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.
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.
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.
Acidwolf, Human Action Network, FlexE and his wiki lists some more and might want to check here[0].
I don't remember what website it was (it's probably redacted anyways, but I'm sure he does and others do now) but I remember him once getting joking that someone uploaded his album before he could.
> The Flashbulb is good shit
For those interested, he has a wide range so it can change dramatically between handles and even within albums. For example look at the difference between Lawn Wake I, If Trees Could Speak, and Lucid Base II on Red Extensions of Me. His earlier work tends to be more glitch. (Acidwolf is less glitch but still trippy) But then gets more melodic like in Arboreal and Opus at the End of Everything. I'm pretty sure I've heard Tomorrow Untrodden (from Aboreal) in a car commercial some years ago (was it Undiscovered Colors?).
I'd recommend trying these. I doubt people will like all but I think these are all approachable and have good coverage.
- Terra Firma, on Terra Firma
- If Trees Could Speak, on Red Extensions
- Passage D, on Kirlian Selections
- Piano variant on Old Trees (Not on Spotify [1])
- Precipice, on Piety of Ashes
- Undiscovered Colors, on Arboreal
- Three Hundred CC, on Hardscrabble
- Dishevel, on Krilian Selections
- Coinage, is this even in an album?[2] Dude makes a fucking song out of dropping coins.
- Or watch what he does with a fucking straw...[3]
I've been listening to the guy for over a decade now and he keeps producing great stuff. I also suggest listening to full albums rather than on random.
Side note: he isn't anti-AI. As a ML researcher myself I actually generally like his takes. Use AI to better us, not replace us, not further harm (like Flock), and to make it an extension of us rather than to offload. There's a fuck ton of cool stuff that ML/AI can do and I'm really not sure why we're so hyper-fixated on having it create slop. But hey, I don't get the fixation with human generated slop either. There's two paths we can go with this technology. Either we can use it to drive costs down and produce lower quality stuff quicker or we can use it to make higher quality stuff at the same rate (there's a spectrum of course). I'm already frustrated by the low and declining quality of things, maybe we shouldn't just strap a jet engine to the train already moving that direction...
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
(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.
I have seen youtube videos saying that if you put some tape over your licence plates the cameras won't read them. I think it was tape to make a skateboard grip better.
>theoretically, that type of pattern could randomly show up if you were just driving through mud. Is it the intent that makes it illegal? Is it the presence of it that makes it illegal? If you have a certain amount of mud on your license plate and that cop doesn't likeyou, could he use this law and be a dick and put you in jail the same way that he would if you were driving with an open bottle of Absolut and swerving in and out of your lane?
Not only does he acknowledge intent is a thing, I think this is more a commentary on the ambiguity of the bill, which states:
>A person may not alter the original appearance of a vehicle registration certificate, license plate, temporary license plate, mobile home sticker, or validation sticker issued for and assigned to a motor vehicle or mobile home, whether by mutilation, alteration, defacement, or change of color or in any other manner.
The lack of the word "knowingly" makes it ambiguous whether intent matters. A person who drives with a plate covered in mud, bugs, or bird shit could be theoretically be charged by this law not because of intent to obscure it, but because of the person neglected their duty to keep the plate clear of obstructions so it could be read by these LPR cameras that infringe his Fourth Amendment right.
I'm sure theres a lot of other legal context and case law but laws shouldn't be written with loopholes or ambiguity like that in the first place.
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.
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.
>they simply use technology to automate handling with what they can see
A police dept with 500 employees can't see at 10000 places at once. So, it isn't "simply to automate".
It would be like saying that rifle is just a simple automation of how one can use a hammer to drive a nail into a victim, and thus if one is allowed to own/carry a hammer and nails then the one is allowed to own/carry a rifle.
>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?
> 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.
>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.
> 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.
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).
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.
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?
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”
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.
