this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
438 points (95.4% liked)

Microblog Memes

12037 readers
1007 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It’s a satire account btw

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Isa@feddit.org 103 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It’s a satire account btw

Too bad! 🥹

[–] BigDiction@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah I could tell from the pride colors of the Sherrif Dept logo lol

[–] DakRalter@thelemmy.club 1 points 2 days ago
[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 42 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It’s a satire account btw

The fact this needs to be pointed out shows the limit of the users here.

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

I’d already covered my whole car before reading the post description 🤦‍♂️

[–] huppakee@lemmy.world 50 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Hong Kong protesters started using camouflage to stay anonymous after police started using facial recognition camera's: it turns out, it is only useful if you can also hide your camouflage. They needed to be able to blend in to avoid being caught. The idea seems great, but even if this would be done for real it would not be good enough unfortunately.

[–] Godort@lemmy.ca 98 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 52 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Once heard a cop telling a story of the most petty criminal they apprehended.

A school teacher with no criminal record decide to break into a random gardening store in the middle of the night.

Was unable to find money, and then decided to steal sacks of potting dirt..

Got caught on the home after passing the cop on patrol.

The guy had covered his license plate…

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 35 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Only commit a single crime at once. Have a body in the car? Make sure all of your taillights are working.

[–] svtdragon@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

I've always heard it as "only break one law at a time."

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 days ago

I'll keep that in mind and let you know how it goes

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 7 points 3 days ago

The saddest part of this story is how a school teacher felt he needed to turn to burglary in order to make up for being underpaid...

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Dress in black so you blend in with the spraypaint covering the camera lens.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The problem is...then what? Are you going to walk from your front door to the flock camera, all in full black clothing and face coverings? You're going to have to walk past any closed-circuit security and Ring doorbell cameras. Police can follow you through multiple cameras and maybe even see you walking through your front door.

Are you going to drive a few blocks from the camera, park, and then walk to it? They can search vehicle position records for any vehicles that came and left within a certain distance from the cameras within a certain time period. If they can trace you walking to your car, they can find you. Even if you left your phone at home and use an old vehicle without spytech in it, there will still be video of your vehicle in the area.

Flock cameras are probably the single most capable cameras police departments have regular access to. But they have access to countless tools of surveillance. I think the only way you could reliably damage a flock camera and get away with it is if a Flock camera is near some nature area or other natural feature. For example, if there's a forest area a short distance from where the camera is, or a stretch of tree-covered river or creek you could duck into to break the camera track.

In order to destroy a flock camera and get away with it, you would need to have access to some large area that is not under surveillance. This allows you to walk into the area while in plain clothes, change into concealed clothing while in the area, and the reverse on the return trip.

Destroying a flock camera while keeping your face covered is trivial. The hard part is getting to the camera and getting back home without leaving a trail to your identity. And unless there's a big nature area nearby you can disappear into, I think that would be a challenge.

Notably, this is actually the technique Luigi used. He ducked into a wooded park to change clothes and escape the surveillance net. With enough resources they were still able to catch him. But someone destroying a flock camera won't justify as much resources to hunt them down as what Luigi did.

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It was a joke, I think you skipped over the second half of the sentence.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 3 days ago (2 children)

For some cameras in stores hiding IR LEDs on your person aimed out (eg sewn into a collar or hat facing forward) will disrupt the facial scanning but many have gotten wise to this and added ir filters. Even if they are susceptible it’ll make you a big white blob which easily makes you stand out so they can manually review footage and look for any moment the led failed, you didn’t wear it, you getting into a car with a license plate that’s read by an alpr, they just come grab you if seeing it live, etc

Nothing beats the combo of hat/mask/sunglasses though. Though some sunglasses are transparent to certain cameras, and others like vaydr claim to have an extra layer beyond ir blocking (but don’t explain how it works, really, bc “proprietary”)

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The fact that old school tactics still work makes me wonder why nobody tries false noses, fake contacts, and other stuff costume designers are good at. There's an awful lot you can do to disguise yourself besides just the hat/mask/sunglasses.

[–] 0x0@infosec.pub 5 points 3 days ago

Prosthetic fingers, footage is obviously ai manipulated

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

And something to change your gait, like one shoe with a small lift.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

If you're just trying to avoid regular everyday tracking, those may work. But if you're trying to actually get away with a crime, the problem is that you're trying to avoid every camera in a city, not just the flock camera you're vandalizing. Your neighbor across the street could have a ring doorbell that records you every time you walk out your front door. You can have the most elaborate disguise you want, but if there's video of you walking out your door wearing it, you're busted.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dultas@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

Apparently clown makeup, specifically Juggalo makeup, used to be good at confusing facial recognition.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Benn Jordan did this with license plate readers. The stickers were invisible to casual observation, but the cameras couldn’t reliably decode anything from them.

I think it used bits of IR vinyl.

Is IR reflective makeup a thing?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 21 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This will not work. AI-enabled surveillance cameras are more than capable of determining that it's a wrap on a car, rather than multiple cars all somehow moving in the exact same direction in the exact same area while all facing in incorrect directions relative to the camera.

