed me off, I will respond publicly, since Flock seems to want to keep our voices in the shadows and out of the public eye. Note the argument: "You see, King George specifically authorized quartering troops among you, I don't know what you're complaining about it's ALL LEGAL". Well, golly gee guys, I guess it's all right then, they made it legal. That's exactly the problem. Notice how nobody has a problem with standard security cameras. Public security cameras are not the problem...directly pumping the feed of every square inch of the country into a centralized federal database is one HELL of a problem and we must do everything within our rights as Americans to push back against efforts like this, if we are to have a future as a nation. Flock, much like Palantir, took the decently good idea of improving security, and implemented it in the most cartoonishly evil way possible at nearly every single step. They are working directly for all levels of government....not the citizenry. They use subterfuge, legal technicalities, and every single trick in the book to put up hundreds of cameras every single day. They constantly mislead the public about what databases their sensors feed into, and who they sell the metadata to. They have so little oversight that it's laughable, and ALL oversight involves the classic case of "we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing". Flock has been caught lying MANY times, and misleading the public regarding what their cameras actually do. Newsflash...they don't just read license plates. They are also concealing which agencies purchase their data specifically so as to avoid getting warrants, and in doing so they have turned the ENTIRE COUNTRY into an open air prison....where THEY get to provide the intelligence data to those who enforce the laws as selectively as they please. And their defense for doing so? "Aww look at the cute puppy we rescued" or "We arrested one guy using our camera network, we're so AWESOME". You don't get to arrest one genuine criminal, and use that as justification to set up and entire Minority Report-esque surveillance system to surveil the entire country. You don't get to betray trust, and then be sad that people don't trust you. You don't get to cozy up to the boot of tyranny so much that you become the boot yourself, and then pretend to be just "one of the guys". We will not fall for this gaslighting, no matter how hard they try. For some reason, many people think that private companies can't be tyrants, which could not be further from the truth. At a certain point, a private company can be so heavily embedded within government, that they might as well BE the government. Except they are worse, because we don't even have the tiniest way to hold them accountable except for taking the billion-dollar company to court. That's my problem with Flock, Palantir, and pretty much every single other defense contractor in existence. I will NOT accept every single facet of my life being monitored, just in case a criminal commits a crime somewhere near me. I will NOT live in "ze pod", no matter which politician is in power, and I will not accept a future where people like this will dictate to me what my country should be.
