Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Happy Bar & Grill biometric surveillance tool development

2026-03-13T14:31:32Z

Beanie Bo: Profanity & vandalism, subjective opinion, unrelated to CRW

Talk:Flock license plate readers

2025-11-28T14:31:58Z

Beanie Bo: /* New Info */ Reply

==Change this page to Flock generally as the scope of the article expanded==

Flock also sells regular AI-Powered surveillance cameras [https://www.flocksafety.com/products/video-cameras], Mobile security trailers [https://www.flocksafety.com/products/mobile-security-trailer], and "Drones as a First Responder" [https://www.flocksafety.com/products/flock-aerodome].

I suggest that we make this article about flock more generally instead of specifically focusing on their ALPR product.

[[User:Revelation 13 16-17|Revelation 13 16-17]] ([[User talk:Revelation 13 16-17|talk]]) 03:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

:I also think the language used fails to distinguish between Flock's presence in the U.S. vs other parts of the world. They are deployed across the globe. [[User:Colleen|Colleen]] ([[User talk:Colleen|talk]]) 17:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

==404 Error pages for links==

User @[[User:Left4Code|Left4Code]] found a large swathe of error pages for many of the references in this article. This discussion topic is to list and discuss the references.

{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Ref #

!Title

!Issue

!Archive state

!Link

|-
|20
|"How Vehicle Fingerprint Technology Works"
|404
|no archive
|
https://www.flocksafety.com/resources/how-vehicle-fingerprint-technology-works
|-
|21
|
"License Plate Surveillance Company Can Now Capture Images of Vehicle Occupants' Faces"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.404media.co/flock-safety-can-now-capture-faces-of-vehicle-occupants/
|-
|
22
|
"Transforming Flock: Beyond License Plate Reading to Deliver Greater Insights for Solving Crime"
|
404
|
no archive
|

https://www.flocksafety.com/newsroom/transforming-flock-beyond-license-plate-reading-to-deliver-greater-insights-for-solving-crime/
|-
|
24
|
"Atlas of Surveillance: Flock Safety"
|
goes to deeplinks blog, but no article
|
no archive
|
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/04/atlas-surveillance-flock-safety
|-
|
25
|
"Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department"
|
404
|no archive
|

https://www.eff.org/cases/leaders-beautiful-struggle-v-baltimore-police-department
|-
|
26
|
"Carpenter and the Evolving Fourth Amendment"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2023/01/60-1-Carpenter-and-the-Evolving-Fourth-Amendment.pdf
|-
|
27
|
"Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67689711/leaders-of-a-beautiful-struggle-v-baltimore-police-department/
|-
|28
|
"Illinois Compiled Statutes - Freedom from Drone Surveillance Act"
|
404
|
no archive
|

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3541&ChapterID=53
|-
|
29
|
"RSA 236:130 Automated License Plate Recognition"
|
potential 404
|
no archive
|
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/236/236-130.htm
|-
|
32
|
"Surveillance firm provided ICE access to license plate reader systems"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jul/15/flock-safety-ice-license-plate-reader
|-
|
33
|
"How Flock Safety is Building a Surveillance Network for ICE"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/03/flock-safety-and-ice
|-
|
34
|
"ICE Surveillance of Immigrants and Advocates"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://americanoversight.org/investigation/ice-surveillance-of-immigrants-and-advocates/
|-
|
35
|
"ACLU Obtains Records Showing ICE Using License Plate Readers in Sanctuary Cities"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-obtains-records-showing-ice-using-license-plate-readers-sanctuary-cities
|-
|
36
|
"License Plate Readers Are Creating a US-Wide Database of More Than Just Cars"
|404
|no archive
|
https://www.vice.com/en/article/license-plate-readers-abortion-clinics-texas
|-
|37
|"Reproductive Surveillance in Post-Roe America"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.surveillancewatch.io/reproductive-surveillance-post-roe/
|-
|38
|"State Shield Laws and Reproductive Privacy"
|dead site
|no archive
|https://reproductiverights.gov/shield-laws/
|-
|39
|"Flock Safety Employees Caught Misusing Access to Surveillance Network"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.wired.com/story/flock-safety-employees-misuse-access/
|-
|40
|"Audit Reveals Hundreds of Flock Safety Privacy Violations"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/15/audit-reveals-hundreds-of-flock-safety-privacy-violations/
|-
|41
|"When License Plate Readers Become Tools for Stalking"
|404
|no archive
|https://apnews.com/article/license-plate-readers-police-misuse-stalking
|-
|42
|"Detroit Officer Fired for Using City Cameras to Track Ex-Wife"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2024/03/officer-fired-tracking-ex-wife/
|-
|43
|"Proactive Security Disclosure Q2 2025"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/proactive-security-disclosure-q2-2025
|} [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 17:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:I got started on this and here's what I found in relation to these links so far. Will work on it more later. Note that the numbers will no longer correspond now that some changes have been made. Might have to use previous version for direct referencing.
:- - -
:*20: Fixed. Link changed to https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers
:*21: Removed broken reference and replaced with citation-needed.
:*22: Fixed. Changed to reference #20 with wiki article details changed accordingly.
:*24: Might be referring to [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/12/atlas-surveillance-expands-its-data-police-surveillance-technology-2024-year this article] but article does not reference discrimination. New reference is needed.
:*25: Fixed. Link changed to https://www.eff.org/document/fourth-circuit-ruling-leaders-beautiful-struggle-v-baltimore-police-department
:*26: Reference was irrelevant for where it was cited. Replaced with citation-needed.
:[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 18:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
::27: Fixed.
::28: Couldn't find anything on 90 days. Changed info accordingly and added new reference.
::29: Fixed.
::32: Fixed. Corrected some pretty bad misinformation. Gotta be more vigilant with using LLM's.
::33: Removed and added citation needed.
::34-35: Removed all context, appears to be misinformation.
::36-38: Fixed links. Removed misinformation.
::39-40: Removed. Info appears to be blatant misinformation and libel
::41-42: Fixed. Removed misinformation
::43: Fixed [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 03:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
:::I edit in a markdown editor using markdown because I still haven't gotten the hang of WikiText and asked claude to convert my markdown to WikiText without changing anything. I missed that it added shit. My bad. I'm going to edit in the Wiki editor from now on and if my browser freezes, that is life. Thank you for catching it. [[User:Louis|Louis]] ([[User talk:Louis|talk]]) 19:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Np. I'll clean up the rest of the Claude stuff [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 20:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

==New Info==

- Flock images are sent to a foreign contractor, where they are specifically tasked with identifying people in images ([https://haveibeenflocked.com/news/overseas-data haveibeenflocked.com])

- Washington judge ruled that Flock data are subject to FOIA requests

- ACLU & EFF San Diego lawsuit [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 03:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

:- Flock announces a partnership with [[Ring]] doorbell only a month(?) after Ring announces facial recognition capabilities coming to their doorbells. (Also add this to Ring, as they happily submit data to feds) [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 04:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
:Idk who edited my discussion post to put that info on Haveibeenflocked.com. Next time, please write it as a separate comment. Editing someone else's discussion post makes it look like they're the ones saying it when they're not [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Flock license plate readers

2025-11-28T14:29:10Z

Beanie Bo: Misinfo

NDAA has military right to repair stripped from it in favor of data as a service

2025-11-23T16:37:45Z

Beanie Bo: Clean up

{{OngoingEvent}}The '''National Defense Authorization Act''', or '''NDAA''', is an annual bill that outlines the budget for the U.S. Department of Defense for the following fiscal year. Often, legislators add "rider" provisions or amendments to the NDAA unrelated to the defense budget in order to pass favorable legislation (including controversial legislation) that may not stand on its own.

The NDAA for fiscal year 2026 initially contained bipartisan [[right to repair]] language that has recently been removed by House representatives and replaced with language pertaining to "data-as-a-service". In this context, '''"Data-as-a-service"''' refers to contract models where the data, software access, and permissions required for repair are provided on a subscription or pay-per-use basis, as opposed to being included with purchase of the product, or provided freely on customer request as is the expectation when right-to-repair language is used.

Data-as-a-service provisions have been seen in Representatives' Mike Rogers and Adam Smith's SPEED Act<ref name="speed">{{Cite web |date=June 9, 2025 |title=Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery Act of 2025 (SPEED Act) |url=https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/speed_act_full_text.pdf |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=House Armed Services Committee}}</ref>, and its inclusion to the NDAA has been pushed by representatives whose campaigns have received major financial support from large contractors with the Pentagon.

==Legislative outlook==

=== Representatives supporting the change ===
Commentators have noted<ref name="rossmann">{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis|title=Defense contractors just killed military right to repair - here's the $535,000 reason why |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0LmjzXV7IA |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=YouTube }}</ref> that the primary representatives pushing for language changes from right to repair to data-as-a-service have had their campaigns heavily supported by defense contractors:
*Representative Mike Rogers has received over $535,000 from the defense industry, the top sector that donates to his campaigns<ref name="rogers">{{Cite web |date=February 6, 2025 |title=Rep. Mike D Rogers - Alabama District 03 |url=https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/mike-d-rogers/industries?cid=N00024759&cycle=2024 |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=OpenSecrets}}</ref>. He is a top recipient from the "Defense Electronics" industry, in particular. He has received $10,500 from Boeing and $66,650 from L3.<ref name="rogers" />
*Representative Adam Smith has received<ref name="smith-industries">{{Cite web |title=Rep. Adam Smith - Washington District 09 |url=https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/adam-smith/industries?cid=N00007833&cycle=2024 |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=OpenSecrets |date=February 6, 2025}}</ref> $310,550 from the defense industry, which is the second top sector that donates to his campaign. Palantir is Smith's #3 top contributor<ref name="smith-contributors">{{Cite web |title=Rep. Adam Smith - Washington District 09 |url=https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/adam-smith/contributors?cid=N00007833&cycle=2024 |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=OpenSecrets |date=August 31, 2025}}</ref>.

=== Stakeholders ===
The right to repair policy was supported by the Trump administration<ref name="usatoday">{{Cite web |title= |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/01/pentagon-senate-provision-gains-trump-admin-support/86455785007/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=USA Today |date=October 1, 2025}}</ref>, by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth<ref name="usatoday" />, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll<ref name="warren-victory">{{Cite web |last=Warren |first=Elizabeth |title=Warren Statement on Army Right-to-Repair Victory |url=https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-statement-on-army-right-to-repair-victory |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Office of U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren |date=May 2025}}</ref>, and by Navy Secretary John Phelan<ref name="navy">{{Cite web |title=Navy Secretary Advocates for Sailors' 'Right to Repair' Equipment |url=https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4212472/navy-secretary-advocates-for-sailors-right-to-repair-equipment/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. Department of Defense}}</ref>. In general, the larger defense contractors tend to strongly oppose military right to repair, while small- and medium-sized businesses who could compete for new repair contracts are more supportive of the military's right to repair.<ref name="rossmann" />
==Public response==
Right to repair advocate Louis Rossmann commented on the relative effectiveness of the inclusion of data-as-a-service language in legislation as opposed to right to repair language<ref name="rossmann" />, making the following points:

=== '''Data-as-a-service creates additional red tape''' ===
Currently, the Department of Defense (DoD) can negotiate for access to rights long-term (though contractors still have the upper hand).{{Citation needed}} Adding data-as-a-service/pay-per-use would mean the DoD must seek permission from contractors each time a repair, tool, or information (data) is needed. This tends to cause more delay in contested logistics environments with service members receiving only one-time access to repair information. More specifically, the data-as-a-service model requires the DoD to contract to a company's data library on a pay-per-use model, increasing overall costs and discouraging both DoD and other contractor competitors from providing repair services.

=== Similar response to other industries ===
Rossmann compared the data-as-a-service model upon military equipment to discussions within the automotive industry, such as the controversial Memorandum of Understanding used by car manufacturers who oppose the right to repair.<ref name="ifixit">{{Cite web |date=September 5, 2023 |title=Car Companies Are Astroturfing Right to Repair |url=https://www.ifixit.com/News/80635/car-companies-are-astroturfing-right-to-repair |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=iFixit}}</ref> Replacing right to repair in the NDAA with "data-as-a-service" gives the appearance of care and concern regarding repair restrictions. However, as with the automotive industry's Memorandum of Understanding, the results are the same - manufacturers block car owners and independent repairers from effectively repairing products and equipment.

Similarly, farm equipment company [[John Deere]] attempted to appease farmers with these tactics. Most recently was their release of a digital repair tool called Operations Center Pro Service,{{Citation needed}} a tool that requires internet access in rural areas including open fields where farm equipment may be located, and it also requires farmers to pay annual fees for access to repair data.<ref name="deere">{{Cite web |last=O'Reilly |first=Kevin |date=July 18, 2023 |title=Service Obstructor: John Deere software restricts farmer repair |url=https://pirg.org/edfund/resources/john-deere-repair-software/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG Education Fund}}</ref> Deere has tried this tactic before, releasing software it said fixed the problem but that meant farmers couldn't find or access the basic information they needed.<ref name="deere" />

Rossmann made the point that these repair "services" result in restrictions upon consumers and higher profit for the manufacturers, even in the case of Pentagon contractors at the expense of the U.S. military.

In this case, while the primes seem to pretend<ref name="hegseth">{{Cite web |last=Konkel |first=Frank |date=November 2025 |title=Draft list of attendees for Hegseth acquisition-reform speech shows wide industry interest |url=https://www.defenseone.com/business/2025/11/draft-list-attendees-hegseth-acquisition-reform-speech-shows-wide-industry-interest/409344/?oref=d1-homepage-river |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Defense One}}</ref> to Secretary Hegseth that they care about this issue, their actions serve to undermine repairability.
==Timeline==
*January 2025: Senator Warren receives commitment from Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, to work with her on tackling repair restrictions for the military.<ref name="pirg-nominee">{{Cite web |last=Bowers |first=Isaac |date=January 30, 2025 |title=Military Right to Repair supported by Army Secretary Nominee |url=https://pirg.org/articles/army-secretary-nominee-supports-military-right-to-repair/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG}}</ref>
*May 2025: Secretary Driscoll announced that the U.S. Army will ensure right to repair provisions are included in future Army contracts.<ref name="pirg-army">{{Cite web |last=Proctor |first=Nathan |date=May 2, 2025 |title=The Army embraces Right to Repair: Why that matters and what comes next |url=https://pirg.org/resources/the-army-embraces-right-to-repair-why-that-matters-and-what-comes-next/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG}}</ref>
*May 2025 - Poll shows Americans support military right to repair by a nearly 7-to-1 margin.<ref name="pirg-poll">{{Cite web |author=Isaac Bowers, Nathan Proctor, and Douglas H. Phelps |date=May 20, 2025 |title=Report: Americans support military Right to Repair by nearly a 7-to-1 margin |url=https://pirg.org/media-center/report-americans-support-military-right-to-repair-by-nearly-a-7-to-1-margin/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG}}</ref>
*July 2025: Senators Warren and Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) introduced the Warrior Right to Repair Act of 2025 - legislation that would require contractors to provide the Department of Defense (DoD) with access to technical data and materials the military needs to repair and maintain its own equipment.<ref name="congress-bill">{{Cite web |author=Ms. Warren and Mr. Sheehy |date=July 8, 2025 |title=S.2209 - Warrior Right to Repair Act of 2025 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2209/text |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Congress.gov - Library of Congress}}</ref>
*July 2025: A provision was secured with bipartisan support in the Senate Armed Services Committee for Fiscal Year 2026 NDAA.<ref name="warren-sheehy">{{Cite web |date=July 8, 2025 |title=Warren, Sheehy Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Guarantee Military Right to Repair Its Equipment |url=https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-sheehy-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-guarantee-military-right-to-repair-its-equipment |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren}}</ref> It includes portions of Senator Warren's bipartisan Warrior Right to Repair Act, and it guarantees all branches of the military the right to repair their equipment and requires contractors to provide all relevant repair information.<ref name="warren-sheehy" />
*July 2025 - Intellectual property legal experts send a letter to Congress stating that the ''Warrior Right to Repair Act'' is consistent with long-held law and it "presents no conflict with manufacturers' IP rights."<ref name="professors">{{Cite web |date=July 2025 |title=Law professors express support for Warrior Right to Repair Act |url=https://pirg.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Professors-military-repair-letter-final-2.pdf |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG}}</ref>
*September 2025: The White House announced support for Warren-Sheehy military right to repair policy.<ref name="usatoday" />
*September 2025 - National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) issues white paper opposing military right to repair and advocating for "data as a service."<ref name="ndia">{{Cite web |date=September 2025 |title=IP and Data Rights: Protecting DoD's Access to Innovation |url=https://www.ndia.org/-/media/sites/ndia/policy/ip-and-data-rights/ip-and-data-rights-white-paper.pdf?download=1 |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=National Defense Industrial Association}}</ref>