The reason I'm skeptical of this, in this particular case, is because the data here isn't actually owned by the police/government (I think?), it's owned by Flock. A department can search the data for given attributes, but I don't think they have the whole data set to provide as a response to a FOIA request in the first place.
I don't have a source on hand but I do remember seeing a recent case on this stuff that indicated that "even if they're paying Flock to store it, it's still the government's data"
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?
> 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
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?
Hmmm, I suppose "intent" is ambiguous since it covers more than one of these tiers:
1. I didn't notice there was anything different.
2. I noticed, but I didn't cause it.
3. I decided to alter it for a innocent reason.
4. I decided to alter it for a guilty reason.
You probably need a Florida lawyer for a high-certainty answer, but I suspect both 3 and 4 will be a violation.
If it were only 4, then it'd be a bit too easy to evade: "Oh, gee golly officer, I didn't know, I was just following that instasnaptok trend of putting glitter on it to make it pretty. The law doesn't say I can't make it fabulous."
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.
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?
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…
I think an always-installed bike rack is going to be the "safest" solution.
Here in Tennessee I'm also thinking about making a "frame" which extends out about 12 inches from the rear of the bumper, blocking aerial observation (but still in compliance with Tennessee law, "visible from rear at 100ft").
Our photo tickets aren't legally enforceable (across the entire state, except for automated school/bus citations), but the Flock cameras have really started being deployed over the past year.
Most of our new Flock cameras have additional security cameras prominently recording, nearby (like you'd see in a bigbox parking lot for security). I hope we can legislate these out of existance, pronto.
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.
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.
> 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".
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.
> 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 :)
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure how the cameras used to take pictures of car license plates so that the driver can be identified and required to pay a toll for use of the road, is meaningfully different than a camera used to take pictures of car license plates (and other things in the scene) for the purpose of detecting crime. It's still the government running a camera in public to take pictures of things, including cars with clearly-visible license plates, and then knowing that the car was at a specific location at a specific time.
> 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.
I mean, is it a problem if that's what I believe? In practice I'm not even getting "tracked". No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention.
In the off chance someone is looking up that information, it's probably a mistake (i.e. mistaken identity), and seeing where I've been will likely clear that up.
And in the infinitesimal chance it doesn't, I imagine motive would be really hard to establish.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have proper oversight, strong data controls, etc, but I'm not opposed to this kind of tracking on principal alone. It does have real benefits!
But personally, seeing and meeting the kinds of people who oppose this kind of tracking _on principal alone_, I'm immediately suspicious of all of them. But that's definitely bias on my part: I've known many folks in this category from the world of crypto, and 90+% of them are just trying to avoid taxes and/or scrutiny of accountability for whatever scam they're running.
> No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention.
Want to spend an hour on the side of the highway while the police search your vehicle?
> No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention.
What makes you so incredibly sure that you will never in your lifetime do a single thing that would ever draw this kind of attention, no matter who is pulling the levers of power?
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.
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.
A license plate is just a start. Flock’s Vehicle Fingerprint® 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."
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.
“… any substance, reflective matter, illuminated device, spray coating, covering, or other material that can be dynamically altered so that it interferes with the legibility or detectability of a vehicle/license plate pair (“fingerprint”) – or with the ability of a device to determine the vehicle fingerprint and to record it … shall be illegal.”
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.
Intentionally modifying a license plate in order to prevent it from being read read by a very specific privately held company's cameras that then sells that info to whomever will pay.
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.
> What's stopping someone from just adding an additional IR light to those enclosures
Nothing.
> Couldn't you just slap an additional bright enough IR light in that makes it impossible to even see the plate clearly through cameras?
You could: but it will only work at night (and even then, I don't know if the amount of light you could concentrate in that area would be enough to blow out letters), because all of these cameras have switchable IR cutoff filters.
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!
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.
I just imagine the most hilarious form of this idea being a panel that lays behind the plate that is part of the car. The panel containing an array of IR leds that flood everything behind the car with invisible light. Imagine going out side, seeing nothing, but you pop open your phone's camera app and everything is illuminated for some reason. Would be wild.