If anything, it's just another data point, because Flock cameras also catalog details about your vehicle like stickers, color, wraps, graffiti, dents, etc.

[–] Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There was a story the other day where certain patterns were confusing the image detection though.

Some patterns can. This one won't.

Adversarial patterns/noise can confuse cameras, but that's usually done not by tricking it into thinking, for example, that this one van is actually a hundred mini vans crammed into the same space, but by tricking it into thinking there's not a car there because the pattern just confuses it and it recognizes it as any random sequence of random objects and things simultaneously.

Just slapping a bunch of car photos won't make it think it's a car, because the little photos are tiny, don't move like a car, are still visually distinct from the background, and are on a much larger car-shaped object. If your car has patterns that makes it look like the general concept of an asphalt road, road signs, lamp posts, etc, then it might be enough to confuse the camera into thinking the odd blob shapes are something else, because cars on the road are also always passing on top, in front of, and by asphalt, road signs, lamp posts, etc.

The cameras don't have depth perception, so if your car looks close enough to the road and objects around it, it'll blend right in, to the camera.

[–] Doom@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Don't do this to your vehicles. A) it doesn't fucking work. B) It's meant to trick you into making yourself an easily identifiable target for law enforcement.

The best thing you can do is avoid the cameras when possible and make your car as bland as possible (no stickers, no identifying features). These systems suck, lean into that fact. Also a little "accidental" splattered mud on the license plate doesn't hurt either. Not enough to prevent a person from reading it, but just enough to break the AIs brain.

[–] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Here are some people at DEFCON who have been making low-cost devices for identifying the radio fingerprint of nearby flock cameras: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-2uAsJ5EPAw

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 14 points 3 days ago (2 children)

A) it doesn’t fucking work

Have you done actual testing against multiple cam types, including Ring and Flock?

This guy has, he presented at BlackHat. And yes, it works

https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/09/this-adversarial-pattern-can-prevent-surveillance-cameras-from-detecting-you/ OW47qM7mb6G88RO.png

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 4 points 3 days ago

They'll never be able to spot it now!

[–] T156@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

It doesn't break the camera like the post suggests, however. It just prevents them from registering it as a vehicle.

[–] 0x0@infosec.pub 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Plates that can't be read by software gets sorted for human input, splattering it doesnt help unless its completely unreadable.

Get an electromagnet and put behind your plates instead with a fake leaf that disappears anytime you get pulled over

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Knowing that the state that submits the image for human review is that the system must automatically (1) identify a car (2) whose license plate can't be automatically read, the more productive trickery would be to defeat the "identify a car" part where the software doesn't even know that a car drive within its field of view, and therefore doesn't know to take a still frame and forward it to a human.

Alternatively, have the software automatically read a license plate incorrectly so that it doesn't trigger human review but is instead confidently incorrect in what it did log to the records.

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Pretty sure flock collects a ton of data that is fed to ML algorithms such that even with a partial plate they can cross reference make/model/location/color/previous tracks to identify whose car it is or at least identify it as unique from every other vehicle.

[–] Funkt4st1c@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Also bluetooth signals from your phone, likely also from your car...

The point is trying to trick the cameras is a fun exercise, but realistically we just need our representatives to represent us, which they've proven over the years to be entirely uninterested in doing

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 4 points 3 days ago

It's car-ception!

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Wonder if covering in a design that looks like you are covered in plates would do anything. Like blurred rectangles that sorta look like a particular states plate and then random numbers. Is it illegal to cover your car in numbers?

How about QR codes?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Select all the images that have cars

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 days ago

This square has a tiny sliver of a fender. Does the system count that as a car?

[–] Wren@lemmy.today 5 points 3 days ago

The car version of the ahegao hoodies we all wear to fool facial recognition.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 5 points 3 days ago

It's great to see little Bobby Tables' car wrap business taking off. I need to make an appointment!

[–] anticurrent@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

I wonder what would be the effect of wrapping the car with holographic paper on those flock cameras.

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I mean can you be punished for this? It should be protected under 1st amendment imo

[–] Dultas@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Maybe? Probably depends how specific the laws are around fake plates. If it's, "Displaying number plates on your car that aren't registered to it", then that's probably broad enough they could.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Instead of using a car wrap, what about just setting up a big TV on a pole, pointed directly at a camera, set to continuously generate and display images of vehicles with random license plates? In that case you wouldn't be actually displaying alternate plate numbers on any vehicle. You would just be fuzzing the camera with images of fake cars.

The entire legal justification for flock cameras is that it's legal to record anything that's in public. But it's also perfectly legal to display images of cars on a TV.

Hell, you could probably do this as a protest, holding up a TV on a pole while standing on a public sidewalk. (Might need to make it a cart of some sort.)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TIEPilot@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Oh this gives me an idea...

At the very least it would be a statement on how sick of being surveilled we are.

load more comments
view more: next ›