*October 2025: NDAA, which includes the Warren-Sheehy provision, passed the U.S. Senate.{{Citation needed}}
*October 2025 - 339 small businesses sent a letter urging passage of military right to repair. "This is about ensuring the government can maintain and repair what it already owns. It's about making sure the Department of Defense has access to every capable partner in the country to keep our military mission-ready."<ref name="sema">{{Cite web |date=October 21, 2025 |title=339 Small Businesses Urges Passage of Right to Repair Bill for U.S. Military |url=https://www.sema.org/news-media/press-release/339-small-businesses-urges-passage-right-repair-bill-us-military |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Specialty Equipment Market Association}}</ref>
*October 2025 - Trump administration issues statements of administration policy on the House and Senate NDAA supporting military right to repair.<ref name="sap-house">{{Cite web |date=September 8, 2025 |title=Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3838 – Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/SAP-HR3838-House-NDAA.pdf |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=The White House}}</ref><ref name="sap-senate">{{Cite web |date=September 9, 2025 |title=Statement of Administration Policy: S. 2296 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/SAP-S2296-Senate-NDAA-9.9.25.pdf |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=The White House}}</ref>
*October 2025 - Former Trump DoD undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, and VA Secretary Robert Wilkie endorse military right to repair<ref name="wilkie">{{Cite web |title=Our troops deserve the right to repair |url=https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5551775-defense-contractor-logistics-reform/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=The Hill |author=Robert Wilkie |date=November 19, 2025}}</ref>.
*'''Now: The House and Senate versions of the FY26 NDAA go to conference.'''
*November 2025 - With Honor sends letter urging military right to repair be included in the final NDAA.<ref name="withhonor">{{Cite web |last=Barcott |first=Rye |title=With Honor Action Urges Inclusion of Key Reforms in Final FY26 Defense Bill |url=https://withhonor.org/news/with-honor-action-urges-inclusion-of-key-reforms-in-final-fy26-defense-bill/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=With Honor Action}}</ref>
*November 2025 - taxpayer and watchdog groups send letter urging support for military right to repair in final NDAA.<ref name="ntu">{{Cite web |date=November 5, 2025 |title=Joint Letter: NDAA Conference Recommendations |url=https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/joint-letter-ndaa-conference-recommendations |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=National Taxpayers Union}}</ref>
*November 2025 - President and CEO of Aerospace Industries Association, Eric Fanning, publishes an op-ed in ''Washing Times'' opposing military right to repair.<ref name="fanning">{{Cite web |author=Eric Fanning |date=November 13, 2025 |title=Congress' 'right to repair' provisions threatens the backbone of U.S. defense innovation |url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/nov/13/congress-right-repair-provisions-threatens-backbone-us-defense/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Washington Times}}</ref>
*November 2025 - Secretary Hegseth announces new DoD acquisition policy including that "''The Department must plan for and acquire systems with the ability to conduct organic depot-level maintenance, repair, and overhaul of systems and sub-systems to ensure military readiness for any conflict."''{{Citation needed}}

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Incidents]]

NDAA has military right to repair stripped from it in favor of data as a service

2025-11-22T16:59:31Z

Beanie Bo: starting edits

{{OngoingEvent}}{{Incomplete}}

The '''National Defense Authorization Act''', or '''NDAA''', is an annual bill that outlines the budget for the U.S. Department of Defense for the following fiscal year. Often, legislators add "rider" provisions or amendments to the NDAA unrelated to the defense budget in order to pass favorable legislation (including controversial legislation) that may not stand on its own.

The NDAA for fiscal year 2026 initially contained bipartisan [[right to repair]] language that has recently been removed by House representatives and replaced with language pertaining to "data-as-a-service."

Data-as-a-service provisions have been seen in Representatives' Mike Rogers and Adam Smith's SPEED Act<ref name="speed">{{Cite web |date=June 9, 2025 |title=Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery Act of 2025 (SPEED Act) |url=https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/speed_act_full_text.pdf |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=House Armed Services Committee}}</ref>, and its inclusion to the NDAA has been pushed by representatives whose campaigns have received major financial support from large contractors with the Pentagon.

==The representatives attempting to enact data-as-a-service==
Commentators have noted<ref name="rossmann">{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis|title=Defense contractors just killed military right to repair - here's the $535,000 reason why |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0LmjzXV7IA |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=YouTube }}</ref> that the primary representatives pushing for language changes from right to repair to data-as-a-service have had their campaigns heavily supported by defense contractors:
*Representative Mike Rogers has received over $535,000 from the defense industry, the top sector that donates to his campaigns<ref name="rogers">{{Cite web |date=February 6, 2025 |title=Rep. Mike D Rogers - Alabama District 03 |url=https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/mike-d-rogers/industries?cid=N00024759&cycle=2024 |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=OpenSecrets}}</ref>. He is a top recipient from the "Defense Electronics" industry, in particular. He has received $10,500 from Boeing and $66,650 from L3.<ref name="rogers" />
*Representative Adam Smith has received<ref name="smith-industries">{{Cite web |title=Rep. Adam Smith - Washington District 09 |url=https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/adam-smith/industries?cid=N00007833&cycle=2024 |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=OpenSecrets |date=February 6, 2025}}</ref> $310,550 from the defense industry, which is the second top sector that donates to his campaign. Palantir is Smith's #3 top contributor<ref name="smith-contributors">{{Cite web |title=Rep. Adam Smith - Washington District 09 |url=https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/adam-smith/contributors?cid=N00007833&cycle=2024 |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=OpenSecrets |date=August 31, 2025}}</ref>.

==Conflicts with government==
The policy outlined by the Trump White House<ref name="usatoday">{{Cite web |title= |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/01/pentagon-senate-provision-gains-trump-admin-support/86455785007/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=USA Today |date=October 1, 2025}}</ref>, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth<ref name="usatoday" />, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll<ref name="warren-victory">{{Cite web |last=Warren |first=Elizabeth |title=Warren Statement on Army Right-to-Repair Victory |url=https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-statement-on-army-right-to-repair-victory |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Office of U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren |date=May 2025}}</ref>, and Navy Secretary John Phelan<ref name="navy">{{Cite web |title=Navy Secretary Advocates for Sailors' 'Right to Repair' Equipment |url=https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4212472/navy-secretary-advocates-for-sailors-right-to-repair-equipment/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. Department of Defense}}</ref>.
In general, the larger defense contractors more strongly oppose military right to repair, while small- and medium-sized businesses who could compete for new repair contracts are more supportive of military right to repair.<ref name="rossmann" />



==Public response==
Right to repair advocate Louis Rossmann has commented on the relative effectiveness of the inclusion of data-as-a-service language in legislation as opposed to right to repair language, making the following points<ref name="rossmann" />
*Use of a data-as-a-service model creates additional red tape that makes the status quo worse: currently, DoD can negotiate for access to rights long-term (though contractors still have the upper hand). Data-as-a-service/pay-per-use would mean DoD would have to ask major contractors for permission every time DoD needs repair tools or data, and would cause more delays in contested logistics environments with service members having to get one-time access to data they need to repair broken equipment.
*Data-as-a-service/pay-per-use makes the big Pentagon contractors' goals obvious, they're willing to share repair data with our military, but only if they can charge a high fee.
*More specifically, it requires DoD to contract to a company's data library on a pay-per-use model, increasing overall costs and discouraging both DoD and other contractor competitors from providing repair services.

He also made comparison to analogous discussions within the automotive right to repair movement, making the following points:
*This is similar to disingenuous memorandums of understanding<ref name="ifixit">{{Cite web |title=Car Companies Are Astroturfing Right to Repair |url=https://www.ifixit.com/News/80635/car-companies-are-astroturfing-right-to-repair |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=iFixit |date=September 5, 2023}}</ref> used by car manufacturers who oppose the right to repair. The data-as-a-service provision is used to appear as though they're responsive to concerns about repair restrictions, but they still lock out car owners & independent repairers.
**John Deere attempted to appease farmers w/ similar tactics, most recently releasing a new digital repair tool called Operations Center Pro Service which would require farmers to have high speed internet to repair equipment, including in the middle of the field, & requires farmers to pay for it every year in order to have access.
**Deere has tried this tactic before, releasing software it said fixed the problem but that meant farmers couldn't find or access<ref name="deere">{{Cite web |last=O'Reilly |first=Kevin |title=Service Obstructor: John Deere software restricts farmer repair |url=https://pirg.org/edfund/resources/john-deere-repair-software/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG Education Fund |date=July 18, 2023}}</ref> the basic information they needed.
**In this case, while the primes seem to pretend<ref name="hegseth">{{Cite web |last=Konkel |first=Frank |title=Draft list of attendees for Hegseth acquisition-reform speech shows wide industry interest |url=https://www.defenseone.com/business/2025/11/draft-list-attendees-hegseth-acquisition-reform-speech-shows-wide-industry-interest/409344/?oref=d1-homepage-river |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Defense One |date=November 2025}}</ref> to Secretary Hegseth that they care about this issue, their actions serve to undermine repairability.



==Timeline:==
*January 2025: Senator Warren gets<ref name="pirg-nominee">{{Cite web |last=Bowers |first=Isaac|title=Military Right to Repair supported by Army Secretary Nominee |url=https://pirg.org/articles/army-secretary-nominee-supports-military-right-to-repair/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG |date=January 30, 2025}}</ref>commitment from Secretary Dan Driscoll to work with her on tackling repair restrictions for the military.
*May 2025: Secretary of the Army, Daniel P. Driscoll, announced<ref name="pirg-army">{{Cite web |last=Proctor |first=Nathan|title=The Army embraces Right to Repair: Why that matters and what comes next |url=https://pirg.org/resources/the-army-embraces-right-to-repair-why-that-matters-and-what-comes-next/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG |date=May 2, 2025}}</ref> that the Army will ensure right to repair provisions are included in future Army contracts.
*May 2025 - Poll<ref name="pirg-poll">{{Cite web |title=Report: Americans support military Right to Repair by nearly a 7-to-1 margin |url=https://pirg.org/media-center/report-americans-support-military-right-to-repair-by-nearly-a-7-to-1-margin/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG |author=Isaac Bowers, Nathan Proctor, and Douglas H. Phelps |date=May 20, 2025}}</ref>shows Americans support military right to repair by nearly a 7-to-1 margin.
*July 2025: Senators Warren and Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) introduced the Warrior Right to Repair Act of 2025<ref name="congress-bill">{{Cite web |title=S.2209 - Warrior Right to Repair Act of 2025 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2209/text |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Congress.gov - Library of Congress |author=Ms. Warren and Mr. Sheehy |date=July 8, 2025}}</ref>, legislation that would require contractors to provide the Department of Defense (DoD) with access to technical data & materials the military needs to repair and maintain its own equipment.
*July 2025: A provision, which includes portions of Senator Warren's bipartisan Warrior Right to Repair Act<ref name="warren-sheehy">{{Cite web |title=Warren, Sheehy Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Guarantee Military Right to Repair Its Equipment |url=https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-sheehy-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-guarantee-military-right-to-repair-its-equipment |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren |date=July 8, 2025}}</ref>, to guarantee all branches of the military the right to repair their equipment and requires contractors to provide any information needed to repair the equipment, was secured with bipartisan support in the Senate Armed Services Committee for FY26 NDAA.
*July 2025 - Intellectual property legal experts send letter<ref name="professors">{{Cite web |title=Law professors express support for Warrior Right to Repair Act |url=https://pirg.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Professors-military-repair-letter-final-2.pdf |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG |date=July 2025}}</ref> to Congress that the ''Warrior Right to Repair Act''is consistent with long held law and "presents no conflict with manufacturers' IP rights."
*September 2025: the White House announced<ref name="usatoday" />support for Warren-Sheehy military right to repair policy.
*September 2025 - National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) issues white paper<ref name="ndia">{{Cite web |title=IP and Data Rights: Protecting DoD's Access to Innovation |url=https://www.ndia.org/-/media/sites/ndia/policy/ip-and-data-rights/ip-and-data-rights-white-paper.pdf?download=1 |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=National Defense Industrial Association |date=September 2025}}</ref> opposing military right to repair and advocating for "data as a service."
*October 2025: NDAA, which includes the Warren-Sheehy provision, passed the U.S. Senate.
*October 2025 - 339 small businesses<ref name="sema">{{Cite web |title=339 Small Businesses Urges Passage of Right to Repair Bill for U.S. Military |url=https://www.sema.org/news-media/press-release/339-small-businesses-urges-passage-right-repair-bill-us-military |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Specialty Equipment Market Association |date=October 21, 2025}}</ref> sent a letter urging passage of military right to repair. "This is about ensuring the government can maintain and repair what it already owns. It's about making sure the Department of Defense has access to every capable partner in the country to keep our military mission-ready."
*October 2025 - Trump administration issues statements of administration policy on the House<ref name="sap-house">{{Cite web |title=Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3838 – Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/SAP-HR3838-House-NDAA.pdf |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=The White House |date=September 8, 2025}}</ref> and Senate<ref name="sap-senate">{{Cite web |title=Statement of Administration Policy: S. 2296 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/SAP-S2296-Senate-NDAA-9.9.25.pdf |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=The White House |date=September 9, 2025}}</ref> NDAAs supporting military right to repair.
*October 2025 - Former Trump DoD undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, and VA Secretary Robert Wilkie endorse military right to repair<ref name="wilkie">{{Cite web |title=Our troops deserve the right to repair |url=https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5551775-defense-contractor-logistics-reform/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=The Hill |author=Robert Wilkie |date=November 19, 2025}}</ref>.
*Now: The House and Senate versions of the FY26 NDAA go to conference.
*November 2025 - With Honor sends letter urging<ref name="withhonor">{{Cite web |first=Rye|last=Barcott|title=With Honor Action Urges Inclusion of Key Reforms in Final FY26 Defense Bill |url=https://withhonor.org/news/with-honor-action-urges-inclusion-of-key-reforms-in-final-fy26-defense-bill/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=With Honor Action}}</ref> military right to repair be included in the final NDAA.
*November 2025 - taxpayer and watchdog groups send letter<ref name="ntu">{{Cite web |title=Joint Letter: NDAA Conference Recommendations |url=https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/joint-letter-ndaa-conference-recommendations |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=National Taxpayers Union |date=November 5, 2025}}</ref> urging support for military right to repair in final NDAA.
*November 2025 - shill for aerospace industries association publishes an op-ed<ref name="fanning">{{Cite web |title=Congress' 'right to repair' provisions threatens the backbone of U.S. defense innovation |url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/nov/13/congress-right-repair-provisions-threatens-backbone-us-defense/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Washington Times |author=Eric Fanning |date=November 13, 2025}}</ref> opposing military right to repair.
*November 2025 - Secretary Hegseth announces new DoD acquisition policy including that "''The Department must plan for and acquire systems with the ability to conduct organic depot-level maintenance, repair, and overhaul of systems and sub-systems to ensure military readiness for any conflict."''