Edit: I have no concept of what camera sensors are doing these days.
> Kids used to be taught gun safety in public school
The problem is that this normalizes the behavior, something that a specific political sect (coincidentally overlapping heavily with those employed in education) desperately wants to avoid.
Which is somewhat odd to me. Why wouldn't they want to normalize and emasculate gun usage? That seems to be the general playbook of the US Left to change behavior. Of all of the big Democrat vs Republican wedge issues, gun rights seems like one that is being approached entirely wrong.
> Why wouldn't they want to normalize and emasculate gun usage?
Because it isn't emasculating - it's very much empowering - and anyone who has ever fired a gun or read a history book written in the last 200 years can't be deluded into thinking otherwise.
Im not saying firing a weapon is emasculating. I'm saying you can reduce the toxic masculinity aspect of gun ownership through cultural enforcement. Safe gun use can be taught strictly with respect for the dangers of mishandling guns (even intentionally) enforced.
In other words, make gun ownership normal, understood, and uncool.
It's not that helpful. What stops this technocratic authoritarianism is shutting down the electrical grid. If that happens the surveillance state dies instantly and all of the top echelon becomes vulnerable again. They live in a house of straw.
Why are you calling the administration ending research funding, undermining education, and hiring media sycophants into cabinet positions as "technocratic". I can't think of a less technocratic US Presidency.
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.
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.
I think you have too much faith in humanity. It had never happened in Tanzania until recently. And I think you're right about them being initially unarmed, but most people do have guns at home.
I'm depending on Americans to have a limit to their willingness to harm other citizens.
I know that hasn't been much in evidence lately, and I know that American humans are no more special than any other humans.
But we're starting from a very different place than, e.g., Tanzania.
I predict reversion to the mean, not revolution. (It can be argued that what we're seeing right now is the reversion to the mean, which is a whole different cart of apples.)
But later on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge_standoff happened. It didn't end that well for Randy Weaver, but he did get to kill a US Marshal without jail time, and they are not happy to try that again.
Kent State was a very different America, a long time ago, and the reaction was immense and swift.
I won't argue that there will not be isolated incidents of horror (too late). I argue that the practice will not take hold and become normalized.
If a new Kent State happens, I depend on Americans to respond immensely and swiftly again. I'd prefer a catalyzing event without loss of life, of course.
>Kent State was a very different America, a long time ago, and the reaction was immense and swift.
Was it? An American political culture dominated by Christians and war hawks paranoid about the influence of "cultural marxism" in academia and whipped up into a moral panic about the "degeneracy" of feminism and homosexuality, with pervasive censorship of criticism of American foreign policy and the deployment of militarized police in the streets doesn't seem very different than what we have now.
>If a new Kent State happens, I depend on Americans to respond immensely and swiftly again.
I think you deeply misunderstand which side of the fence American gun owners and militias tend to be on and just how normalized the rhetoric and expectation of violence has already gotten. If a new Kent State happens they'll say "that was for Charlie Kirk" and dance in the streets.
These are all important points, which I can't refute individually.
I do still believe that the whole is less than the sum of the parts, though. The batshit crazy doesn't have critical mass generally, but certainly does in some areas. If things get ugly, I expect it to be localized and temporary. I hope to be right. :-/
If the fascists do outnumber you and like minded people who disagree with them, then sadly your views are just the minority, and there's nothing to do besides leave the country. But that is a strong claim, it requires that >50% of Americans are fascists or are neutral to them.
Not all citizens are brownshirts. The fascists are more mobilized. But they are, and always will be, a small minority. They might still dominate situations or periods, though.
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.
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.
80% of modern Americans would not survive and successfully complete a month-long walk of hundreds of miles.
Add in the logistical challenges, necessary supplies, and secrecy ... and of course the possibility of harsh seasonal weather ... and I think we're talking about a 5% survival rate, at the absolute max.
