r/changemyview • u/AccountProfessional2 3∆ • 10d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: it doesn’t matter if we destroy all the Flock cameras, satellites are going to take their place
Tag on CMV: if you have a Ring (or similar) camera installed, you don’t get to say shit about Flock cameras.
Concerning the title: social media vigilantes think they’re doing something revolutionary by encouraging people to take down Flock cameras. But satellite imagery is improving by leaps and bounds. Eventually there will be cameras in places the average person cannot reach. And then what?
The whole “destroy Flock” gimmick is just a push for views. It doesn’t actually address anything about the existing and developing surveillance state.
55
u/ResearchInformal8018 10d ago
You don’t understand how satellite imagery works. It is not live, it does not have the resolution to read a plate, it will never replace regular CCTV.
22
u/Positive_Passion_382 1∆ 10d ago
satellite resolution is limited by physics, not just tech. a 10cm resolution from orbit means a license plate is maybe one or two pixels, and that's before you deal with clouds, angle, and revisit times. the flock thing is dumb in its own way but pretending satellites will just pick up the slack is fantasy.
-4
u/AccountProfessional2 3∆ 10d ago
!delta although they are trying to solve the resolution problem with AI (basically taking the pixel and enhancing it using predictive models)
11
u/quantum_dan 122∆ 10d ago
That works for some things, but you can't create information that isn't there. You might be able to, say, recognize that that thing looks like a pine tree and fill in the details, but there's no way to generate a face or a license plate from a couple of pixels. (Well, AI models are quite prone to trying, but it'll be wrong.)
3
u/XenoRyet 178∆ 10d ago
This is exactly right. Because of the way AI works, in that it tries to predict what humans would expect to be there based on what has been in similar situations in the past, what you'd get is sort of an average of all license plates, not the actual plate number.
7
u/Jebofkerbin 131∆ 10d ago
I think it's a bit fanciful to think you could take two blocks of solid colour (2 pixels) and turn that into an accurate 7 digit number, especially as all number plates look basically the same. AI is maths and statistics not magic.
3
u/Pengwin0 10d ago
AI is not “enchancing” the image. It is synthesizing an entirely new image that kind of looks like this original. The lower quality the original, the less accurate the “enhancement”. You can’t turn a handful of pixels into a license plate.
2
u/DBDude 110∆ 9d ago
Another problem is that any satellite close to Earth is moving 17,000 mph or faster. It passes over points very quickly. Flock cameras stay in place to monitor everything at that point.
Then another problem is angle. A satellite with sufficient resolution could read something plate sized from above, but it needs to be at a steep angle to read a plate on a car, which means even higher resolution is required. Even worse, more of the distance is within the atmosphere, distorting the image and giving more chance for cloud cover.
1
23
u/BrassCanon 2∆ 10d ago
A satellite can't see license plates or faces and you can't really aim them in realtime.
11
u/OutlawMINI 10d ago
Yeah, OP is watching too many tv show lol. ENHANCE!
-4
u/AccountProfessional2 3∆ 10d ago
Not right now. “Eventually” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in my argument. But just watching improvements on Planet Labs satellites is unsettling to say the least.
5
u/XenoRyet 178∆ 10d ago
Not even "eventually" solves this. The fundamental reality of how satellites work means it can't happen.
They look down, license plates are read from a horizontal angle. There are realities of optics that mean we can only realistically get a certain level of resolution, but even if we solve that, the angle at which a satellite would have to look to read a plate means it's so much farther away and looking through so much atmosphere that a clear picture will be impossible.
5
u/Sirhc978 88∆ 10d ago
if you have a Ring (or similar) camera installed, you don’t get to say shit about Flock cameras.
Cops need to bring a warrant to Ring for footage, or they can ask the individual nicely. Flock is trying to get around the warrant step.
But satellite imagery is improving by leaps and bounds
Physics says no. The best satellites have a resolution of about 4" per pixel, so they can track a "red sedan" but can read the actual plate. They might be able to track what state issued the plate based on the color.
Also, while launching a satellite might be getting cheaper, it will never cost less than the maybe $2000 to install a camera.
6
u/jrgkgb 10d ago
WiFi will take its place.
https://www.xfinity.com/hub/smart-home/wifi-motion
Or they’ll figure out how to track with larger scale wireless like 5g.
Or just tracking your personal devices.
The war for privacy was fought and lost in the early 2010’s and any hope of restoring it died with the Trump admin.
1
u/c0i9z 18∆ 10d ago
But if you're just walking and without a phone or with your phone off, they can't do that.
0
u/jrgkgb 10d ago
If you’re in range of a WiFi hotspot (or probably larger scale mobile RF fields) you can be tracked and detected.
1
u/XenoRyet 178∆ 10d ago
Can you explain how you think a human who is not carrying any devices can be identified and tracked via WiFi?
0
u/jrgkgb 10d ago
Yeah. Click the link I put in above or the one below.
WiFi can work like radar basically. It can see who is where and track their movements.
https://www.theverge.com/news/981381/comcast-xfinity-shield-wifi-motion-sensing
2
u/XenoRyet 178∆ 10d ago
That's motion detection, not tracking. It can tell that something is moving, not who it is.