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Incidents]]

Talk:Flock license plate readers

2025-11-22T04:24:13Z

Beanie Bo: /* New Info */ Reply

==Change this page to Flock generally as the scope of the article expanded==

Flock also sells regular AI-Powered surveillance cameras [https://www.flocksafety.com/products/video-cameras], Mobile security trailers [https://www.flocksafety.com/products/mobile-security-trailer], and "Drones as a First Responder" [https://www.flocksafety.com/products/flock-aerodome].

I suggest that we make this article about flock more generally instead of specifically focusing on their ALPR product.

[[User:Revelation 13 16-17|Revelation 13 16-17]] ([[User talk:Revelation 13 16-17|talk]]) 03:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

:I also think the language used fails to distinguish between Flock's presence in the U.S. vs other parts of the world. They are deployed across the globe. [[User:Colleen|Colleen]] ([[User talk:Colleen|talk]]) 17:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

==404 Error pages for links==

User @[[User:Left4Code|Left4Code]] found a large swathe of error pages for many of the references in this article. This discussion topic is to list and discuss the references.

{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Ref #

!Title

!Issue

!Archive state

!Link

|-
|20
|"How Vehicle Fingerprint Technology Works"
|404
|no archive
|
https://www.flocksafety.com/resources/how-vehicle-fingerprint-technology-works
|-
|21
|
"License Plate Surveillance Company Can Now Capture Images of Vehicle Occupants' Faces"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.404media.co/flock-safety-can-now-capture-faces-of-vehicle-occupants/
|-
|
22
|
"Transforming Flock: Beyond License Plate Reading to Deliver Greater Insights for Solving Crime"
|
404
|
no archive
|

https://www.flocksafety.com/newsroom/transforming-flock-beyond-license-plate-reading-to-deliver-greater-insights-for-solving-crime/
|-
|
24
|
"Atlas of Surveillance: Flock Safety"
|
goes to deeplinks blog, but no article
|
no archive
|
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/04/atlas-surveillance-flock-safety
|-
|
25
|
"Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department"
|
404
|no archive
|

https://www.eff.org/cases/leaders-beautiful-struggle-v-baltimore-police-department
|-
|
26
|
"Carpenter and the Evolving Fourth Amendment"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2023/01/60-1-Carpenter-and-the-Evolving-Fourth-Amendment.pdf
|-
|
27
|
"Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67689711/leaders-of-a-beautiful-struggle-v-baltimore-police-department/
|-
|28
|
"Illinois Compiled Statutes - Freedom from Drone Surveillance Act"
|
404
|
no archive
|

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3541&ChapterID=53
|-
|
29
|
"RSA 236:130 Automated License Plate Recognition"
|
potential 404
|
no archive
|
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/236/236-130.htm
|-
|
32
|
"Surveillance firm provided ICE access to license plate reader systems"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jul/15/flock-safety-ice-license-plate-reader
|-
|
33
|
"How Flock Safety is Building a Surveillance Network for ICE"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/03/flock-safety-and-ice
|-
|
34
|
"ICE Surveillance of Immigrants and Advocates"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://americanoversight.org/investigation/ice-surveillance-of-immigrants-and-advocates/
|-
|
35
|
"ACLU Obtains Records Showing ICE Using License Plate Readers in Sanctuary Cities"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-obtains-records-showing-ice-using-license-plate-readers-sanctuary-cities
|-
|
36
|
"License Plate Readers Are Creating a US-Wide Database of More Than Just Cars"
|404
|no archive
|
https://www.vice.com/en/article/license-plate-readers-abortion-clinics-texas
|-
|37
|"Reproductive Surveillance in Post-Roe America"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.surveillancewatch.io/reproductive-surveillance-post-roe/
|-
|38
|"State Shield Laws and Reproductive Privacy"
|dead site
|no archive
|https://reproductiverights.gov/shield-laws/
|-
|39
|"Flock Safety Employees Caught Misusing Access to Surveillance Network"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.wired.com/story/flock-safety-employees-misuse-access/
|-
|40
|"Audit Reveals Hundreds of Flock Safety Privacy Violations"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/15/audit-reveals-hundreds-of-flock-safety-privacy-violations/
|-
|41
|"When License Plate Readers Become Tools for Stalking"
|404
|no archive
|https://apnews.com/article/license-plate-readers-police-misuse-stalking
|-
|42
|"Detroit Officer Fired for Using City Cameras to Track Ex-Wife"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2024/03/officer-fired-tracking-ex-wife/
|-
|43
|"Proactive Security Disclosure Q2 2025"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/proactive-security-disclosure-q2-2025
|} [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 17:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:I got started on this and here's what I found in relation to these links so far. Will work on it more later. Note that the numbers will no longer correspond now that some changes have been made. Might have to use previous version for direct referencing.
:- - -
:*20: Fixed. Link changed to https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers
:*21: Removed broken reference and replaced with citation-needed.
:*22: Fixed. Changed to reference #20 with wiki article details changed accordingly.
:*24: Might be referring to [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/12/atlas-surveillance-expands-its-data-police-surveillance-technology-2024-year this article] but article does not reference discrimination. New reference is needed.
:*25: Fixed. Link changed to https://www.eff.org/document/fourth-circuit-ruling-leaders-beautiful-struggle-v-baltimore-police-department
:*26: Reference was irrelevant for where it was cited. Replaced with citation-needed.
:[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 18:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
::27: Fixed.
::28: Couldn't find anything on 90 days. Changed info accordingly and added new reference.
::29: Fixed.
::32: Fixed. Corrected some pretty bad misinformation. Gotta be more vigilant with using LLM's.
::33: Removed and added citation needed.
::34-35: Removed all context, appears to be misinformation.
::36-38: Fixed links. Removed misinformation.
::39-40: Removed. Info appears to be blatant misinformation and libel
::41-42: Fixed. Removed misinformation
::43: Fixed [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 03:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
:::I edit in a markdown editor using markdown because I still haven't gotten the hang of WikiText and asked claude to convert my markdown to WikiText without changing anything. I missed that it added shit. My bad. I'm going to edit in the Wiki editor from now on and if my browser freezes, that is life. Thank you for catching it. [[User:Louis|Louis]] ([[User talk:Louis|talk]]) 19:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Np. I'll clean up the rest of the Claude stuff [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 20:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

==New Info==

- Washington judge ruled that Flock data are subject to FOIA requests

- ACLU & EFF San Diego lawsuit [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 03:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

:Add to the facial recognition section:
:- In Flock's API docs, they mention the ability to track persons https://archive.ph/SK9s4. In their API search params, "persons" are listed as an option to track (although how this work is unknown without a key).
:- Flock announces a partnership with [[Ring]] doorbell only a month(?) after Ring announces facial recognition capabilities coming to their doorbells. (Also add this to Ring, as they happily submit data to feds) [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 04:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

2025-11-21T19:25:22Z

Beanie Bo: /* Idea */ Reply

NDAA has military right to repair stripped from it in favor of data as a service

2025-11-21T19:12:30Z

Beanie Bo:

{{OngoingEvent}}{{Incomplete}}

US House representatives whose campaigns have been heavily financially supported by large pentagon contractors have pushed to alter legislation progressing through the House and Senate regarding right to repair by removing right to repair language, and replacing it with language pertaining to "data-as-a-service," which was included in Representative Mike Rogers and Adam Smith's SPEED Act<ref name="speed">{{Cite web |title=Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery Act of 2025 (SPEED Act) |url=https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/speed_act_full_text.pdf |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=House Armed Services Committee |date=June 9, 2025}}</ref>.

==The representatives attempting to enact data-as-a-service==
Commentators have noted<ref name="rossmann">{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis|title=Defense contractors just killed military right to repair - here's the $535,000 reason why |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0LmjzXV7IA |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=YouTube }}</ref> that the primary representatives pushing for language changes from right to repair to data-as-a-service have had their campaigns heavily supported by defense contractors:
*Representative Mike Rogers has received<ref name="rogers">{{Cite web |title=Rep. Mike D Rogers - Alabama District 03 |url=https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/mike-d-rogers/industries?cid=N00024759&cycle=2024 |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=OpenSecrets |date=February 6, 2025}}</ref> over $535,000 from the defense industry, the top sector that donates to his campaigns. He is a top recipient from the "Defense Electronics" industry<ref name="rogers" />, in particular. He has received $10,500 from Boeing and $66,650 from L3.
*Representative Adam Smith has received<ref name="smith-industries">{{Cite web |title=Rep. Adam Smith - Washington District 09 |url=https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/adam-smith/industries?cid=N00007833&cycle=2024 |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=OpenSecrets |date=February 6, 2025}}</ref> $310,550 from the defense industry, which is the second top sector that donates to his campaign. Palantir is Smith's #3 top contributor<ref name="smith-contributors">{{Cite web |title=Rep. Adam Smith - Washington District 09 |url=https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/adam-smith/contributors?cid=N00007833&cycle=2024 |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=OpenSecrets |date=August 31, 2025}}</ref>.

==Conflicts with government==
The policy outlined by the Trump White House<ref name="usatoday">{{Cite web |title= |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/10/01/pentagon-senate-provision-gains-trump-admin-support/86455785007/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=USA Today |date=October 1, 2025}}</ref>, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth<ref name="usatoday" />, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll<ref name="warren-victory">{{Cite web |last=Warren |first=Elizabeth |title=Warren Statement on Army Right-to-Repair Victory |url=https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-statement-on-army-right-to-repair-victory |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Office of U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren |date=May 2025}}</ref>, and Navy Secretary John Phelan<ref name="navy">{{Cite web |title=Navy Secretary Advocates for Sailors' 'Right to Repair' Equipment |url=https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4212472/navy-secretary-advocates-for-sailors-right-to-repair-equipment/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. Department of Defense}}</ref>.
In general, the larger defense contractors more strongly oppose military right to repair, while small- and medium-sized businesses who could compete for new repair contracts are more supportive of military right to repair.<ref name="rossmann" />



==Public response==
Right to repair advocate Louis Rossmann has commented on the relative effectiveness of the inclusion of data-as-a-service language in legislation as opposed to right to repair language, making the following points<ref name="rossmann" />
*Use of a data-as-a-service model creates additional red tape that makes the status quo worse: currently, DoD can negotiate for access to rights long-term (though contractors still have the upper hand). Data-as-a-service/pay-per-use would mean DoD would have to ask major contractors for permission every time DoD needs repair tools or data, and would cause more delays in contested logistics environments with service members having to get one-time access to data they need to repair broken equipment.
*Data-as-a-service/pay-per-use makes the big Pentagon contractors' goals obvious, they're willing to share repair data with our military, but only if they can charge a high fee.
*More specifically, it requires DoD to contract to a company's data library on a pay-per-use model, increasing overall costs and discouraging both DoD and other contractor competitors from providing repair services.

He also made comparison to analogous discussions within the automotive right to repair movement, making the following points:
*This is similar to disingenuous memorandums of understanding<ref name="ifixit">{{Cite web |title=Car Companies Are Astroturfing Right to Repair |url=https://www.ifixit.com/News/80635/car-companies-are-astroturfing-right-to-repair |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=iFixit |date=September 5, 2023}}</ref> used by car manufacturers who oppose the right to repair. The data-as-a-service provision is used to appear as though they're responsive to concerns about repair restrictions, but they still lock out car owners & independent repairers.
**John Deere attempted to appease farmers w/ similar tactics, most recently releasing a new digital repair tool called Operations Center Pro Service which would require farmers to have high speed internet to repair equipment, including in the middle of the field, & requires farmers to pay for it every year in order to have access.
**Deere has tried this tactic before, releasing software it said fixed the problem but that meant farmers couldn't find or access<ref name="deere">{{Cite web |last=O'Reilly |first=Kevin |title=Service Obstructor: John Deere software restricts farmer repair |url=https://pirg.org/edfund/resources/john-deere-repair-software/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG Education Fund |date=July 18, 2023}}</ref> the basic information they needed.
**In this case, while the primes seem to pretend<ref name="hegseth">{{Cite web |last=Konkel |first=Frank |title=Draft list of attendees for Hegseth acquisition-reform speech shows wide industry interest |url=https://www.defenseone.com/business/2025/11/draft-list-attendees-hegseth-acquisition-reform-speech-shows-wide-industry-interest/409344/?oref=d1-homepage-river |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Defense One |date=November 2025}}</ref> to Secretary Hegseth that they care about this issue, their actions serve to undermine repairability.



==Timeline:==
*January 2025: Senator Warren gets<ref name="pirg-nominee">{{Cite web |last=Bowers |first=Isaac|title=Military Right to Repair supported by Army Secretary Nominee |url=https://pirg.org/articles/army-secretary-nominee-supports-military-right-to-repair/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG |date=January 30, 2025}}</ref>commitment from Secretary Dan Driscoll to work with her on tackling repair restrictions for the military.
*May 2025: Secretary of the Army, Daniel P. Driscoll, announced<ref name="pirg-army">{{Cite web |last=Proctor |first=Nathan|title=The Army embraces Right to Repair: Why that matters and what comes next |url=https://pirg.org/resources/the-army-embraces-right-to-repair-why-that-matters-and-what-comes-next/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG |date=May 2, 2025}}</ref> that the Army will ensure right to repair provisions are included in future Army contracts.
*May 2025 - Poll<ref name="pirg-poll">{{Cite web |title=Report: Americans support military Right to Repair by nearly a 7-to-1 margin |url=https://pirg.org/media-center/report-americans-support-military-right-to-repair-by-nearly-a-7-to-1-margin/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG |author=Isaac Bowers, Nathan Proctor, and Douglas H. Phelps |date=May 20, 2025}}</ref>shows Americans support military right to repair by nearly a 7-to-1 margin.
*July 2025: Senators Warren and Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) introduced the Warrior Right to Repair Act of 2025<ref name="congress-bill">{{Cite web |title=S.2209 - Warrior Right to Repair Act of 2025 |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/2209/text |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Congress.gov - Library of Congress |author=Ms. Warren and Mr. Sheehy |date=July 8, 2025}}</ref>, legislation that would require contractors to provide the Department of Defense (DoD) with access to technical data & materials the military needs to repair and maintain its own equipment.
*July 2025: A provision, which includes portions of Senator Warren's bipartisan Warrior Right to Repair Act<ref name="warren-sheehy">{{Cite web |title=Warren, Sheehy Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Guarantee Military Right to Repair Its Equipment |url=https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-sheehy-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-guarantee-military-right-to-repair-its-equipment |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren |date=July 8, 2025}}</ref>, to guarantee all branches of the military the right to repair their equipment and requires contractors to provide any information needed to repair the equipment, was secured with bipartisan support in the Senate Armed Services Committee for FY26 NDAA.
*July 2025 - Intellectual property legal experts send letter<ref name="professors">{{Cite web |title=Law professors express support for Warrior Right to Repair Act |url=https://pirg.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Professors-military-repair-letter-final-2.pdf |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=U.S. PIRG |date=July 2025}}</ref> to Congress that the ''Warrior Right to Repair Act''is consistent with long held law and "presents no conflict with manufacturers' IP rights."
*September 2025: the White House announced<ref name="usatoday" />support for Warren-Sheehy military right to repair policy.
*September 2025 - National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) issues white paper<ref name="ndia">{{Cite web |title=IP and Data Rights: Protecting DoD's Access to Innovation |url=https://www.ndia.org/-/media/sites/ndia/policy/ip-and-data-rights/ip-and-data-rights-white-paper.pdf?download=1 |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=National Defense Industrial Association |date=September 2025}}</ref> opposing military right to repair and advocating for "data as a service."
*October 2025: NDAA, which includes the Warren-Sheehy provision, passed the U.S. Senate.
*October 2025 - 339 small businesses<ref name="sema">{{Cite web |title=339 Small Businesses Urges Passage of Right to Repair Bill for U.S. Military |url=https://www.sema.org/news-media/press-release/339-small-businesses-urges-passage-right-repair-bill-us-military |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Specialty Equipment Market Association |date=October 21, 2025}}</ref> sent a letter urging passage of military right to repair. "This is about ensuring the government can maintain and repair what it already owns. It's about making sure the Department of Defense has access to every capable partner in the country to keep our military mission-ready."
*October 2025 - Trump administration issues statements of administration policy on the House<ref name="sap-house">{{Cite web |title=Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3838 – Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/SAP-HR3838-House-NDAA.pdf |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=The White House |date=September 8, 2025}}</ref> and Senate<ref name="sap-senate">{{Cite web |title=Statement of Administration Policy: S. 2296 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/SAP-S2296-Senate-NDAA-9.9.25.pdf |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=The White House |date=September 9, 2025}}</ref> NDAAs supporting military right to repair.
*October 2025 - Former Trump DoD undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, and VA Secretary Robert Wilkie endorse military right to repair<ref name="wilkie">{{Cite web |title=Our troops deserve the right to repair |url=https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/5551775-defense-contractor-logistics-reform/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=The Hill |author=Robert Wilkie |date=November 19, 2025}}</ref>.
*Now: The House and Senate versions of the FY26 NDAA go to conference.
*November 2025 - With Honor sends letter urging<ref name="withhonor">{{Cite web |first=Rye|last=Barcott|title=With Honor Action Urges Inclusion of Key Reforms in Final FY26 Defense Bill |url=https://withhonor.org/news/with-honor-action-urges-inclusion-of-key-reforms-in-final-fy26-defense-bill/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=With Honor Action}}</ref> military right to repair be included in the final NDAA.
*November 2025 - taxpayer and watchdog groups send letter<ref name="ntu">{{Cite web |title=Joint Letter: NDAA Conference Recommendations |url=https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/joint-letter-ndaa-conference-recommendations |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=National Taxpayers Union |date=November 5, 2025}}</ref> urging support for military right to repair in final NDAA.
*November 2025 - shill for aerospace industries association publishes an op-ed<ref name="fanning">{{Cite web |title=Congress' 'right to repair' provisions threatens the backbone of U.S. defense innovation |url=https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/nov/13/congress-right-repair-provisions-threatens-backbone-us-defense/ |access-date=November 20, 2025 |website=Washington Times |author=Eric Fanning |date=November 13, 2025}}</ref> opposing military right to repair.
*November 2025 - Secretary Hegseth announces new DoD acquisition policy including that "''The Department must plan for and acquire systems with the ability to conduct organic depot-level maintenance, repair, and overhaul of systems and sub-systems to ensure military readiness for any conflict."''