People might think they are more likely to be in that 5% than their neighbors, but I suspect most of the dangers are random or universal enough that this would not be true. Fortune favors the prepared, certainly. But that only gets you so far.
There is no viable bug out strategy, after a certain point (and that point is far from today, and will likely never be reached).
But there are midterm elections, and those are important.
I agree that having a plan and a bag raises your rate. I just think the variables outside of your control, once your scenario starts unfolding in earnest, are vastly larger than those inside it.
But again, I don't think it matters. The current insanity has an expiration date, and I think the useful calculation is to ask yourself whether "badly damaged but slowly recovering to a new but lesser plateau" is where you want to spend the next couple decades, or not.
If that's an acceptable compromise for the benefits of staying, then stay. If it is not, then get out now while it's easy. I've done this math for myself, and it was a very close call, but I'm in a highly advantaged physical location. Most people are not.
[Edit: And, I reserve the right (ha) to make a new decision at any time I feel necessary. To that end, I have arrangements, and plans, but I have not yet packed a bag. :) ]
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I realized just how much of a geek and obsessive he is when I watched a video about his analysis and evaluation of reverb effects.
Brief aside.
> “…his YouTube content is fire.”
I’ve been living under a rock and am thrilled to read an unironic example of our living language.
My context: https://youtu.be/ID1jre5kmUI?si=xb8I818WNPp8fUiJ&t=75
sighs in "tired of my culture being coopted and watered down" :/
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.
Was there a video in particular? I admire Benn but haven’t seen any of his videos on the YouTube algorithm in particular.
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.
He’s also The Flashbulb. Probably some other aliases, too, idk. But The Flashbulb is good shit.
Acidwolf, Human Action Network, FlexE and his wiki lists some more and might want to check here[0].
I don't remember what website it was (it's probably redacted anyways, but I'm sure he does and others do now) but I remember him once getting joking that someone uploaded his album before he could.
For those interested, he has a wide range so it can change dramatically between handles and even within albums. For example look at the difference between Lawn Wake I, If Trees Could Speak, and Lucid Base II on Red Extensions of Me. His earlier work tends to be more glitch. (Acidwolf is less glitch but still trippy) But then gets more melodic like in Arboreal and Opus at the End of Everything. I'm pretty sure I've heard Tomorrow Untrodden (from Aboreal) in a car commercial some years ago (was it Undiscovered Colors?).I'd recommend trying these. I doubt people will like all but I think these are all approachable and have good coverage.
I've been listening to the guy for over a decade now and he keeps producing great stuff. I also suggest listening to full albums rather than on random.Side note: he isn't anti-AI. As a ML researcher myself I actually generally like his takes. Use AI to better us, not replace us, not further harm (like Flock), and to make it an extension of us rather than to offload. There's a fuck ton of cool stuff that ML/AI can do and I'm really not sure why we're so hyper-fixated on having it create slop. But hey, I don't get the fixation with human generated slop either. There's two paths we can go with this technology. Either we can use it to drive costs down and produce lower quality stuff quicker or we can use it to make higher quality stuff at the same rate (there's a spectrum of course). I'm already frustrated by the low and declining quality of things, maybe we shouldn't just strap a jet engine to the train already moving that direction...
[0] https://www.discogs.com/artist/67855-The-Flashbulb
[1] https://bennjordan.bandcamp.com/album/old-trees-1999-2011
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyIu2-dSNyY
[3] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZLPCGEbHoDI
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.
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.
> 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
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.
(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...
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.
That makes sense.
I suspect it gives cover for the ones that do it on purpose.
I have seen youtube videos saying that if you put some tape over your licence plates the cameras won't read them. I think it was tape to make a skateboard grip better.
