‘Flock Sock’ blocks unpopular surveillance cameras

Welcome to Confidential Informant, your inside look into the world of digital privacy.

Every week, I bring you the latest news on the issues that affect your privacy most, and I answer your tech- and privacy-related questions. Let’s get to it.

While cases of vandalism against Flock license plate reader cameras have dominated the headlines, some people concerned about the presence of the surveillance technology have taken a step back to render it inoperable without doing any damage.

In one of the more famous cases, a 77-year-old man in Florida set up a lawn chair next to the camera in his neighborhood and has spent days holding up a large sign in front of the lens that says “DOWN WITH FLOCK CAMERAS.” In other instances, plastic trash bags have been placed over Flock cameras in order to blind them.

Now, 3D printing has entered the picture. A user on the 3D printing forum MakerWorld has released the “Flock Sock,” a “slip on cover designed to help protect a Flock camera from the harmful radiation of the sun.”

Flock Sock’s creator, a user known as SquidInk, says anyone can print the covers to “help protect these valuable civil servants from getting a bad sunburn.”

The Flock Sock can even be printed with an attachable bracket that allows you to use a broomstick to place it over the camera, which is often installed high off the ground.

“No glue, no screws, and zero structural changes,” SquidInk says. “Because it pops off instantly with absolutely no damage caused and costs exactly $0 to revert, it conveniently avoids some of the troublesome labels that Uncle Sam might stick to you.” (Flock Safety’s CEO recently apologized for referring to groups opposed to his product as “terroristic organizations.”)

It’s unclear whether the Flock Sock will take off and become widely used. But the fact that it was even built shows just how widespread anti-Flock sentiment has spread.

According to statistics on SquidInk’s profile, blueprints for the Flock Sock have been downloaded 775 times and printed 261 times.

Using a Flock Sock might not keep people out of trouble, however. Legal experts have cautioned that covering surveillance cameras — even without causing damage — could potentially lead to criminal or civil penalties, depending on the jurisdiction.

What I’m reading

• Flock CEO calls for ‘compromise’ as surveillance company faces growing backlash: TechCrunch breaks down a recent interview between Fox News and Flock Safety CEO Garrett Langley, in which the company’s leader says that a “compromise” must be found between privacy and safety amid the nationwide backlash against automatic license plate readers.
• Iranian hackers shut down UK power plant: The Telegraph reports that hackers affiliated with the Iranian government were able to shut down a British power plant for four days. The cyberattack is being called “unprecedented” and the most successful attack ever of its kind.
• Flock camera vandals say privacy reforms aren’t enough: ‘The changes are bull—-’: NBC News reports that Flock camera vandals are unimpressed with policy changes from Flock Safety after dozens of police officers have been found to be abusing the technology. In other words, there’s no indication that the wave of vandalism against Flock’s cameras will let up anytime soon.

What do you want to know?

That’s all for this week. If you have a question you’d like me to answer about privacy, send me an email at mthalen@san.com, reach out on Signal at @mikaelthalen.12, or share it below. I’ll keep all your personal details private.