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Incidents]]

Talk:NDAA has military right to repair stripped from it in favor of data as a service

2025-11-21T19:04:27Z

Beanie Bo: /* Is this something that has happened or might happen? */ Reply

==Is this something that has happened or might happen?==

Wasn't clear from what was written here, or from the video - have these reps succeeded in changing the language or have they just proposed the change?

working on tidying up the language and making it more wiki-like at the moment but unclear on this point [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 13:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

:also @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] I know this had the notice on it before, but I think it's probably something that can be reasonably turned into a real wiki article. will do my best to give it a go! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 15:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
:The NDAA is a yearly spending bill that always passes. Often, they try to sneak in controversial laws in hopes it all gets passed at once. It's scheduled to be voted/signed in December, so it hasn't actually happened yet. Also, there's stuff about AI in there as well to keep the industry completely unregulated, so the bill is controversial for several reasons and has the potential to be delayed. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 19:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Flock license plate readers

2025-11-21T03:19:15Z

Beanie Bo: /* New Info */ new section

==Change this page to Flock generally as the scope of the article expanded==

Flock also sells regular AI-Powered surveillance cameras [https://www.flocksafety.com/products/video-cameras], Mobile security trailers [https://www.flocksafety.com/products/mobile-security-trailer], and "Drones as a First Responder" [https://www.flocksafety.com/products/flock-aerodome].

I suggest that we make this article about flock more generally instead of specifically focusing on their ALPR product.

[[User:Revelation 13 16-17|Revelation 13 16-17]] ([[User talk:Revelation 13 16-17|talk]]) 03:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

:I also think the language used fails to distinguish between Flock's presence in the U.S. vs other parts of the world. They are deployed across the globe. [[User:Colleen|Colleen]] ([[User talk:Colleen|talk]]) 17:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

==404 Error pages for links==

User @[[User:Left4Code|Left4Code]] found a large swathe of error pages for many of the references in this article. This discussion topic is to list and discuss the references.

{| class="wikitable"
|+
!Ref #

!Title

!Issue

!Archive state

!Link

|-
|20
|"How Vehicle Fingerprint Technology Works"
|404
|no archive
|
https://www.flocksafety.com/resources/how-vehicle-fingerprint-technology-works
|-
|21
|
"License Plate Surveillance Company Can Now Capture Images of Vehicle Occupants' Faces"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.404media.co/flock-safety-can-now-capture-faces-of-vehicle-occupants/
|-
|
22
|
"Transforming Flock: Beyond License Plate Reading to Deliver Greater Insights for Solving Crime"
|
404
|
no archive
|

https://www.flocksafety.com/newsroom/transforming-flock-beyond-license-plate-reading-to-deliver-greater-insights-for-solving-crime/
|-
|
24
|
"Atlas of Surveillance: Flock Safety"
|
goes to deeplinks blog, but no article
|
no archive
|
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/04/atlas-surveillance-flock-safety
|-
|
25
|
"Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department"
|
404
|no archive
|

https://www.eff.org/cases/leaders-beautiful-struggle-v-baltimore-police-department
|-
|
26
|
"Carpenter and the Evolving Fourth Amendment"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2023/01/60-1-Carpenter-and-the-Evolving-Fourth-Amendment.pdf
|-
|
27
|
"Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67689711/leaders-of-a-beautiful-struggle-v-baltimore-police-department/
|-
|28
|
"Illinois Compiled Statutes - Freedom from Drone Surveillance Act"
|
404
|
no archive
|

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=3541&ChapterID=53
|-
|
29
|
"RSA 236:130 Automated License Plate Recognition"
|
potential 404
|
no archive
|
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/236/236-130.htm
|-
|
32
|
"Surveillance firm provided ICE access to license plate reader systems"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jul/15/flock-safety-ice-license-plate-reader
|-
|
33
|
"How Flock Safety is Building a Surveillance Network for ICE"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/03/flock-safety-and-ice
|-
|
34
|
"ICE Surveillance of Immigrants and Advocates"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://americanoversight.org/investigation/ice-surveillance-of-immigrants-and-advocates/
|-
|
35
|
"ACLU Obtains Records Showing ICE Using License Plate Readers in Sanctuary Cities"
|
404
|
no archive
|
https://www.aclunc.org/news/aclu-obtains-records-showing-ice-using-license-plate-readers-sanctuary-cities
|-
|
36
|
"License Plate Readers Are Creating a US-Wide Database of More Than Just Cars"
|404
|no archive
|
https://www.vice.com/en/article/license-plate-readers-abortion-clinics-texas
|-
|37
|"Reproductive Surveillance in Post-Roe America"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.surveillancewatch.io/reproductive-surveillance-post-roe/
|-
|38
|"State Shield Laws and Reproductive Privacy"
|dead site
|no archive
|https://reproductiverights.gov/shield-laws/
|-
|39
|"Flock Safety Employees Caught Misusing Access to Surveillance Network"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.wired.com/story/flock-safety-employees-misuse-access/
|-
|40
|"Audit Reveals Hundreds of Flock Safety Privacy Violations"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/15/audit-reveals-hundreds-of-flock-safety-privacy-violations/
|-
|41
|"When License Plate Readers Become Tools for Stalking"
|404
|no archive
|https://apnews.com/article/license-plate-readers-police-misuse-stalking
|-
|42
|"Detroit Officer Fired for Using City Cameras to Track Ex-Wife"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2024/03/officer-fired-tracking-ex-wife/
|-
|43
|"Proactive Security Disclosure Q2 2025"
|404
|no archive
|https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/proactive-security-disclosure-q2-2025
|} [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 17:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:I got started on this and here's what I found in relation to these links so far. Will work on it more later. Note that the numbers will no longer correspond now that some changes have been made. Might have to use previous version for direct referencing.
:- - -
:*20: Fixed. Link changed to https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers
:*21: Removed broken reference and replaced with citation-needed.
:*22: Fixed. Changed to reference #20 with wiki article details changed accordingly.
:*24: Might be referring to [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/12/atlas-surveillance-expands-its-data-police-surveillance-technology-2024-year this article] but article does not reference discrimination. New reference is needed.
:*25: Fixed. Link changed to https://www.eff.org/document/fourth-circuit-ruling-leaders-beautiful-struggle-v-baltimore-police-department
:*26: Reference was irrelevant for where it was cited. Replaced with citation-needed.
:[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 18:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
::27: Fixed.
::28: Couldn't find anything on 90 days. Changed info accordingly and added new reference.
::29: Fixed.
::32: Fixed. Corrected some pretty bad misinformation. Gotta be more vigilant with using LLM's.
::33: Removed and added citation needed.
::34-35: Removed all context, appears to be misinformation.
::36-38: Fixed links. Removed misinformation.
::39-40: Removed. Info appears to be blatant misinformation and libel
::41-42: Fixed. Removed misinformation
::43: Fixed [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 03:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
:::I edit in a markdown editor using markdown because I still haven't gotten the hang of WikiText and asked claude to convert my markdown to WikiText without changing anything. I missed that it added shit. My bad. I'm going to edit in the Wiki editor from now on and if my browser freezes, that is life. Thank you for catching it. [[User:Louis|Louis]] ([[User talk:Louis|talk]]) 19:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Np. I'll clean up the rest of the Claude stuff [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 20:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

== New Info ==

- Washington judge ruled that Flock data are subject to FOIA requests

- ACLU & EFF San Diego lawsuit [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 03:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Google Gemini

2025-11-17T21:50:53Z

Beanie Bo: /* Relevancy discussion */ Reply

==Relevancy discussion==

I'm not seeing any listed incidents on the wiki here for Google Gemini. '''''[[User:JackFromWisconsin|📎 JackFromWisconsin]]''''' ([[User_talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/JackFromWisconsin|contribs]]) 01:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:JackFromWisconsin|JackFromWisconsin]] I don’t see any incidents related to consumer rights after doing a search either. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:Gemini is subject to many of the same anti-consumer problems as most LLM/chatbots. (Misleading/false advertising. Consumer manipulation. etc.)
:Here are a couple of examples. These happen to be about privacy, security and autonomy, but there is lots more out there.
:Hack a smart home with a calendar invite! And Google Gemini[https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/08/10/hack-a-smart-home-with-a-calendar-invite-and-google-gemini/]
:Prompt-inject an AI chatbot with … an image![https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/08/22/prompt-inject-an-ai-chatbot-with-an-image/]
:[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 21:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
::It's been a month later. If you'd like to add some relevant incidents that are ''specific to Gemini,'' then you're free to do so. Otherwise, this article will likely be deleted. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
:::A month later than what?
:::This came across as threatening. (Work on this now, or else. No reason given for deletion - seems like just to put pressure on an editor who was just trying to help.) May not be the intent, but that is how it feels. I don't like threats, so this gave me no incentive to work on this.
:::Another way something like this could have been said: "I am interested in adding some more incidents to this article. You seem to know about AI. When you have a minute, could you suggest a few more references, or incidents involving Gemini? Thanks."
:::I respond better to a request like that. I suspect many others would also. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 17:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Please clarify what trying to say by emphasis on ''specific to Gemini''. The security issues I cited are with Gemini.
:::For example, ChatGPT has similar issues for inducing delusional disorders, misleading, etc. However it is not (as far as I know) integrated with Gmail, or Google docs, or Google search, or Googles other ubiquitous products. So, while Gemini shares the same underlying security problems as all LLMs, the impact of these problems in Gemini is greater because of the products reach, and more specific to users of Google products. I tried to say that in the post blow (which predates this discussion), was that unclear, or ??? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 17:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
::::My apologies for being curt. It's just that there are no specific incidents related to Gemini having consumer issues (as opposed to LLM's in general), which is why someone added the relevance notice. Company articles usually have at least one relevant incident as a stub, otherwise they get deleted. So I mentioned you in case you had something to add before it does [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 21:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry, I did not see that post. My mistake [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 21:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
:Google says they will not be fixing One of the attack types (ASCII injection) mentioned in article above about prompt injection. (One that is actually fixable.) ''Google won’t fix ‘ASCII smuggling’ hack in Gemini AI'' [[https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/10/11/google-wont-fix-ascii-smuggling-hack-in-gemini-ai/]]
:Gemini is pretty much anywhere you find Google apps, so the targets are plentiful, and Google is going to keep 'em nice and vulnerable. Not good for consumers. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 01:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Google Gemini

2025-11-17T21:49:32Z

Beanie Bo: /* Relevancy discussion */ Reply

==Relevancy discussion==

I'm not seeing any listed incidents on the wiki here for Google Gemini. '''''[[User:JackFromWisconsin|📎 JackFromWisconsin]]''''' ([[User_talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/JackFromWisconsin|contribs]]) 01:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:JackFromWisconsin|JackFromWisconsin]] I don’t see any incidents related to consumer rights after doing a search either. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
:Gemini is subject to many of the same anti-consumer problems as most LLM/chatbots. (Misleading/false advertising. Consumer manipulation. etc.)
:Here are a couple of examples. These happen to be about privacy, security and autonomy, but there is lots more out there.
:Hack a smart home with a calendar invite! And Google Gemini[https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/08/10/hack-a-smart-home-with-a-calendar-invite-and-google-gemini/]
:Prompt-inject an AI chatbot with … an image![https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/08/22/prompt-inject-an-ai-chatbot-with-an-image/]
:[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 21:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
::It's been a month later. If you'd like to add some relevant incidents that are ''specific to Gemini,'' then you're free to do so. Otherwise, this article will likely be deleted. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
:::A month later than what?
:::This came across as threatening. (Work on this now, or else. No reason given for deletion - seems like just to put pressure on an editor who was just trying to help.) May not be the intent, but that is how it feels. I don't like threats, so this gave me no incentive to work on this.
:::Another way something like this could have been said: "I am interested in adding some more incidents to this article. You seem to know about AI. When you have a minute, could you suggest a few more references, or incidents involving Gemini? Thanks."
:::I respond better to a request like that. I suspect many others would also. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 17:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Please clarify what trying to say by emphasis on ''specific to Gemini''. The security issues I cited are with Gemini.
:::For example, ChatGPT has similar issues for inducing delusional disorders, misleading, etc. However it is not (as far as I know) integrated with Gmail, or Google docs, or Google search, or Googles other ubiquitous products. So, while Gemini shares the same underlying security problems as all LLMs, the impact of these problems in Gemini is greater because of the products reach, and more specific to users of Google products. I tried to say that in the post blow (which predates this discussion), was that unclear, or ??? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 17:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
::::My apologies for being curt. It's just that there are no specific incidents related to Gemini having consumer issues (as opposed to LLM's in general), which is why someone added the relevance notice. Company articles usually have at least one relevant incident as a stub, otherwise they get deleted. So I mentioned you in case you had something to add before it does [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 21:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
:Google says they will not be fixing One of the attack types (ASCII injection) mentioned in article above about prompt injection. (One that is actually fixable.) ''Google won’t fix ‘ASCII smuggling’ hack in Gemini AI'' [[https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/10/11/google-wont-fix-ascii-smuggling-hack-in-gemini-ai/]]
:Gemini is pretty much anywhere you find Google apps, so the targets are plentiful, and Google is going to keep 'em nice and vulnerable. Not good for consumers. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 01:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Flock license plate readers

2025-11-08T17:15:10Z

Beanie Bo: /* Legal challenges */ added judge quote about public records

{{ProductCargo
|Company=Flock Safety
|ProductLine=Flock Safety Falcon
|ReleaseYear=2017
|InProduction=Yes
|ArticleType=Product
|Category=Cameras, Security, Surveillance
|Logo=Flock License plate readers (LPR).png
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers
|Description=AI-powered automated license plate reader (ALPR) system that creates "Vehicle Fingerprints" by recording license plates, vehicle characteristics, and movement patterns for law enforcement use without individual consent or warrants.
}}
'''Flock License Plate Readers''' (previously known as '''Flock Safety Falcon'''<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/devices/falcon|title=Falcon|work=Flock Safety |access-date=6 Dec 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/UjKM5 |archive-date=6 Dec 2024 |url-status=usurped}}</ref>), are a network of AI-powered surveillance cameras that record vehicle data for law enforcement agencies. The system operates in over 5,000 communities across 49 states in the U.S.A.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250628052030/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |archive-date=28 Jun 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref> According to the company's own marketing materials, Flock performs over 20 billion vehicle scans monthly.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/iVsBZ |archive-date=26 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>

==Consumer impact summary==
====Freedom====
Residents and taxpayers have no mechanism to opt out of [[Flock Safety]]'s surveillance network. The cameras operate 24/7 in public spaces, recording all passing vehicles regardless of consent. They are also placed on private premises like universities, hospitals, businesses, and neighborhood associations, which often share this data with law enforcement.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=19 Jun 2024 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/19/fedex-police-help-cops-build-an-ai-car-surveillance-network/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240619112629/https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/19/fedex-police-help-cops-build-an-ai-car-surveillance-network/ |archive-date=19 Jun 2024 |access-date=25 Aug 2025 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This data can later be integrated into predictive police platforms like {{Wplink|Palantir Technologies|Palantir}}.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rettberg |first=Jill Walker |title=Machine Vision: How Algorithms are Changing the Way We See the World |date=11 Sep 2023 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons. |year=2023 |location=Google Books |pages=45-46 |language=English}}</ref>

Unlike traditional security cameras that may be avoided by choosing different routes, Flock's expanding network of over 40,000 cameras makes avoidance increasingly difficult.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://deflock.me/ |title=Find Nearby ALPRs |work=DeFlock |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250728224453/https://deflock.me/|archive-date=2025-07-28 |url-status=live}}</ref> The system uses AI to create ''"Vehicle Fingerprints"'' that identify vehicles by characteristics beyond license plates, including make, model, color, aftermarket parts, window stickers, and roof racks.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |date=23 Jul 2025 |title=Surveillance Company Flock Now Using AI to Report Us to Police if it Thinks Our Movement Patterns Are "Suspicious" |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250814053755/https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious |archive-date=14 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

====Privacy====
While Flock Safety claims their system doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights because ''"license plates are not personal information,"''<ref name="Flock-PE">{{Cite web |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/privacy-ethics |title=Privacy & Ethics |work=Flock Safety |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/OP55p |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref> federal courts have challenged this interpretation. In February 2024, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit challenging Norfolk, Virginia's use of 172 Flock cameras could proceed, finding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged the system creates a ''"detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence compiled every day."''<ref name="norfolk">{{Cite web |last=King |first=Dan |date=6 Feb 2024 |title=Judge Rules Lawsuit Challenging Norfolk's Use of Flock Cameras Can Proceed |url=https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250717001536/https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/ |archive-date=17 Jul 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Institute for Justice}}</ref>

Data collected includes location history that can reveal sensitive information about medical visits, religious attendance, political activities, and personal associations. While Flock states data is deleted after 30 days, contracts grant them ''"perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license"'' to use anonymized data indefinitely.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Terms and Conditions |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/terms-and-conditions |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/DSqUM |archive-date=26 Oct 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref> The system shares data across a network of over 4,800 law enforcement agencies nationally.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2024 |title=Lawsuit Argues Warrantless Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Unconstitutional |url=https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250826013458/https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/ |archive-date=26 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=404 Media}}</ref>

====="Anonymized Data"=====
While Flock's Terms and Conditions define "Anonymized Data" as customer data that is ''"permanently stripped of identifying details and any potential personally identifiable information"'' and is rendered so that a person or entity ''"can no longer be identified directly or indirectly,"'' this definition includes information such as vehicle make, model, color, location patterns, and other non–license-plate attributes.<ref name=":1" />

Privacy researchers caution that mobility datasets labeled as "anonymized" can still be re-identified. A 2013 MIT study found that just four spatio-temporal points uniquely identified 95% of individuals in an anonymized location dataset.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=de Montjoye |first=Y.-A. |last2=Hidalgo |first2=C. A. |last3=Verleysen |first3=M. |last4=Blondel |first4=V. D. |year=2013 |title=Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01376 |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=3 |pages=1376 |doi=10.1038/srep01376 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> Multiple peer-reviewed studies from 2018-2024 demonstrate that "anonymized" vehicle location data can be re-identified with high accuracy. A 2022 study showed researchers could re-identify drivers from raw vehicle network data with 97% accuracy by exploiting inter-dependencies in sensor measurements.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167404822002139 |title=Privacy-preserving vehicle trajectory matching |website=ScienceDirect |date=2022 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref> Research published in the Journal of Computer Science and Technology (2022) found that even three to four location points can uniquely identify individuals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sun |first=She |last2=Ma |first2=Shuai |last3=Song |first3=Jing-He |last4=Yue |first4=Wen-Hai |last5=Lin |first5=Xue-Lian |last6=Ma |first6=Tiejun |date=2022 |title=Experiments and Analyses of Anonymization Mechanisms for Trajectory Data Publishing |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11390-022-2409-x |journal=Journal of Computer Science and Technology |doi=10.1007/s11390-022-2409-x |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

====Business model====
Flock operates on a subscription model charging municipalities and law enforcement agencies $2,500 USD per camera annually plus installation costs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://campbellca.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=279 |title=How much does a Flock Safety camera cost? |work=City of Campbell |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> Private businesses including Home Depot, Lowe's, and FedEx also deploy cameras, sharing data with law enforcement.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/ |title=Home Depot and Lowe's Share Data From Hundreds of AI Cameras With Cops |first=Jason |last=Koebler |date=6 Aug 2025 |work=404 Media |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250823135847/https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/ |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> Contracts include automatic renewal clauses and limit municipal oversight capabilities, with cities unable to audit system operations or control how other agencies use shared data.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/flock_1.pdf |title=How to Pump the Brakes on Your Police Department's Use of Flock's Mass Surveillance License Plate Readers |work=American Civil Liberties Union |date=2024 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

====Market control====
Flock Safety has rapidly expanded to become a dominant force in automated license plate recognition, operating in 49 states with over 40,000 cameras deployed. The company's network effect creates pressure for additional jurisdictions to join, as law enforcement effectiveness depends on network coverage. Several states have begun restricting access following privacy violations, with California, Illinois, and New York limiting data sharing after immigration and abortion-related tracking incidents.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.michaelrcronin.com/post/flock-blocks-ice-from-license-plate-reader-access-in-several-states |title='Flock' Blocks ICE from License Plate Reader Access in Several States |work=Yes You Can Go |date=2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

===Premise of a "license plate camera"===
While marketed as "license plate readers,"' Flock cameras use what the company calls "Vehicle Fingerprint" technology which tracks vehicles using characteristics beyond just license plates. The system catalogs vehicles based on numerous distinguishing features including make, model, color, bumper stickers, dents, damage patterns, roof racks, aftermarket modifications such as wheels or spoilers, window stickers, and even mismatching paint colors.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harwell |first=Drew |date=2021-10-22 |title=Flock license plate readers spark controversy in Golden, Colo. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/22/crime-suburbs-license-plate-readers/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety ALPR |url=https://www.campbellca.gov/1260/Flock-Safety-ALPR |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=City of Campbell}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date= |title=LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers |url-status=usurped |access-date=26 Oct 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>. According to Flock's own marketing materials, the system can identify vehicles even when license plates cannot be captured, advertised as turning "images into actionable evidence — no plate required."<ref>{{Cite web |title=License Plate Readers |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/D9JGD |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>

Flock claims this capability is ''"unique among ALPR systems"'' and allows law enforcement to search for vehicles based on these characteristics even without a visible license plate.

This technology changes the nature of the surveillance from license plate reading to comprehensive vehicle tracking. A person could still be tracked by the unique combination of their vehicle's physical characteristics. The Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that these ''"vehicle fingerprints"'' could flag vehicles based on political bumper stickers, revealing ''"information on the political or social views of the driver,"'' or economic indicators like rust or damage, potentially "endangering anyone who might not feel the need (or have the income required) to keep their car in perfect shape."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-09-14 |title=Things to Know Before Your Neighborhood Installs an Automated License Plate Reader |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/flock-license-plate-reader-homeowners-association-safe-problems |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

Privacy advocates note that this expanded tracking capability makes the term ''"license plate reader"'' misleading, as Flock systems create detailed vehicle profiles that persist even without readable plates. It turns any distinguishing feature of a vehicle into a tracking identifier.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Stop Flock |url=https://www.stopflock.com/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Stop Flock}}</ref>

==Patent for person identification by race and physical characteristics==
A U.S. Patent granted to Flock Group Inc. in August 2022 reveals the company has developed and patented technology to identify and classify people based on race, gender, and other physical characteristics.<ref name="patent11416545">{{Cite web |url=https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/77/9a/03/7b3b26499077d4/US11416545.pdf |title=System and Method for Object Based Query of Video Content Captured by a Dynamic Surveillance Network |website=United States Patent and Trademark Office |date=16 Aug 2022 |access-date=21 Jan 2025 |format=PDF |first1=Garrett |last1=Langley |first2=Matt |last2=Feury }}</ref> Patent US 11,416,545 B1 describes a system that goes beyond vehicle identification to analyze human subjects captured in surveillance footage.

According to the patent documentation, when the system identifies a human being in captured footage, it uses neural network modules specifically configured to classify people by "male, female, race, etc." The patent further describes using additional neural networks to identify clothing types, estimate height and weight, and other physical characteristics of individuals.<ref name="patent11416545" /> The system can then store this classification data in searchable databases, allowing law enforcement to query for people based on these physical attributes.

The patent shows that Flock's technology is designed to create comprehensive profiles that can track individuals across multiple camera locations by matching physical characteristics. While Flock publicly markets its products as ''"license plate readers"'' focused on vehicles, this patent demonstrates the company has developed capabilities for detailed human surveillance and classification by protected characteristics including race and gender.<ref name="patent11416545" />

Privacy advocates have raised concerns that this technology could enable discriminatory policing practices and racial profiling at scale.{{Citation needed}} The ability to search for people by race or other physical characteristics across a network of thousands of cameras is a large expansion of surveillance capabilities beyond what is typically disclosed in Flock's public marketing materials.{{Citation needed}}

==Legal challenges==

===Washington state judge declares Flock footage as public records ''(6 Nov 2025)''===
An Oregon resident filed public records requests at various police departments in the state of Washington regarding information collected from Flock cameras. The cities of Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley filed a motion to reject the resident's request, with their attorney stating that publicizing Flock footage may be a violation of privacy that could lead to stalking.

Some exemptions are given to deny public records request, particularly due to investigations. However, the judge dismissed the motion, declaring that the camera footage was "so broad and indiscriminate" with no distinction between criminal activity and casual civilian activity that the data had to be released to the public.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingalls |first=Chris |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge orders police to release surveillance camera data, raising privacy questions |url=https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/investigators/judge-orders-washington-police-release-surveillance-camera-data-privacy-questions/281-c2037d52-6afb-4bf7-95ad-0eceaf477864 |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=KING5}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Peterson |first=Jenna |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge denies request to exempt Flock footage from Public Records Act |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-denies-request-to-exempt-flock-footage-from-public-records-act/ |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=Herald Net}}</ref>

The judge stated:<ref name=":5" /><blockquote>“I do think that the information at stake does have serious privacy implications, but that’s not the analysis for the intelligence information exemption,” she said. “You also have to make a finding that this is specific intelligence information that is compiled by investigative or law enforcement agencies, and the information that’s being compiled here does not relate to a specific case or investigation. The public already knows that these cameras exist and are operated. Many of them are in sight. The information does not disclose particular methods or procedures for gathering or evaluating intelligence information.” </blockquote>

===Norfolk federal lawsuit ''(February 2025)''===
In February 2025, Chief Judge Mark S. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Norfolk's motion to dismiss a landmark Fourth Amendment lawsuit. The case involves two residents whose vehicles were tracked 526 times in 4.5 months and 849 times over the same period, figures revealed in a September 2025 court filing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399|title=Virginia police used Flock cameras to track driver 526 times in 4 months, lawsuit says|work=NBC News|date=2025-09-18|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> Norfolk installed 172 Flock Safety cameras in 2023 at a cost of $430,000-$516,000 annually. Police Chief Mark Talbot stated the goal was making it ''"difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere."''<ref name="norfolk" />

Judge Davis's ruling relied on ''Carpenter v. United States'', the 2018 Supreme Court decision requiring warrants for historical cell phone location data. The court found Norfolk's ALPR network "notably similar" to the surveillance the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional. However, courts remain divided. In November 2024, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne in the same district denied a motion to suppress Flock evidence, holding that three vehicle snapshots don't constitute "persistent surveillance" requiring a warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://valawyersweekly.com/2024/11/11/mosaic-theory-rejected-flock-camera-evidence-does-not-violate-fourth-amendment/|title='Mosaic theory' rejected: Flock camera evidence does not violate Fourth Amendment|website=Virginia Lawyers Weekly|date=2024-11-11|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Virginia state courts show similar disagreement. Norfolk Circuit Court Judge Jamilah LeCruise granted a suppression motion in May 2024, finding that the breadth of Flock cameras covering Norfolk requires a warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant|title=Virginia Judge Rejects ALPR Evidence Without Warrant|website=Government Technology|date=2024-05-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Yet three other Norfolk circuit court judges denied similar motions in 2024.

===State regulatory landscape===
Only 16 states have enacted any form of ALPR regulation as of 2024 according to University of Michigan research.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/news/2023/automated-license-plate-readers-widely-used-subject-abuse|title=Automated License Plate Readers widely used, subject to abuse|website=University of Michigan|date=2023|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Virginia enacted House Bill 2724 in 2025 creating annual reporting requirements.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://vscc.virginia.gov/Annual%20Reports/2024%20VSCC%20Annual%20Report%20-Law%20Enforcement%20Use%20of%20ALPR.pdf|title=2024 VSCC Annual Report - Law Enforcement Use of ALPR|website=Virginia State Crime Commission|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Illinois Public Act 103-0540 explicitly prohibits use for reproductive healthcare punishment and immigration investigations.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/103/103-0540.htm|title=Public Act 103-0540|website=Illinois General Assembly|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Illinois prohibits law enforcement agencies from sharing ALPR data with other jurisdictions in relation to a person's immigration status.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Public Act 103-0540 |url=https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/publicacts/103/PDF/103-0540.pdf |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Illinois General Assembly}}</ref> New Hampshire requires a three-minute purge of data from ALPR use with the exception of ongoing investigations. <ref>{{Cite web |title=261:75-b Use of Number Plate Scanning Devices Regulated. |url=https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/title-xxi/chapter-261/section-261-75-b/ |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=New Hampshire General Court}}</ref>

California’s SB 34 requires public agencies using ALPR systems to implement usage and privacy policies as well as limits to data sharing. <ref name=":3">{{Cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB34 |title=SB-34 Automated license plate recognition systems: use of data |work=California Legislative Information |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> However, enforcement remains inconsistent, with a 2020 state audit finding widespread non-compliance.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/index.html |title=Automated License Plate Readers |work=California State Auditor |date=13 Feb 2020 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

==Notable incidents==

====Illinois audit findings (2024-2025)====
Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias announced in late August 2024 that Flock Safety violated state law by allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois license plate data for immigration enforcement.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safetys-response-to-illinois-lpr-data-use-and-out-of-state-sharing-concerns|title=Flock Safety's Response to Illinois LPR Data Use and Out-of-State Sharing Concerns|website=Flock Safety|date=2024-08-25|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The audit of 12 local law enforcement agencies revealed unauthorized pilot programs with CBP and Homeland Security Investigations, violating Illinois law prohibiting data sharing for immigration enforcement, gender-affirming care investigations, and abortion-related matters. Following the audit, 47 out-of-state agencies were removed from access to Illinois data.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtech.com/biz/flock-pledges-changes-after-illinois-data-sharing-accusation|title=Flock Pledges Changes After Illinois Data-Sharing Accusation|website=Government Technology|date=2024-08-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Mount Prospect, Illinois reported 262 immigration-related license plate reader searches in just the first few months of 2025. A Palos Heights detective shared Flock login credentials with a DEA agent who conducted 28 unauthorized searches of Oak Park ALPR data explicitly labeled "immigration violation."<ref name="dea">{{Cite web|url=https://unraveledpress.com/a-dea-agent-used-an-illinois-police-officers-flock-license-plate-reader-password-for-unauthorized-immigration-enforcement-searches/|title=DEA agent used Illinois cop's Flock license plate reader password for immigration enforcement searches|work=Unraveled Press|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

====California violations (2015-2025)====
California passed Senate Bill 34<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_201520160sb34|title=Senate Bill 34|access-date=2025-08-27}}</ref> in 2015 to limit how California police departments can use and share data collected from these cameras with other state's and federal law enforcement agencies. These limits have been found to be violated on several occasions with little enforcement or consequences for the misusing departments<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sfstandard.com/2025/07/23/california-police-sharing-flock-license-plate-data/|access-date=2025-08-27|title=California cops are breaking surveillance laws|website=San Francisco Standard|date=2025-07-23}}</ref>.

A 2023 EFF investigation found 71 California police agencies in 22 counties illegally shared data with out-of-state law enforcement. San Francisco Police Department alone allowed 1.6 million illegal searches by out-of-state agencies from 2024-2025.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://sfstandard.com/2025/09/08/sfpd-flock-alpr-ice-data-sharing/|title=SFPD let Georgia, Texas cops illegally search city surveillance data on behalf of ICE|website=San Francisco Standard|date=2025-09-08|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The California Attorney General filed the first enforcement action against the City of El Cajon in 2025 for sharing with 26 states.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-el-cajon-illegally-sharing-license-plate-data-out|title=Attorney General Bonta Sues El Cajon for Illegally Sharing License Plate Data|website=California DOJ|date=2025|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===False positive incidents===

====Families detained at gunpoint====
In Española, New Mexico, 21-year-old Jaclynn Gonzales and her 12-year-old sister were held at gunpoint and handcuffed after Flock's system mistook a "2" for a "7" on their license plate, falsely flagging their vehicle as stolen.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-09-28 |title=License plate cover leads to traffic stop mishap |url=https://www.koat.com/article/espanola-police-license-plate-stolen-cover-traffic-stop/45361740|website=KOAT|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025 |title=Flock Safety: Eroding Your Privacy & Keeping You Safe with Surveillance |url=https://redact.dev/blog/flock-safety-lpr-privacy-surveillance/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Redact}}</ref>

ALPR systems often misread license plates according to multiple investigations, leading to hardship & legal trouble for innocent civilians.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/11/human-toll-alpr-errors|title=The Human Toll of ALPR Errors|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=2024-11-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Law enforcement stalking incidents===

In October 2022, Kechi, Kansas Police Lieutenant Victor Heiar was arrested and later pleaded guilty to computer crimes and stalking after using Flock cameras to track his estranged wife's movements over four months.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.kwch.com/2022/10/31/kechi-police-lieutenant-arrested-using-police-technology-stalk-wife/|title=Kechi police lieutenant arrested for using police technology to stalk wife|work=KWCH|date=2022-10-31|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> In a separate Kansas incident, Sedgwick Police Chief Lee Nygaard accessed Flock data 164 times to track his ex-girlfriend before resigning after admitting to the misuse.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-police-chief-used-flock-093300946.html|title=Kansas police chief used Flock license plate cameras 164 times to track ex-girlfriend|work=Yahoo News|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Multiple other documented cases include Las Vegas Metro Officer Christopher Young arrested in December 2023 for stalking his ex-fiancée using police databases, and Riverside County Deputy Eric Piscatella pleading guilty in February 2024 to seven counts of misusing sheriff's department databases to stalk a woman he met at Coachella.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/02/16/las-vegas-police-officer-arrested-reportedly-stalking-ex-fiancee/?outputType=amp|title=Las Vegas police officer arrested for reportedly stalking ex-fiancée|website=FOX5 Vegas|date=2024-02-16|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Abortion and reproductive healthcare tracking===
In May 2025, Johnson County, Texas sheriff's deputies used Flock's network to track a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. They conducted searches across 83,000+ Flock cameras nationwide with the explicit reason: "had an abortion, search for female." The search accessed cameras across multiple states including those where abortion is legal. The incident led Illinois officials to investigate and subsequently block 47+ out-of-state agencies from accessing Illinois ALPR data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2025/06/13/after-finding-fetal-remains-north-texas-cops-used-camera-network-to-search-for-woman/|title=After finding fetal remains, North Texas cops used camera network to search for woman|work=The Dallas Morning News|date=2025-06-13|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/she-got-abortion-so-texas-cop-used-83000-cameras-track-her-down|title=She Got an Abortion. So A Texas Cop Used 83,000 Cameras to Track Her Down|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=2025-05-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Federal agency access===
Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintains a $6.1 million contract giving 9,000+ ICE officers access to the Vigilant Solutions ALPR database containing over 5 billion location data points.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/documents-reveal-ice-using-driver-location-data|title=Documents Reveal ICE Using Driver Location Data From Local Police for Deportations|website=ACLU|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The Drug Enforcement Administration operates a National License Plate Reader Program with over 10,000 license plate readers shared throughout the United States. 404 Media revealed over 4,000 searches by local and state police for federal immigration enforcement purposes, despite Flock having no formal ICE contract.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/|title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows|work=404 Media|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> A DEA agent was found using an Illinois police officer's credentials to conduct unauthorized immigration searches.<ref name="dea" />

===Illegal Camera Installations===
In South Carolina, Flock installed over 200 cameras without authorization, leading to a statewide moratorium on new installations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ferrara |first=David |date=2024-03-11 |title=A company installed license plate cameras without permission. SC agency wants clear rules |url=https://www.postandcourier.com/news/alpr-cameras-south-carolina-flock-safety-license-plate-readers/article_787a262a-dbd2-11ee-a901-634acead588b.html |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=The Post and Courier}}</ref>

In Illinois, a Flock representative allegedly threatened a Department of Transportation official with police pressure when questioned about permit applications.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Uprise RI Staff |date=2024-10-23 |title=As Flock Surveillance Cameras Proliferate in Rhode Island, Lawsuit Challenges Their Legality |url=https://upriseri.com/as-flock-surveillance-cameras-proliferate-in-rhode-island-lawsuit-challenges-their-legality/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=UPRISE RI}}</ref>

====='''Evanston, IL'''=====
Flock was ordered to remove 18 stationary cameras. The city put the contract with Flock on a 30-day termination notice on August 26. Flock Initially appeared to comply, removing 15 of the cameras by September 8. Later, Flock was caught reinstalling all of them by the following Tuesday without authorization from the city. The city of Evanston responded with a cease-and-desist order for Flock to remove the new and unauthorized camera equipment. Because Flock reinstalled the cameras without permission, Evanston was forced to cover the cameras with tape and bags to block them from potentially logging vehicle data.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harrison |first=Alex |date=2025-09-25 |title=City covers Flock cameras while waiting for removal |url=https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/25/city-covers-up-flock-cameras-while-waiting-for-removal/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/PD1qe |archive-date=2025-10-10 |access-date=2025-10-10 |website=Evanston Roundtable}}</ref>

===City rejections and terminations===

Multiple cities have rejected or terminated Flock contracts following privacy concerns and effectiveness issues:

'''0.2% effectiveness rate, low arrests:''' Austin, Texas terminated its contract in July 2025 after an audit revealed "systematic compliance failures" and only 165 arrests from 113 million license plate scans (0.146% effectiveness rate).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/flock-ceo-responds-to-austin-backlash-as-city-contract-nears-expiration|title=Flock CEO responds to Austin backlash as city contract nears expiration|work=CBS Austin|date=2025-06-21|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Denver City Council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension in May 2025 following revelations of 1,400+ ICE-related searches in Colorado data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://denverite.com/2025/05/05/denver-rejects-flock-camera-license-plate-readers/|title=Denver rejects $666,000 extension for license-plate surveillance cameras after backlash|work=Denverite|date=2025-05-05|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

San Marcos, Texas voted 5-2 to deny camera expansion after discovering no required audits had been conducted since 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Velez |first=Abigail |date=2025-06-04 |title=San Marcos City Council votes to deny flock camera expansion after hours of heated debate |url=https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/san-marcos-city-council-votes-to-deny-flock-camera-expansion-after-hours-of-heated-debate |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=CBS Austin}}</ref>

Oak Park, Illinois terminated their contract entirely following the Illinois investigation into illegal data sharing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oakpark.com/2025/08/07/oak-park-terminates-flock-license-plate-reader-contract/|title=Oak Park terminates Flock license plate reader contract|work=Wednesday Journal|date=2025-08-07|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

===Arizona deployments===
Sedona, Arizona became the first Arizona city to completely terminate its Flock Safety contract in September 2025 after citizen backlash. The city had installed 11 cameras in June 2025 without prior public notice at a cost of $51,146 for the first year. The council voted 5-1 to pause the program, then unanimously 7-0 on September 9 to permanently terminate after Flock CEO Garrett Langley admitted the company had been sharing data with federal agencies. Vice Mayor Holli Ploog called Flock "not an honorable company" for the conflicting data-sharing claims.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://westvalleyfamilies.substack.com/p/sedona-pulls-the-plug-on-flock-safety|title=Sedona Pulls the Plug on Flock Safety|website=West Valley Families|date=2025-09-10|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2025-09-11/sedona-council-permanently-ends-license-plate-camera-program|title=Sedona council permanently ends license plate camera program|website=KNAU|date=2025-09-11|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Flagstaff deployed 32 Flock cameras in summer 2024 at a cost of $143,100 annually. By September 2025, a petition signed by 25+ residents demanded cancellation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.kjzz.org/fronteras-desk/2025-09-01/after-sedona-paused-flock-safety-camera-system-flagstaff-is-considering-the-same-issue|title=After Sedona paused Flock Safety camera system, Flagstaff is considering the same issue|website=KJZZ|date=2025-09-01|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

University of Arizona contracted with Flock in February 2025 for 54 ALPR cameras at $160,000 annually. Students and faculty launched a "Deflock Tucson" campaign citing concerns about tracking international students and potential data sharing with federal immigration authorities.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://azluminaria.org/2025/09/15/ua-students-and-faculty-question-use-of-flock-safety-cameras-on-campus/|title=UA students and faculty question use of Flock Safety cameras on campus|website=AZ Luminaria|date=2025-09-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Casa Grande approved a $10 million "Safe City Initiative" in September 2025 including 100 license plate readers. Chief Mark McCrory reported the current 22 license plate readers led to 212 stolen vehicles identified and 168 arrests.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.inmaricopa.com/we-mapped-all-flock-cameras/|title=We mapped the city's Flock cameras|website=InMaricopa|date=2025|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Despite documented deployments across Arizona including Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler, Scottsdale, Tempe, Surprise, Youngtown, Litchfield Park, and Yuma, the state has no ALPR-specific regulation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://azmirror.com/2019/07/08/how-do-automated-license-plate-readers-work/|title=How do automated license plate readers work?|website=Arizona Mirror|date=2019-07-08|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

==Security vulnerabilities==
In 2025, Flock Safety reported security vulnerabilities in its devices and submitted them to MITRE for inclusion in the National Vulnerability Database, including issues such as hard-coded credentials and improper access controls.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-05-05 |title=Gunshot Detection and License Plate Reader Security Alert |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/gunshot-detection-and-license-plate-reader-security-alert |website=Flock Safety}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-10-02 |title=CVE-2025-59403 : The Flock Safety Android Collins application (aka com.flocksafety.android.collin |url=https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2025-59403/ |website=CVEdetails.com}}</ref> Similar security concerns have affected other ALPR systems, including exposure of default passwords and unencrypted data storage.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Quintin |first=Cooper |date=28 Oct 2015 |title=License Plate Readers Exposed! How Public Safety Agencies Responded to Major Vulnerabilities in Vehicle Surveillance Tech |url=https://www.eff.org/ur/deeplinks/2015/10/license-plate-readers-exposed-how-public-safety-agencies-responded-massive |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

This represents one of several major security disclosures in the past decade. In 2015, the Electronic Frontier Foundation documented more than 100 ALPR cameras accessible on the open internet, often without passwords or proper configuration.<ref name=":4" /> A more serious documented breach occurred in 2019, when Perceptics, LLC, a subcontractor for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, exposed approximately 105,000 license plate images and 184,000 traveler facial images.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Review of CBP's Major Cybersecurity Incident During a 2019 Biometric Pilot |url=https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2020-09/OIG-20-71-Sep20.pdf}}</ref>

==Government accountability and oversight==

===State audit findings===
California State Auditor's February 2020 investigation found the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), with a 320 million image database, had no ALPR-specific policy at all. The audit found 96% of agencies claim to have policies, but most are incomplete. Data retention periods varied wildly with no justification. LAPD maintained a minimum five-year retention period, yet couldn't demonstrate that images stored for years had investigative value. The audit found that 99.9% of the 320 million images Los Angeles stores are for vehicles that were not on a "hot list" when the image was made.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/summary.html |title=Automated License Plate Readers |website=California State Auditor |date=13 Feb 2020 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

New Jersey provides a contrasting model with mandatory annual audits of all 523 law enforcement agencies. The 2024 audit reported only two significant violations, both involving users who hadn't completed required training.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://nj.gov/njsp/ALPR/pdf/2024_Audit_Automated_License_Plate_Recognition_(ALPR)_Data_Collected_Utilized_NJ_Law_Enforcement_Agencies.pdf |title=2024 Audit of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Data |website=New Jersey State Police |date=2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

A Government Technology analysis found that agencies often fail to audit ALPR systems regularly, leaving them "open to abuse by neglecting to institute sufficient oversight."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.govtech.com/biz/data/alpr-audit-takeaways-what-we-learned-about-policy-gaps |title=ALPR Audit Takeaways: What We Learned About Policy Gaps |website=Government Technology |date=2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

===Cost-benefit analysis===
Arizona Department of Transportation's 2008 study of generic ALPR technology (predating Flock Safety by nine years) estimated $9.98 million for a hypothetical statewide ALPR system. The projected benefit-to-cost ratio of 9.6:1 came entirely from registration and insurance compliance, not crime reduction.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://apps.azdot.gov/files/ADOTLibrary/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ637.pdf |title=Automated License Plate Recognition Technology Implementation Report |website=Arizona Department of Transportation |date=1 Jun 2008 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

Colorado's Office of Research and Statistics reported that while ALPR systems are expanding, independent academic research contradicts vendor claims. A 2011 George Mason University study concluded ALPRs "do not achieve a prevention or deterrent effect" on crime.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/Docs/Briefs/2024-05_InDetail-ALPR.pdf |title=Automated License Plate Readers (In Detail) |website=Colorado Division of Criminal Justice |date=1 May 2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

Oakland Police Department reported 182 arrests from ALPR in the first year, representing 1.4% of homicides, robberies, burglaries, and firearm assaults. The Northern California Regional Intelligence Center states approximately 1-2 vehicles out of 1,000 initiate alerts — a hit rate of just 0.1-0.2%.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://ncric.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/California-Law-Enforcement-ALPR-FAQ.pdf |title=California Law Enforcement ALPR FAQ |website=NCRIC |date=2021 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

==Camera locations==
The locations of many Flock Cameras have been mapped by the OpenStreetMap project. A viewer of the locations of these cameras is located here: [https://deflock.me/map ALPR Map | DeFlock]