>he doesn't seem to realize intent is a thing
at 2m9s [0],
>theoretically, that type of pattern could randomly show up if you were just driving through mud. Is it the intent that makes it illegal? Is it the presence of it that makes it illegal? If you have a certain amount of mud on your license plate and that cop doesn't likeyou, could he use this law and be a dick and put you in jail the same way that he would if you were driving with an open bottle of Absolut and swerving in and out of your lane?
Not only does he acknowledge intent is a thing, I think this is more a commentary on the ambiguity of the bill, which states:
>A person may not alter the original appearance of a vehicle registration certificate, license plate, temporary license plate, mobile home sticker, or validation sticker issued for and assigned to a motor vehicle or mobile home, whether by mutilation, alteration, defacement, or change of color or in any other manner.
The lack of the word "knowingly" makes it ambiguous whether intent matters. A person who drives with a plate covered in mud, bugs, or bird shit could be theoretically be charged by this law not because of intent to obscure it, but because of the person neglected their duty to keep the plate clear of obstructions so it could be read by these LPR cameras that infringe his Fourth Amendment right.
I'm sure theres a lot of other legal context and case law but laws shouldn't be written with loopholes or ambiguity like that in the first place.
[0] https://youtu.be/qEllWdK4l_A?t=413 [1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/253/BillText/File...
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.
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.
>they simply use technology to automate handling with what they can see
A police dept with 500 employees can't see at 10000 places at once. So, it isn't "simply to automate".
It would be like saying that rifle is just a simple automation of how one can use a hammer to drive a nail into a victim, and thus if one is allowed to own/carry a hammer and nails then the one is allowed to own/carry a rifle.
>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?
> 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.
>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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> This is about a database of collected data on you that can be searched by anyone. ANYONE.
Except this part isn't true?
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...
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?
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”
If that's not what he meant, then maybe he shouldn't have said "anyone" twice? With the caps for emphasis, even.
It was at least, because of shitty security practices.
The data is available by FOIA.
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.
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.
I don't think this is true. Do you have some sources for this?
In Washington it is true: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/washington-court-rules...
Neat, thanks for the source!
Journalists do this all the time. We used to get big 9-track reels of data where I worked.
The reason I'm skeptical of this, in this particular case, is because the data here isn't actually owned by the police/government (I think?), it's owned by Flock. A department can search the data for given attributes, but I don't think they have the whole data set to provide as a response to a FOIA request in the first place.
I don't have a source on hand but I do remember seeing a recent case on this stuff that indicated that "even if they're paying Flock to store it, it's still the government's data"
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
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?
Congress could fix that. It could even be enshrined in the constitution. Maybe we should vote for people who would do that.
> 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
> 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?
Hmmm, I suppose "intent" is ambiguous since it covers more than one of these tiers:
1. I didn't notice there was anything different.
2. I noticed, but I didn't cause it.
3. I decided to alter it for a innocent reason.
4. I decided to alter it for a guilty reason.
You probably need a Florida lawyer for a high-certainty answer, but I suspect both 3 and 4 will be a violation.
If it were only 4, then it'd be a bit too easy to evade: "Oh, gee golly officer, I didn't know, I was just following that instasnaptok trend of putting glitter on it to make it pretty. The law doesn't say I can't make it fabulous."
I think you're right about 3 and 4.
I would guess that 2 would also be adequate, and 1 would require a positive defense.
I fear that there's enough ambiguity to hang any disfavored violator, though.
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.
This is fascism, the rules coudlnt be clearer. Enemies bad, friends good. You dont need laws or logic for that.
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?
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…
Sorry for the terrible source, but I always admired the tactical leaf;
https://nypost.com/2022/11/26/unbe-leaf-able-scofflaws-dodge...
I think an always-installed bike rack is going to be the "safest" solution.
Here in Tennessee I'm also thinking about making a "frame" which extends out about 12 inches from the rear of the bumper, blocking aerial observation (but still in compliance with Tennessee law, "visible from rear at 100ft").
Our photo tickets aren't legally enforceable (across the entire state, except for automated school/bus citations), but the Flock cameras have really started being deployed over the past year.
Most of our new Flock cameras have additional security cameras prominently recording, nearby (like you'd see in a bigbox parking lot for security). I hope we can legislate these out of existance, pronto.
Just don't keep the can in your boot, uh I mean trunk - plausible deniability would go-out-the-window...
Just use natural mud
Can I hide it in a boot in a trunk in the frunk?
> Apparently, they can be a felony in some cases.
Which statute is applicable here?
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.
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.
> 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".
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.
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.
> 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 :)
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.
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.
Yeah. People getting off on technicalities is the reason legalese exists.
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.
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.
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.
Need I remind you, 007, that you have a licence to kill, not to break the traffic laws
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.
Leaves are not ferromagnetic
Fake leaves, as OP said, probably are.
https://fallplate.com/en/product/fallplate-kit/
In my town some of the police cars have darkly tinted plate covers.
I'm not sure how the cameras used to take pictures of car license plates so that the driver can be identified and required to pay a toll for use of the road, is meaningfully different than a camera used to take pictures of car license plates (and other things in the scene) for the purpose of detecting crime. It's still the government running a camera in public to take pictures of things, including cars with clearly-visible license plates, and then knowing that the car was at a specific location at a specific time.
> 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
> 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.
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.
> Not to drive like an ass. I don't.
Color me skeptical
This is the physical manifestation of "I've got nothing to hide, so you can track me".
I mean, is it a problem if that's what I believe? In practice I'm not even getting "tracked". No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention.
In the off chance someone is looking up that information, it's probably a mistake (i.e. mistaken identity), and seeing where I've been will likely clear that up.
And in the infinitesimal chance it doesn't, I imagine motive would be really hard to establish.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have proper oversight, strong data controls, etc, but I'm not opposed to this kind of tracking on principal alone. It does have real benefits!
But personally, seeing and meeting the kinds of people who oppose this kind of tracking _on principal alone_, I'm immediately suspicious of all of them. But that's definitely bias on my part: I've known many folks in this category from the world of crypto, and 90+% of them are just trying to avoid taxes and/or scrutiny of accountability for whatever scam they're running.
> No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention.
Want to spend an hour on the side of the highway while the police search your vehicle?
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article... + https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46196209
> the kinds of people who oppose this kind of tracking _on principal alone_, I'm immediately suspicious of all of them.
The principle is Don't Tread On Me.
> No one is likely to be looking up my license plate and looking at my movements, because I don't do anything that would warrant that kind of attention.
What makes you so incredibly sure that you will never in your lifetime do a single thing that would ever draw this kind of attention, no matter who is pulling the levers of power?
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.
Flock does not just read license plates, it makes a fingerprint of your car. This is far beyond ALPR.
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.
Directly from the serpent's mouth:
"No more gaps – just evidence.
A license plate is just a start. Flock’s Vehicle Fingerprint® 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...
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.
“… any substance, reflective matter, illuminated device, spray coating, covering, or other material that can be dynamically altered so that it interferes with the legibility or detectability of a vehicle/license plate pair (“fingerprint”) – or with the ability of a device to determine the vehicle fingerprint and to record it … shall be illegal.”
Some law, any day now.
magnetic bumper stickers are the way to go.
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.
Yep, I have seen it used IDing cars without plates
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.
Intentionally modifying a license plate in order to prevent it from being read read by a very specific privately held company's cameras that then sells that info to whomever will pay.
Exactly. I have no idea anyone would be surprised that modifying your license plate so it cannot be read would be illegal.
The plate can still be easily read by a human, just not one of the Flock cameras.
Or toll booths…
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.
> What's stopping someone from just adding an additional IR light to those enclosures
Nothing.
> Couldn't you just slap an additional bright enough IR light in that makes it impossible to even see the plate clearly through cameras?
You could: but it will only work at night (and even then, I don't know if the amount of light you could concentrate in that area would be enough to blow out letters), because all of these cameras have switchable IR cutoff filters.