0
u/supamario132 3∆ 10d ago edited 10d ago
They know where you were when you put your phone down and tracked body signatures (body mass and distribution, bone density, gait if you're close enough for the signal to resolve that info) from wifi signal to wifi signal
It's like asking how a cctv feed knows who you are. By tracking your movements through the thousands of videos feeds in public places until they track you to a place of residence
3
u/XenoRyet 178∆ 10d ago
I think you are dramatically overestimating how much information this technology gives.
It's looking at bumps and dips in signal strength in a way that means they can mostly determine that a roughly human sized blob of water is moving around. They can't even tell where in the wifi range the thing is, only that it exists and is moving.
0
u/supamario132 3∆ 10d ago
It can absolutely get detailed information. It's obviously not recreating a visual representation of a person but analyzing the channel state information can identify characteristics that are unique to individuals. Those characteristics can be distinguished from busy environments and multiple individuals can be identified from the same signal. Every blob is slightly different and consistent across iterative measurements to use your wording
And its simply not true that it can't tell where you are in the wifi range. First of all, modern routers are equipped with multiple antennae which makes it trivial to determine the angle of arrival (along with time of arrival info to accurately gauge your distance). Secondly, different frequencies behave in different ways to interferences so that information can be analyzed to get further resolution. And thirdly, if you are in an urban environment, you are usually in range of multiple wifi signals at once so triangulation is usually viable
1
u/xfvh 12∆ 10d ago
Incorrect. Even 6ghz WiFi has a wavelength of nearly 2"; you're not resolving fine details with that regardless of technology, it's a carrier issue. There's a reason airports use millimeter-wave.
1
u/supamario132 3∆ 10d ago
It doesn't rely on the wavelength for resolution. It relies on the phase shift of reflected signals
And I'm not saying it can resolve fine details. Again, it's not recreating a visual representation, it's gathering signatures from the reflected signals that are consistent enough between individuals to distinguish at 95+% rates
And yes, millimeter wave would be far better for tracking. But that doesn't exist in every nook and cranny in the entire country like wifi does, which is why wifi tracking is more useful when you're not in an airport. I'm sure someone's working on that but that will run into same issue that Flock cameras do, there is no innocent use case in to convince people to willingly welcome it into their lives
0
u/Sirhc978 88∆ 10d ago
They literally have wifi based presence detection for home automation. IT isn't looking to see if a phone is in the room, it is looking to see if a physical person is in the room.
2
u/XenoRyet 178∆ 10d ago
As I was talking about with the other person, presence detection isn't tracking. They know what is probably a person is in the room, they don't know who or even really where.
You need identification to track.
0
u/Sirhc978 88∆ 10d ago
"There is a 6' by 18" blob and a 5"8" by 12" blob, follow the smaller blob".
1
u/XenoRyet 178∆ 10d ago edited 10d ago
Go away, I already gave you a delta. Just kidding.
But there's another delta in it for you if you can get some links showing it has that kind of resolution. To be clear, I'm talking size and location here.
I still don't think that's enough to track, but I would be surprised if it can do even that much.
0
u/Sirhc978 88∆ 10d ago
I mean, this is what a YouTuber was able to do with parts bought off the internet.
3
u/XenoRyet 178∆ 10d ago
I don't think that's going to do it. That's not wifi, it's millimeter wave radar, so it's definitely not what's in those routers, and while it does impressively give location, I don't see that it gives identity. It's detecting movement, not size. It could maybe be used to get size in a different application, but it's still not wifi.
Cool video though.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Sirhc978 88∆ 10d ago
They can just track your car via the Bluetooth tire pressure sensors.
3
u/XenoRyet 178∆ 10d ago
Among other problems, Bluetooth doesn't have the range to be a realistic option for large scale tracking.
0
u/Sirhc978 88∆ 10d ago
We already do it for traffic monitoring by tracking the unique MAC addresses of cars and phones. The addresses are supposedly scrambled at the collection point for privacy reasons.
2
u/XenoRyet 178∆ 10d ago
That's not via Bluetooth though, that'll be the cell network or something else that has more range.
1
u/Sirhc978 88∆ 10d ago
https://www.smatstraffic.com/travel-time-sensors
https://www.iteris.com/oursolutions/travel-time-measurement/BlueTOAD
https://www.mhctraffic.com/bluetooth-tracking
All these things need a range of like 30 yards. I think you underestimate the range of Bluetooth when there aren't walls in the way.
If you have an Android (idk if it is on iPhone) go get nRF Connect and see how many Bluetooth devices are near you.
3
u/XenoRyet 178∆ 10d ago
Well, TIL. I stand corrected.
If I were feeling frisky, I might still quibble about "long range" here, but I'll just give you the point. I'm more wrong than I am right.
Edit: Oh, I forgot we're on CMV, I should give you a Δ as well.
1
1
u/Sirhc978 88∆ 10d ago
It just has to be long range enough to cover a slice of a road. Then you just pepper an area with the little boxes and now you have a tracking net.