====Cease and desist to DeFlock.me====
DeFlock.me is a website allowing users to log and view the locations of ALPRs, such as Flock products. On 30 January 2025, Flock sent a cease and desist notice to the owner of DeFlock demanding the name of the website be changed to exclude the company's brand name. The letter also stated that "the Website also implies that various license plate readers are vulnerable to security hacks [...]" which Flock alleged "[...] provides a false impression about the security of Flock Products."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Matz |first=Sarah M. |title=2025 01 31 DEFLOCK CD final |url=https://www.eff.org/files/2025/02/26/2025_01_31_deflock_cd_ex-3.pdf |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=30 Jan 2025 |access-date=27 Oct 2025 |url-status=live |format=PDF}}</ref>

==External links==
*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock live map of active ALPRs]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRS movement in United States]
*[https://plateprivacy.com/ The Plate Privacy Project]
*[https://eyesonflock.com/ Eyes On Flock]
*[https://wiki.alprwatch.org/index.php/Main_Page ALPR Watch Wiki]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Automatic license plate readers]]
[[Category:Flock Safety]]

Flock license plate readers

2025-11-08T17:06:56Z

Beanie Bo: /* Legal challenges */ added another source

{{ProductCargo
|Company=Flock Safety
|ProductLine=Flock Safety Falcon
|ReleaseYear=2017
|InProduction=Yes
|ArticleType=Product
|Category=Cameras, Security, Surveillance
|Logo=Flock License plate readers (LPR).png
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers
|Description=AI-powered automated license plate reader (ALPR) system that creates "Vehicle Fingerprints" by recording license plates, vehicle characteristics, and movement patterns for law enforcement use without individual consent or warrants.
}}
'''Flock License Plate Readers''' (previously known as '''Flock Safety Falcon'''<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/devices/falcon|title=Falcon|work=Flock Safety |access-date=6 Dec 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/UjKM5 |archive-date=6 Dec 2024 |url-status=usurped}}</ref>), are a network of AI-powered surveillance cameras that record vehicle data for law enforcement agencies. The system operates in over 5,000 communities across 49 states in the U.S.A.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250628052030/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |archive-date=28 Jun 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref> According to the company's own marketing materials, Flock performs over 20 billion vehicle scans monthly.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/iVsBZ |archive-date=26 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>

==Consumer impact summary==
====Freedom====
Residents and taxpayers have no mechanism to opt out of [[Flock Safety]]'s surveillance network. The cameras operate 24/7 in public spaces, recording all passing vehicles regardless of consent. They are also placed on private premises like universities, hospitals, businesses, and neighborhood associations, which often share this data with law enforcement.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=19 Jun 2024 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/19/fedex-police-help-cops-build-an-ai-car-surveillance-network/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240619112629/https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/19/fedex-police-help-cops-build-an-ai-car-surveillance-network/ |archive-date=19 Jun 2024 |access-date=25 Aug 2025 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This data can later be integrated into predictive police platforms like {{Wplink|Palantir Technologies|Palantir}}.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rettberg |first=Jill Walker |title=Machine Vision: How Algorithms are Changing the Way We See the World |date=11 Sep 2023 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons. |year=2023 |location=Google Books |pages=45-46 |language=English}}</ref>

Unlike traditional security cameras that may be avoided by choosing different routes, Flock's expanding network of over 40,000 cameras makes avoidance increasingly difficult.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://deflock.me/ |title=Find Nearby ALPRs |work=DeFlock |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250728224453/https://deflock.me/|archive-date=2025-07-28 |url-status=live}}</ref> The system uses AI to create ''"Vehicle Fingerprints"'' that identify vehicles by characteristics beyond license plates, including make, model, color, aftermarket parts, window stickers, and roof racks.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |date=23 Jul 2025 |title=Surveillance Company Flock Now Using AI to Report Us to Police if it Thinks Our Movement Patterns Are "Suspicious" |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250814053755/https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious |archive-date=14 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

====Privacy====
While Flock Safety claims their system doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights because ''"license plates are not personal information,"''<ref name="Flock-PE">{{Cite web |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/privacy-ethics |title=Privacy & Ethics |work=Flock Safety |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/OP55p |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref> federal courts have challenged this interpretation. In February 2024, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit challenging Norfolk, Virginia's use of 172 Flock cameras could proceed, finding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged the system creates a ''"detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence compiled every day."''<ref name="norfolk">{{Cite web |last=King |first=Dan |date=6 Feb 2024 |title=Judge Rules Lawsuit Challenging Norfolk's Use of Flock Cameras Can Proceed |url=https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250717001536/https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/ |archive-date=17 Jul 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Institute for Justice}}</ref>

Data collected includes location history that can reveal sensitive information about medical visits, religious attendance, political activities, and personal associations. While Flock states data is deleted after 30 days, contracts grant them ''"perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license"'' to use anonymized data indefinitely.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Terms and Conditions |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/terms-and-conditions |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/DSqUM |archive-date=26 Oct 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref> The system shares data across a network of over 4,800 law enforcement agencies nationally.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2024 |title=Lawsuit Argues Warrantless Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Unconstitutional |url=https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250826013458/https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/ |archive-date=26 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=404 Media}}</ref>

====="Anonymized Data"=====
While Flock's Terms and Conditions define "Anonymized Data" as customer data that is ''"permanently stripped of identifying details and any potential personally identifiable information"'' and is rendered so that a person or entity ''"can no longer be identified directly or indirectly,"'' this definition includes information such as vehicle make, model, color, location patterns, and other non–license-plate attributes.<ref name=":1" />

Privacy researchers caution that mobility datasets labeled as "anonymized" can still be re-identified. A 2013 MIT study found that just four spatio-temporal points uniquely identified 95% of individuals in an anonymized location dataset.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=de Montjoye |first=Y.-A. |last2=Hidalgo |first2=C. A. |last3=Verleysen |first3=M. |last4=Blondel |first4=V. D. |year=2013 |title=Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01376 |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=3 |pages=1376 |doi=10.1038/srep01376 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> Multiple peer-reviewed studies from 2018-2024 demonstrate that "anonymized" vehicle location data can be re-identified with high accuracy. A 2022 study showed researchers could re-identify drivers from raw vehicle network data with 97% accuracy by exploiting inter-dependencies in sensor measurements.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167404822002139 |title=Privacy-preserving vehicle trajectory matching |website=ScienceDirect |date=2022 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref> Research published in the Journal of Computer Science and Technology (2022) found that even three to four location points can uniquely identify individuals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sun |first=She |last2=Ma |first2=Shuai |last3=Song |first3=Jing-He |last4=Yue |first4=Wen-Hai |last5=Lin |first5=Xue-Lian |last6=Ma |first6=Tiejun |date=2022 |title=Experiments and Analyses of Anonymization Mechanisms for Trajectory Data Publishing |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11390-022-2409-x |journal=Journal of Computer Science and Technology |doi=10.1007/s11390-022-2409-x |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

====Business model====
Flock operates on a subscription model charging municipalities and law enforcement agencies $2,500 USD per camera annually plus installation costs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://campbellca.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=279 |title=How much does a Flock Safety camera cost? |work=City of Campbell |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> Private businesses including Home Depot, Lowe's, and FedEx also deploy cameras, sharing data with law enforcement.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/ |title=Home Depot and Lowe's Share Data From Hundreds of AI Cameras With Cops |first=Jason |last=Koebler |date=6 Aug 2025 |work=404 Media |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250823135847/https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/ |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> Contracts include automatic renewal clauses and limit municipal oversight capabilities, with cities unable to audit system operations or control how other agencies use shared data.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/flock_1.pdf |title=How to Pump the Brakes on Your Police Department's Use of Flock's Mass Surveillance License Plate Readers |work=American Civil Liberties Union |date=2024 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

====Market control====
Flock Safety has rapidly expanded to become a dominant force in automated license plate recognition, operating in 49 states with over 40,000 cameras deployed. The company's network effect creates pressure for additional jurisdictions to join, as law enforcement effectiveness depends on network coverage. Several states have begun restricting access following privacy violations, with California, Illinois, and New York limiting data sharing after immigration and abortion-related tracking incidents.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.michaelrcronin.com/post/flock-blocks-ice-from-license-plate-reader-access-in-several-states |title='Flock' Blocks ICE from License Plate Reader Access in Several States |work=Yes You Can Go |date=2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

===Premise of a "license plate camera"===
While marketed as "license plate readers,"' Flock cameras use what the company calls "Vehicle Fingerprint" technology which tracks vehicles using characteristics beyond just license plates. The system catalogs vehicles based on numerous distinguishing features including make, model, color, bumper stickers, dents, damage patterns, roof racks, aftermarket modifications such as wheels or spoilers, window stickers, and even mismatching paint colors.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harwell |first=Drew |date=2021-10-22 |title=Flock license plate readers spark controversy in Golden, Colo. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/22/crime-suburbs-license-plate-readers/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety ALPR |url=https://www.campbellca.gov/1260/Flock-Safety-ALPR |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=City of Campbell}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date= |title=LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers |url-status=usurped |access-date=26 Oct 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>. According to Flock's own marketing materials, the system can identify vehicles even when license plates cannot be captured, advertised as turning "images into actionable evidence — no plate required."<ref>{{Cite web |title=License Plate Readers |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/D9JGD |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>

Flock claims this capability is ''"unique among ALPR systems"'' and allows law enforcement to search for vehicles based on these characteristics even without a visible license plate.

This technology changes the nature of the surveillance from license plate reading to comprehensive vehicle tracking. A person could still be tracked by the unique combination of their vehicle's physical characteristics. The Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that these ''"vehicle fingerprints"'' could flag vehicles based on political bumper stickers, revealing ''"information on the political or social views of the driver,"'' or economic indicators like rust or damage, potentially "endangering anyone who might not feel the need (or have the income required) to keep their car in perfect shape."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-09-14 |title=Things to Know Before Your Neighborhood Installs an Automated License Plate Reader |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/flock-license-plate-reader-homeowners-association-safe-problems |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

Privacy advocates note that this expanded tracking capability makes the term ''"license plate reader"'' misleading, as Flock systems create detailed vehicle profiles that persist even without readable plates. It turns any distinguishing feature of a vehicle into a tracking identifier.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Stop Flock |url=https://www.stopflock.com/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Stop Flock}}</ref>

==Patent for person identification by race and physical characteristics==
A U.S. Patent granted to Flock Group Inc. in August 2022 reveals the company has developed and patented technology to identify and classify people based on race, gender, and other physical characteristics.<ref name="patent11416545">{{Cite web |url=https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/77/9a/03/7b3b26499077d4/US11416545.pdf |title=System and Method for Object Based Query of Video Content Captured by a Dynamic Surveillance Network |website=United States Patent and Trademark Office |date=16 Aug 2022 |access-date=21 Jan 2025 |format=PDF |first1=Garrett |last1=Langley |first2=Matt |last2=Feury }}</ref> Patent US 11,416,545 B1 describes a system that goes beyond vehicle identification to analyze human subjects captured in surveillance footage.

According to the patent documentation, when the system identifies a human being in captured footage, it uses neural network modules specifically configured to classify people by "male, female, race, etc." The patent further describes using additional neural networks to identify clothing types, estimate height and weight, and other physical characteristics of individuals.<ref name="patent11416545" /> The system can then store this classification data in searchable databases, allowing law enforcement to query for people based on these physical attributes.

The patent shows that Flock's technology is designed to create comprehensive profiles that can track individuals across multiple camera locations by matching physical characteristics. While Flock publicly markets its products as ''"license plate readers"'' focused on vehicles, this patent demonstrates the company has developed capabilities for detailed human surveillance and classification by protected characteristics including race and gender.<ref name="patent11416545" />

Privacy advocates have raised concerns that this technology could enable discriminatory policing practices and racial profiling at scale.{{Citation needed}} The ability to search for people by race or other physical characteristics across a network of thousands of cameras is a large expansion of surveillance capabilities beyond what is typically disclosed in Flock's public marketing materials.{{Citation needed}}

==Legal challenges==

===Washington state judge declares Flock footage as public records ''(6 Nov 2025)''===
An Oregon resident filed FOIA requests at various police departments in the state of Washington regarding information collected from Flock cameras. The cities of Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley filed a motion to reject the resident's request, with their attorney stating that publicizing Flock footage may be a violation of privacy that could lead to stalking.

The judge dismissed the motion and declared that the camera footage was "so broad and indiscriminate" with no distinction between criminal activity and casual civilian activity that the data had to be released to the public.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingalls |first=Chris |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge orders police to release surveillance camera data, raising privacy questions |url=https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/investigators/judge-orders-washington-police-release-surveillance-camera-data-privacy-questions/281-c2037d52-6afb-4bf7-95ad-0eceaf477864 |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=KING5}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Peterson |first=Jenna |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge denies request to exempt Flock footage from Public Records Act |url=https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-denies-request-to-exempt-flock-footage-from-public-records-act/ |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=Herald Net}}</ref>

===Norfolk federal lawsuit ''(February 2025)''===
In February 2025, Chief Judge Mark S. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Norfolk's motion to dismiss a landmark Fourth Amendment lawsuit. The case involves two residents whose vehicles were tracked 526 times in 4.5 months and 849 times over the same period, figures revealed in a September 2025 court filing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399|title=Virginia police used Flock cameras to track driver 526 times in 4 months, lawsuit says|work=NBC News|date=2025-09-18|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> Norfolk installed 172 Flock Safety cameras in 2023 at a cost of $430,000-$516,000 annually. Police Chief Mark Talbot stated the goal was making it ''"difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere."''<ref name="norfolk" />

Judge Davis's ruling relied on ''Carpenter v. United States'', the 2018 Supreme Court decision requiring warrants for historical cell phone location data. The court found Norfolk's ALPR network "notably similar" to the surveillance the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional. However, courts remain divided. In November 2024, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne in the same district denied a motion to suppress Flock evidence, holding that three vehicle snapshots don't constitute "persistent surveillance" requiring a warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://valawyersweekly.com/2024/11/11/mosaic-theory-rejected-flock-camera-evidence-does-not-violate-fourth-amendment/|title='Mosaic theory' rejected: Flock camera evidence does not violate Fourth Amendment|website=Virginia Lawyers Weekly|date=2024-11-11|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Virginia state courts show similar disagreement. Norfolk Circuit Court Judge Jamilah LeCruise granted a suppression motion in May 2024, finding that the breadth of Flock cameras covering Norfolk requires a warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant|title=Virginia Judge Rejects ALPR Evidence Without Warrant|website=Government Technology|date=2024-05-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Yet three other Norfolk circuit court judges denied similar motions in 2024.