Surely the sensor would detect the IR separately from the visible light and could easily filter it out?
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!
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.
I doubt it, that is a lot of extra cost against an attack that doesn't exist today.
I just imagine the most hilarious form of this idea being a panel that lays behind the plate that is part of the car. The panel containing an array of IR leds that flood everything behind the car with invisible light. Imagine going out side, seeing nothing, but you pop open your phone's camera app and everything is illuminated for some reason. Would be wild.
Edit: I have no concept of what camera sensors are doing these days.
Don't think that really works.think that's been debunked
Which thing?
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.
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...
Buy a gun, and learn how to use it. This is good advice even if you don't believe it's necessary.
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.
> Kids used to be taught gun safety in public school
The problem is that this normalizes the behavior, something that a specific political sect (coincidentally overlapping heavily with those employed in education) desperately wants to avoid.
Which is somewhat odd to me. Why wouldn't they want to normalize and emasculate gun usage? That seems to be the general playbook of the US Left to change behavior. Of all of the big Democrat vs Republican wedge issues, gun rights seems like one that is being approached entirely wrong.
> Why wouldn't they want to normalize and emasculate gun usage?
Because it isn't emasculating - it's very much empowering - and anyone who has ever fired a gun or read a history book written in the last 200 years can't be deluded into thinking otherwise.
Im not saying firing a weapon is emasculating. I'm saying you can reduce the toxic masculinity aspect of gun ownership through cultural enforcement. Safe gun use can be taught strictly with respect for the dangers of mishandling guns (even intentionally) enforced.
In other words, make gun ownership normal, understood, and uncool.
> toxic masculinity aspect of gun ownership through cultural enforcement
This presumes that this is actually the (an) issue.
> In other words, make gun ownership normal, understood, and uncool.
Normal is the issue: you can't subjugate a widely-armed population.
It's not that helpful. What stops this technocratic authoritarianism is shutting down the electrical grid. If that happens the surveillance state dies instantly and all of the top echelon becomes vulnerable again. They live in a house of straw.
Why are you calling the administration ending research funding, undermining education, and hiring media sycophants into cabinet positions as "technocratic". I can't think of a less technocratic US Presidency.
[dead]
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.
As if passports can't be revoked electronically now
Sure, fine, don't have one then. Whatever.
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?
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.
I really, really do not think that's one of the reasons it doesn't happen in America.
In particular, the largest protests against American elections (in my life at least) have been populated by almost-certainly unarmed protesters.
And there are many other countries with strict gun laws (i.e. not the US) where police don't fire upon crowds for any reason.
>I really, really do not think that's one of the reasons it doesn't happen in America.
It really, really is the biggest reason it doesn't happen.
I think you have too much faith in humanity. It had never happened in Tanzania until recently. And I think you're right about them being initially unarmed, but most people do have guns at home.
I'm depending on Americans to have a limit to their willingness to harm other citizens.
I know that hasn't been much in evidence lately, and I know that American humans are no more special than any other humans.
But we're starting from a very different place than, e.g., Tanzania.
I predict reversion to the mean, not revolution. (It can be argued that what we're seeing right now is the reversion to the mean, which is a whole different cart of apples.)
It does happen in America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
But later on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge_standoff happened. It didn't end that well for Randy Weaver, but he did get to kill a US Marshal without jail time, and they are not happy to try that again.
Kent State was a very different America, a long time ago, and the reaction was immense and swift.
I won't argue that there will not be isolated incidents of horror (too late). I argue that the practice will not take hold and become normalized.
If a new Kent State happens, I depend on Americans to respond immensely and swiftly again. I'd prefer a catalyzing event without loss of life, of course.
>Kent State was a very different America, a long time ago, and the reaction was immense and swift.