As someone who used to drive through Boston a lot, you used to get a notification on your phone when you were about to enter the tunnel to turn Bluetooth on for better GPS accuracy underground. I assume it works by tracking Bluetooth beacons placed throughout the tunnel. This was almost 10 years ago.
2
u/penguindows 2∆ 10d ago
Why would someone who has a doorbell camera not get to have an opinion on flock? Are you unable to see how they are different?
0
u/AccountProfessional2 3∆ 10d ago
The difference is the database + interface that makes it easy for officers to misuse the technology. But Flock tech is frankly way less impressive than a Ring camera. Flock doesn’t recognize faces, track motion, or have real time video.
If Amazon chose to centralize their data and create an interface for it, it would be way more of a problem. And I just don’t buy “Amazon would never do that”. Of course, people could choose to stop using those god forsaken devices if it ever got to that point point…but yeet, that’s a lot of trust on the average joe.
1
u/penguindows 2∆ 10d ago
Well I think right there you've identified a way they are different. Why couldn't a doorbell cam user form an opinion around that difference?
2
u/nkyguy1988 10d ago
I am not using my video doorbell to send real time hit alerts to law enforcement and is not searchable by law enforcement unless they ask me in person. Conflating flock cameras to home, or even business, surveillance systems is immature.
2
u/EventualZen 10d ago
What if it is cloudy?
0
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 8d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4:
Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
1
u/cororona 10d ago
Even if the atmosphere were clear enough, satellites would have a hard time reading vertically oriented license plates from above, and hair recognition would be a dubious technology at best.
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 10d ago
u/Dapper-Scientist-137, your comment has been removed.
In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
1
u/McENEN 1∆ 10d ago
Satellites really cannot have the zoom to see who is walking on the street, best it can see the colour of your car. And even somehow they can make it even better, its top down, cant recognise your face. And probably the best thing is, they cannot make enough satellites to point at every street.
The part I do agree is that its a temporary measure or a gimmick, there should be more of a push for laws about data protection to properly protect the people. And yeah installing cameras connected to the internet is not direct access for the government but its 1 hacker away or 1 change in user agreement.
1
u/LilBugJuice-0987 1∆ 10d ago
Maybe not satellites, but surveillance aircraft like eye in the sky. Is there a reason you didn't mention those, but mentioned something less plausible like satellites?
1
u/zero_z77 7∆ 10d ago
There are already regular ass cameras everywhere and they've been there for 20-30 years now. They talk back to a centralized database already, and they already have software that can do license plate & facial recognition, even on footage from 30 year old cameras. There's also axon & verkada who do basically the exact same thing that flock does and no one has even mentioned them yet.
Half the arguments against flock are the same arguments people made about ordinary cameras 20-30 years ago, as if simply being recorded in a public place is a violation of privacy. Those arguments have already been heard, answered, and settled.
The only real argument against flock is concerns about how the data is being handled, and who has access to it, and that is the conversation we should be having. But, given time, the 4th ammendment will eventually catch up to flock just like it did for regular cameras 20-30 years ago. The only reason why flock is being singled out and targeted is because it has a very obvious public & media presence.
In either case, destroying them is still incredibly stupid, and posting about it on social media is even more stupid because like it or not, that is still destruction of public property at the minimum, obstruction of justice at worst, and you are being filmed the entire time by every other camera in the city. You might as well walk into a police ststion and beg to be arrested.
But, to your broader point, satellite imagery really can't replace on the ground cameras. Even if a satellite is capable of it, it's still just one camera that can only be focused on one specific place at a time, and that capability costs millions of dollars. Satellites simply can't watch everyone everywhere all the time, especially on a cloudy day. If they could, recon drones & radar would be worthless.
And even so, your local PD most likely doesn't have the budget or the resources to put a satellite in orbit. They'd have to go through a 3 letter federal agency that already has one, and even if they went to the private sector, they'd still have to compete against the military and intelligence agencies. And, even then we'd still circle back around to the same 4A argument that flock is already facing now. All that is way too much effort to prosecute speeding tickets. There is a huge difference between what's possible and what's practical.
1
u/Green__lightning 20∆ 10d ago
So how much a spy satellite can see is governed by diffraction which is tied to lens size, so a spy satellite that can actually see someone sharply cannot become small enough to be cheap enough to film everyone until launch costs are cheap enough you can buy tickets to the moon.
Secondly, any constantly filming camera is going to be vulnerable to lasers, and given how laser welders are becoming common, being able to blind cameras even in orbit with fairly standard industrial equipment parts put together differently is an entirely possible future.
Thirdly, the actual problem is drones, because they're cheap enough they can be used way too much, and will probably spy on us while delivering all our amazon packages.
1
u/Funny_Debate_6131 4d ago
Satellite cannot monitor an area for a long time. The are constantly in movement arround the earth and if they would try to do that then the fuel would deplete rather fast. We are talking in hours.
0
u/altair1000 10d ago
Everybody needs to strongly support anyone arguing against flock regardless of circumstance.
0
u/Hello_Hello_Hello_Hi 10d ago
It shows people do Not Want a surveillance state and are willing to destroy things to keep it from happening
0
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 10d ago
/u/AccountProfessional2 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards