Wumb0
Well-Known Member
pretty sure flock cameras get bluetooth data from devices you have and create a fingerprint as you drive by anyways, so reading license plates is only a small part of the issue
Sponsored
pretty sure flock cameras get bluetooth data from devices you have and create a fingerprint as you drive by anyways, so reading license plates is only a small part of the issue
No true but they are capable of logging vehicles regardless of having a plate or not via decals or damage, custom wheels etc. But if you're driving one of 3,000 Gray Tesla model 3's in the area it's not so helpful.pretty sure flock cameras get bluetooth data from devices you have and create a fingerprint as you drive by anyways, so reading license plates is only a small part of the issue
Signaltrace is what does that.No true but they are capable of logging vehicles regardless of having a plate or not via decals or damage, custom wheels etc. But if you're driving one of 3,000 Gray Tesla model 3's in the area it's not so helpful.
When im notified everything goes into a faraday bag which I know works because I lose audio. I turned tracking off on the car. Im going to end up drilling a hole but Im going to wait to see if this bill passes...Seems to be the only thing the left and right agree on they don't like the mass surveillance eitherSignaltrace is what does that.
That’s a whole other rabbit hole of bullshit.
From AI:
The public concern about cameras tracking phones stems from a different type of technologycalled SignalTrace (developed by a defense contractor named Leonardo). [1, 2]
Unlike Flock, SignalTrace sensors are explicitly designed to sniff out Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and electronic MAC addresses from inside passing cars. These are frequently marketed to be mounted alongside ALPR systems, leading many people to conflate the two entirely separate tracking technologies.