Was it? An American political culture dominated by Christians and war hawks paranoid about the influence of "cultural marxism" in academia and whipped up into a moral panic about the "degeneracy" of feminism and homosexuality, with pervasive censorship of criticism of American foreign policy and the deployment of militarized police in the streets doesn't seem very different than what we have now.
>If a new Kent State happens, I depend on Americans to respond immensely and swiftly again.
I think you deeply misunderstand which side of the fence American gun owners and militias tend to be on and just how normalized the rhetoric and expectation of violence has already gotten. If a new Kent State happens they'll say "that was for Charlie Kirk" and dance in the streets.
These are all important points, which I can't refute individually.
I do still believe that the whole is less than the sum of the parts, though. The batshit crazy doesn't have critical mass generally, but certainly does in some areas. If things get ugly, I expect it to be localized and temporary. I hope to be right. :-/
If the fascists do outnumber you and like minded people who disagree with them, then sadly your views are just the minority, and there's nothing to do besides leave the country. But that is a strong claim, it requires that >50% of Americans are fascists or are neutral to them.
Not all citizens are brownshirts. The fascists are more mobilized. But they are, and always will be, a small minority. They might still dominate situations or periods, though.
Theyre already here and affecting some groups. Just ask how privileged you are before youre next on the list
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.
"Fascism, like the future, is already here, it's just unevenly distributed".
"Fascism, like the future, is already here, it's just unevenly distributed".
SNAP!
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.
What nation? All the "democratic" western nations are moving in this direction.
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.
> Assume roads and cars are not an option
Walk to Canada? That works from some areas.
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.
I think this is just an appealing fantasy.
80% of modern Americans would not survive and successfully complete a month-long walk of hundreds of miles.
Add in the logistical challenges, necessary supplies, and secrecy ... and of course the possibility of harsh seasonal weather ... and I think we're talking about a 5% survival rate, at the absolute max.
People might think they are more likely to be in that 5% than their neighbors, but I suspect most of the dangers are random or universal enough that this would not be true. Fortune favors the prepared, certainly. But that only gets you so far.
There is no viable bug out strategy, after a certain point (and that point is far from today, and will likely never be reached).
But there are midterm elections, and those are important.
That's why I'm saying make a plan and pack a bag. That rate goes up by many factors with preparation. That is a fact, not a fantasy.
I agree that having a plan and a bag raises your rate. I just think the variables outside of your control, once your scenario starts unfolding in earnest, are vastly larger than those inside it.
But again, I don't think it matters. The current insanity has an expiration date, and I think the useful calculation is to ask yourself whether "badly damaged but slowly recovering to a new but lesser plateau" is where you want to spend the next couple decades, or not.
If that's an acceptable compromise for the benefits of staying, then stay. If it is not, then get out now while it's easy. I've done this math for myself, and it was a very close call, but I'm in a highly advantaged physical location. Most people are not.
[Edit: And, I reserve the right (ha) to make a new decision at any time I feel necessary. To that end, I have arrangements, and plans, but I have not yet packed a bag. :) ]
Asked and answered. We, collectively, elected Trump a second time and left a GOP majority in Congress.
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...
Wherever Robert Heinlein is right now, he is shaking his head sadly. Told ya so......
[dead]
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.
Better to link to Benn Jordan's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0gr7Fh6lY
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.
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.
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?
The schools were ever good? FL, and the entire US south, for that matter, have a long track record of poor K-12 performance.
A very common trope but performance basically is the same when you normalize for socioeconomics
I hear Austin, TX is the bees knees
definitely avoid CA
> I hear Austin, TX is the bees knees
Talk about a lateral move.
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.
Why leave Florida just to move to Texas?
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.
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.
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.
It's a payday for ride share companies.
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.
[flagged]
Simple solution, ditch your car.
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.
That's a non-starter if you want to maintain any sort of upward mobility in Florida.
Is this any surprise. Messing up other peoples stuff generally is a crime.
> Messing up other peoples stuff
The "jammer" is an adversarial pattern applied to the plate. The cameras are undamaged by it.
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…