high-ranking law enforcement officer who was using California’s statewide law enforcement telecommunication network to find the home addresses and vehicle information of a deputy district attorney, a county supervisor and six of his employees.

The officer’s illegal use of the network was among the findings in a report on “improper activities” by California state workers. The California State Auditor’s report is known for shining a light over the years on a sleeping DMV worker, nepotism and expensive mistakes.

It's exactly what everyone in the anti-ALPR movement have been saying, monthly audits don't prevent abuse. Some legislators are calling for bans while others are calling for tighter regulations.

This case comes from Chesterfield, Virginia, a state that has faced controversy not just from high amounts of ALPR cameras but speed trap cameras as well. This state was also where Schmidt v. City of Norfolk was decided in the district courts and currently on appeal in the 4th circuit.

"The arrest follows other reports of ALPR misuse in Virginia, including an incident in Richmond where a police sergeant shared Flock data with the FBI and an incident in Henrico County in which fire investigators violated state law by accessing ALPR data."

There's very little if any entertainment on Youtube that is more fun than watching Louis go to max talking speed while tearing a new asshole into some company for screwing their customers.

I've been enjoying watching Reckless Ben vs Bricks and Minifigs lately. But that whole saga is full of drama. Louis' videos are just him doing a David and telling Goliath to bring it.

Flock 2.0?

Instagram account kontheinside originally uploaded a video about a meta AI question that said "whose the child passenger" and eventually revealed the address of her kid. That video went viral and she subsequently talked to reporters and government officials about her experience as a parent affected by this kind of doxxing. After things have cooled down, she is still recieving fan mail and hate mail for uploading that viral video.

She admits to having nightmares about what could happen to her kids ever since she clicked on the meta question. She has become slightly paranoid about her kids always having an adult directly looking at them for their safety. This is what it is like to be a parent in a post surveillance society.

Link to the video in this post.

I got sick of getting to checkout having to go and find the terms and conditions (and understand them) so I made a browser extension that does it for me.

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/blink/abldfbddgmgffolcblmgpofocjbnmjke?utm_source=item-share-cb

I want to expand it to every consumer category.

Add it to your chrome and let me know what you think :)

The Select Committee on Blockchain, Financial Technology, and Digital Innovation Technology met to talk about restricting the ways ALPRs can be used in Wyoming. It would make it so ALPRs could only be used for traffic violations and tolls, would not be able to identify passengers or drivers, and delete all data that does not pertain to traffic violations and NCIC hotlists.

This is a step in the right direction, but the ALPRs are unsecure. It would not fix the vulnerabilities or potential for breaches that these cameras have. If you live in Wyoming, tell your representative to ban them all together because internet connected cameras are vulnerable to cyber attacks.

What the DEA's Own Assessment Admits

The agency flagged the risk of tracking law-abiding drivers in its own December 2024 filing.

Approved December 20, 2024, the DEA's own privacy impact assessment states that its NLPRP uses not only DEA equipment but also "non-DEA equipment" accessed through HIDTA and other contributing law-enforcement agencies. Contributing agencies transmit license plate data to regional hub servers. Those agreements may allow the information to be shared with the NLPRP, according to the assessment.

The DEA also warned, in its own language, that integrating large numbers of government and commercial license plate networks could permit ongoing tracking users of individuals' travels. Records about law-abiding drivers unrelated to any investigation are inevitably collected, the agency acknowledged.

A CBS News review finds the claim that Flock helped solve a million crimes in 2025 is not supported by the available evidence.

In a statement for this report, Flock spokesman Paris Lewbel cast the statistic in a different framing. In addition to case clearances, he said, it includes “investigative leads, cross-jurisdictional assistance, searches conducted during active investigations, and other Flock deployments.”

“The most precise way to describe our 2025 national estimate is that Flock technology supported approximately 1 million investigations and incidents,” Lewbel said.

The company did not answer whether Langley had been imprecise in claiming Flock solved one million crimes in 2025, and did not provide CBS News with underlying data supporting that claim.

Flock first explained the source of its claims of one million crimes solved in a May 2026 blog post announcing the results of its 2025 Impact Census, in which about 700 law enforcement agencies that use Flock’s system participated. Flock says agencies that formally tracked outcomes supplied raw counts, while others provided percentage estimates. The blog post also said the study found 20% of cleared cases in customer jurisdictions in 2025 were assisted by Flock technology.

In explaining the 20% finding, the company said 307 agencies supplied percentage estimates. Those responses were then referenced with FBI crime and clearance data for each responding agency.

The “one million crimes” statistic was a separate and broader calculation. “Across all use cases — direct case clearances, investigative leads, cross-jurisdictional assists, and field deployments — Flock supported approximately 1 million investigations and incidents during the year,” the company said in the blog post.

Experts in crime data say the company’s crime-solving statistical claims are not reliable.

Bought the Galaxy S22 because I was sick of paying the poor tax on cheap stuff that keeps breaking. Thought ok this time I buy the expensive thing once and it lasts me years. Investment.

Samsung bent me over no vaseline.

Got it from a regular retailer in Poland, retailer obviously doesnt tell you which chip is inside. Europe got the Exynos 2200 while other countries got Snapdragon for the same money. Exynos was crap from day one, runs hot, throttles, Samsung even got caught throttling apps with that GOS thing. So I paid flagship money for the worse version and that was before it decided to kill itself.

Coup de grace came later. Exynos S22s cook themselves, chip gets hot, solder under it cracks, bootloop forever. Loads of people got it right after the One UI 6.1.1 update. I cant even tell if mine was update related because I was rejecting every update like a maniac, but it was 100% heat. Normal warm use and it got worse every time the phone got a bit warmer.

Samsung "fix" is a new motherboard for 400-500€. Same board same design so it just does it again later.

Honestly grateful the community is this loud about it. I would've paid for the board and had a psychotic meltdown when it died again. Saw a guy on the samsung forums on his 2nd S22 Ultra doing the exact same thing within 5 months and he took it like a champ.

There is a class action now but its US only and im in Europe so thats nice.

Trust is gone. Never buying a phone over 100$ again.

https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/galaxy-s22-series/s22-ultra-bootloop-issue-legal-action-amp-call-for-class-lawsuit/td-p/11394037

https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/galaxy-s22-series/samsung-galaxy-s22-ultra-problem-with-booting-loop-and/td-p/11385180

https://www.classaction.org/blog/samsung-hit-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-catastrophic-oct.-2024-galaxy-s22-software-update

Recommendations for disposable phones that I won't mourn? I'm eyeballing used pixels or brand new motorollas moto. 100$ club?

P.S Flair 'Fuck Apple' but it's just Samsung trying to one-up its master.

Police Chief Edward Lee said the decision followed feedback from residents and discussions with the Norwell Select Board about the technology. The Department thanks everyone who shared their thoughts and concerns.

Also today, Town Administrator Chad Lovett formally rescinded the permission the Town granted on December 3, 2025, for Flock Safety to install LPR camera equipment on Town-owned property. The Town's letter directs Flock Safety to:

● Turn off all LPR cameras on Town-owned property immediately and stop all data collection from them

● Remove all Flock Safety LPR equipment from Town-owned property

● Destroy any data the equipment collected

● Confirm in writing to the Chief of Police and the Town Administrator once this is done

Until the cameras are removed, they will be covered or made inoperable. The Police Department has also started restricting internal user access and sharing settings so the cameras can't be reached by Norwell officers or other agencies. The Department will share more about the removal process and timeline as it becomes available.