===State regulatory landscape===
Only 16 states have enacted any form of ALPR regulation as of 2024 according to University of Michigan research.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/news/2023/automated-license-plate-readers-widely-used-subject-abuse|title=Automated License Plate Readers widely used, subject to abuse|website=University of Michigan|date=2023|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Virginia enacted House Bill 2724 in 2025 creating annual reporting requirements.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://vscc.virginia.gov/Annual%20Reports/2024%20VSCC%20Annual%20Report%20-Law%20Enforcement%20Use%20of%20ALPR.pdf|title=2024 VSCC Annual Report - Law Enforcement Use of ALPR|website=Virginia State Crime Commission|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Illinois Public Act 103-0540 explicitly prohibits use for reproductive healthcare punishment and immigration investigations.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/103/103-0540.htm|title=Public Act 103-0540|website=Illinois General Assembly|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Illinois prohibits law enforcement agencies from sharing ALPR data with other jurisdictions in relation to a person's immigration status.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Public Act 103-0540 |url=https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/publicacts/103/PDF/103-0540.pdf |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Illinois General Assembly}}</ref> New Hampshire requires a three-minute purge of data from ALPR use with the exception of ongoing investigations. <ref>{{Cite web |title=261:75-b Use of Number Plate Scanning Devices Regulated. |url=https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/title-xxi/chapter-261/section-261-75-b/ |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=New Hampshire General Court}}</ref>

California’s SB 34 requires public agencies using ALPR systems to implement usage and privacy policies as well as limits to data sharing. <ref name=":3">{{Cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB34 |title=SB-34 Automated license plate recognition systems: use of data |work=California Legislative Information |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> However, enforcement remains inconsistent, with a 2020 state audit finding widespread non-compliance.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/index.html |title=Automated License Plate Readers |work=California State Auditor |date=13 Feb 2020 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

==Notable incidents==

====Illinois audit findings (2024-2025)====
Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias announced in late August 2024 that Flock Safety violated state law by allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois license plate data for immigration enforcement.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safetys-response-to-illinois-lpr-data-use-and-out-of-state-sharing-concerns|title=Flock Safety's Response to Illinois LPR Data Use and Out-of-State Sharing Concerns|website=Flock Safety|date=2024-08-25|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The audit of 12 local law enforcement agencies revealed unauthorized pilot programs with CBP and Homeland Security Investigations, violating Illinois law prohibiting data sharing for immigration enforcement, gender-affirming care investigations, and abortion-related matters. Following the audit, 47 out-of-state agencies were removed from access to Illinois data.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtech.com/biz/flock-pledges-changes-after-illinois-data-sharing-accusation|title=Flock Pledges Changes After Illinois Data-Sharing Accusation|website=Government Technology|date=2024-08-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Mount Prospect, Illinois reported 262 immigration-related license plate reader searches in just the first few months of 2025. A Palos Heights detective shared Flock login credentials with a DEA agent who conducted 28 unauthorized searches of Oak Park ALPR data explicitly labeled "immigration violation."<ref name="dea">{{Cite web|url=https://unraveledpress.com/a-dea-agent-used-an-illinois-police-officers-flock-license-plate-reader-password-for-unauthorized-immigration-enforcement-searches/|title=DEA agent used Illinois cop's Flock license plate reader password for immigration enforcement searches|work=Unraveled Press|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

====California violations (2015-2025)====
California passed Senate Bill 34<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_201520160sb34|title=Senate Bill 34|access-date=2025-08-27}}</ref> in 2015 to limit how California police departments can use and share data collected from these cameras with other state's and federal law enforcement agencies. These limits have been found to be violated on several occasions with little enforcement or consequences for the misusing departments<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sfstandard.com/2025/07/23/california-police-sharing-flock-license-plate-data/|access-date=2025-08-27|title=California cops are breaking surveillance laws|website=San Francisco Standard|date=2025-07-23}}</ref>.

A 2023 EFF investigation found 71 California police agencies in 22 counties illegally shared data with out-of-state law enforcement. San Francisco Police Department alone allowed 1.6 million illegal searches by out-of-state agencies from 2024-2025.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://sfstandard.com/2025/09/08/sfpd-flock-alpr-ice-data-sharing/|title=SFPD let Georgia, Texas cops illegally search city surveillance data on behalf of ICE|website=San Francisco Standard|date=2025-09-08|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The California Attorney General filed the first enforcement action against the City of El Cajon in 2025 for sharing with 26 states.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-el-cajon-illegally-sharing-license-plate-data-out|title=Attorney General Bonta Sues El Cajon for Illegally Sharing License Plate Data|website=California DOJ|date=2025|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===False positive incidents===

====Families detained at gunpoint====
In Española, New Mexico, 21-year-old Jaclynn Gonzales and her 12-year-old sister were held at gunpoint and handcuffed after Flock's system mistook a "2" for a "7" on their license plate, falsely flagging their vehicle as stolen.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-09-28 |title=License plate cover leads to traffic stop mishap |url=https://www.koat.com/article/espanola-police-license-plate-stolen-cover-traffic-stop/45361740|website=KOAT|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025 |title=Flock Safety: Eroding Your Privacy & Keeping You Safe with Surveillance |url=https://redact.dev/blog/flock-safety-lpr-privacy-surveillance/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Redact}}</ref>

ALPR systems often misread license plates according to multiple investigations, leading to hardship & legal trouble for innocent civilians.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/11/human-toll-alpr-errors|title=The Human Toll of ALPR Errors|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=2024-11-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Law enforcement stalking incidents===

In October 2022, Kechi, Kansas Police Lieutenant Victor Heiar was arrested and later pleaded guilty to computer crimes and stalking after using Flock cameras to track his estranged wife's movements over four months.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.kwch.com/2022/10/31/kechi-police-lieutenant-arrested-using-police-technology-stalk-wife/|title=Kechi police lieutenant arrested for using police technology to stalk wife|work=KWCH|date=2022-10-31|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> In a separate Kansas incident, Sedgwick Police Chief Lee Nygaard accessed Flock data 164 times to track his ex-girlfriend before resigning after admitting to the misuse.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-police-chief-used-flock-093300946.html|title=Kansas police chief used Flock license plate cameras 164 times to track ex-girlfriend|work=Yahoo News|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Multiple other documented cases include Las Vegas Metro Officer Christopher Young arrested in December 2023 for stalking his ex-fiancée using police databases, and Riverside County Deputy Eric Piscatella pleading guilty in February 2024 to seven counts of misusing sheriff's department databases to stalk a woman he met at Coachella.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/02/16/las-vegas-police-officer-arrested-reportedly-stalking-ex-fiancee/?outputType=amp|title=Las Vegas police officer arrested for reportedly stalking ex-fiancée|website=FOX5 Vegas|date=2024-02-16|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Abortion and reproductive healthcare tracking===
In May 2025, Johnson County, Texas sheriff's deputies used Flock's network to track a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. They conducted searches across 83,000+ Flock cameras nationwide with the explicit reason: "had an abortion, search for female." The search accessed cameras across multiple states including those where abortion is legal. The incident led Illinois officials to investigate and subsequently block 47+ out-of-state agencies from accessing Illinois ALPR data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2025/06/13/after-finding-fetal-remains-north-texas-cops-used-camera-network-to-search-for-woman/|title=After finding fetal remains, North Texas cops used camera network to search for woman|work=The Dallas Morning News|date=2025-06-13|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/she-got-abortion-so-texas-cop-used-83000-cameras-track-her-down|title=She Got an Abortion. So A Texas Cop Used 83,000 Cameras to Track Her Down|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=2025-05-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Federal agency access===
Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintains a $6.1 million contract giving 9,000+ ICE officers access to the Vigilant Solutions ALPR database containing over 5 billion location data points.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/documents-reveal-ice-using-driver-location-data|title=Documents Reveal ICE Using Driver Location Data From Local Police for Deportations|website=ACLU|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The Drug Enforcement Administration operates a National License Plate Reader Program with over 10,000 license plate readers shared throughout the United States. 404 Media revealed over 4,000 searches by local and state police for federal immigration enforcement purposes, despite Flock having no formal ICE contract.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/|title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows|work=404 Media|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> A DEA agent was found using an Illinois police officer's credentials to conduct unauthorized immigration searches.<ref name="dea" />

===Illegal Camera Installations===
In South Carolina, Flock installed over 200 cameras without authorization, leading to a statewide moratorium on new installations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ferrara |first=David |date=2024-03-11 |title=A company installed license plate cameras without permission. SC agency wants clear rules |url=https://www.postandcourier.com/news/alpr-cameras-south-carolina-flock-safety-license-plate-readers/article_787a262a-dbd2-11ee-a901-634acead588b.html |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=The Post and Courier}}</ref>

In Illinois, a Flock representative allegedly threatened a Department of Transportation official with police pressure when questioned about permit applications.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Uprise RI Staff |date=2024-10-23 |title=As Flock Surveillance Cameras Proliferate in Rhode Island, Lawsuit Challenges Their Legality |url=https://upriseri.com/as-flock-surveillance-cameras-proliferate-in-rhode-island-lawsuit-challenges-their-legality/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=UPRISE RI}}</ref>

====='''Evanston, IL'''=====
Flock was ordered to remove 18 stationary cameras. The city put the contract with Flock on a 30-day termination notice on August 26. Flock Initially appeared to comply, removing 15 of the cameras by September 8. Later, Flock was caught reinstalling all of them by the following Tuesday without authorization from the city. The city of Evanston responded with a cease-and-desist order for Flock to remove the new and unauthorized camera equipment. Because Flock reinstalled the cameras without permission, Evanston was forced to cover the cameras with tape and bags to block them from potentially logging vehicle data.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harrison |first=Alex |date=2025-09-25 |title=City covers Flock cameras while waiting for removal |url=https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/25/city-covers-up-flock-cameras-while-waiting-for-removal/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/PD1qe |archive-date=2025-10-10 |access-date=2025-10-10 |website=Evanston Roundtable}}</ref>

===City rejections and terminations===

Multiple cities have rejected or terminated Flock contracts following privacy concerns and effectiveness issues:

'''0.2% effectiveness rate, low arrests:''' Austin, Texas terminated its contract in July 2025 after an audit revealed "systematic compliance failures" and only 165 arrests from 113 million license plate scans (0.146% effectiveness rate).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/flock-ceo-responds-to-austin-backlash-as-city-contract-nears-expiration|title=Flock CEO responds to Austin backlash as city contract nears expiration|work=CBS Austin|date=2025-06-21|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Denver City Council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension in May 2025 following revelations of 1,400+ ICE-related searches in Colorado data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://denverite.com/2025/05/05/denver-rejects-flock-camera-license-plate-readers/|title=Denver rejects $666,000 extension for license-plate surveillance cameras after backlash|work=Denverite|date=2025-05-05|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

San Marcos, Texas voted 5-2 to deny camera expansion after discovering no required audits had been conducted since 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Velez |first=Abigail |date=2025-06-04 |title=San Marcos City Council votes to deny flock camera expansion after hours of heated debate |url=https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/san-marcos-city-council-votes-to-deny-flock-camera-expansion-after-hours-of-heated-debate |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=CBS Austin}}</ref>

Oak Park, Illinois terminated their contract entirely following the Illinois investigation into illegal data sharing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oakpark.com/2025/08/07/oak-park-terminates-flock-license-plate-reader-contract/|title=Oak Park terminates Flock license plate reader contract|work=Wednesday Journal|date=2025-08-07|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

===Arizona deployments===
Sedona, Arizona became the first Arizona city to completely terminate its Flock Safety contract in September 2025 after citizen backlash. The city had installed 11 cameras in June 2025 without prior public notice at a cost of $51,146 for the first year. The council voted 5-1 to pause the program, then unanimously 7-0 on September 9 to permanently terminate after Flock CEO Garrett Langley admitted the company had been sharing data with federal agencies. Vice Mayor Holli Ploog called Flock "not an honorable company" for the conflicting data-sharing claims.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://westvalleyfamilies.substack.com/p/sedona-pulls-the-plug-on-flock-safety|title=Sedona Pulls the Plug on Flock Safety|website=West Valley Families|date=2025-09-10|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2025-09-11/sedona-council-permanently-ends-license-plate-camera-program|title=Sedona council permanently ends license plate camera program|website=KNAU|date=2025-09-11|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Flagstaff deployed 32 Flock cameras in summer 2024 at a cost of $143,100 annually. By September 2025, a petition signed by 25+ residents demanded cancellation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.kjzz.org/fronteras-desk/2025-09-01/after-sedona-paused-flock-safety-camera-system-flagstaff-is-considering-the-same-issue|title=After Sedona paused Flock Safety camera system, Flagstaff is considering the same issue|website=KJZZ|date=2025-09-01|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

University of Arizona contracted with Flock in February 2025 for 54 ALPR cameras at $160,000 annually. Students and faculty launched a "Deflock Tucson" campaign citing concerns about tracking international students and potential data sharing with federal immigration authorities.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://azluminaria.org/2025/09/15/ua-students-and-faculty-question-use-of-flock-safety-cameras-on-campus/|title=UA students and faculty question use of Flock Safety cameras on campus|website=AZ Luminaria|date=2025-09-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Casa Grande approved a $10 million "Safe City Initiative" in September 2025 including 100 license plate readers. Chief Mark McCrory reported the current 22 license plate readers led to 212 stolen vehicles identified and 168 arrests.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.inmaricopa.com/we-mapped-all-flock-cameras/|title=We mapped the city's Flock cameras|website=InMaricopa|date=2025|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Despite documented deployments across Arizona including Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler, Scottsdale, Tempe, Surprise, Youngtown, Litchfield Park, and Yuma, the state has no ALPR-specific regulation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://azmirror.com/2019/07/08/how-do-automated-license-plate-readers-work/|title=How do automated license plate readers work?|website=Arizona Mirror|date=2019-07-08|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

==Security vulnerabilities==
In 2025, Flock Safety reported security vulnerabilities in its devices and submitted them to MITRE for inclusion in the National Vulnerability Database, including issues such as hard-coded credentials and improper access controls.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-05-05 |title=Gunshot Detection and License Plate Reader Security Alert |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/gunshot-detection-and-license-plate-reader-security-alert |website=Flock Safety}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-10-02 |title=CVE-2025-59403 : The Flock Safety Android Collins application (aka com.flocksafety.android.collin |url=https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2025-59403/ |website=CVEdetails.com}}</ref> Similar security concerns have affected other ALPR systems, including exposure of default passwords and unencrypted data storage.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Quintin |first=Cooper |date=28 Oct 2015 |title=License Plate Readers Exposed! How Public Safety Agencies Responded to Major Vulnerabilities in Vehicle Surveillance Tech |url=https://www.eff.org/ur/deeplinks/2015/10/license-plate-readers-exposed-how-public-safety-agencies-responded-massive |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

This represents one of several major security disclosures in the past decade. In 2015, the Electronic Frontier Foundation documented more than 100 ALPR cameras accessible on the open internet, often without passwords or proper configuration.<ref name=":4" /> A more serious documented breach occurred in 2019, when Perceptics, LLC, a subcontractor for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, exposed approximately 105,000 license plate images and 184,000 traveler facial images.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Review of CBP's Major Cybersecurity Incident During a 2019 Biometric Pilot |url=https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2020-09/OIG-20-71-Sep20.pdf}}</ref>

==Government accountability and oversight==

===State audit findings===
California State Auditor's February 2020 investigation found the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), with a 320 million image database, had no ALPR-specific policy at all. The audit found 96% of agencies claim to have policies, but most are incomplete. Data retention periods varied wildly with no justification. LAPD maintained a minimum five-year retention period, yet couldn't demonstrate that images stored for years had investigative value. The audit found that 99.9% of the 320 million images Los Angeles stores are for vehicles that were not on a "hot list" when the image was made.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/summary.html |title=Automated License Plate Readers |website=California State Auditor |date=13 Feb 2020 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

New Jersey provides a contrasting model with mandatory annual audits of all 523 law enforcement agencies. The 2024 audit reported only two significant violations, both involving users who hadn't completed required training.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://nj.gov/njsp/ALPR/pdf/2024_Audit_Automated_License_Plate_Recognition_(ALPR)_Data_Collected_Utilized_NJ_Law_Enforcement_Agencies.pdf |title=2024 Audit of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Data |website=New Jersey State Police |date=2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

A Government Technology analysis found that agencies often fail to audit ALPR systems regularly, leaving them "open to abuse by neglecting to institute sufficient oversight."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.govtech.com/biz/data/alpr-audit-takeaways-what-we-learned-about-policy-gaps |title=ALPR Audit Takeaways: What We Learned About Policy Gaps |website=Government Technology |date=2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

===Cost-benefit analysis===
Arizona Department of Transportation's 2008 study of generic ALPR technology (predating Flock Safety by nine years) estimated $9.98 million for a hypothetical statewide ALPR system. The projected benefit-to-cost ratio of 9.6:1 came entirely from registration and insurance compliance, not crime reduction.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://apps.azdot.gov/files/ADOTLibrary/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ637.pdf |title=Automated License Plate Recognition Technology Implementation Report |website=Arizona Department of Transportation |date=1 Jun 2008 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

Colorado's Office of Research and Statistics reported that while ALPR systems are expanding, independent academic research contradicts vendor claims. A 2011 George Mason University study concluded ALPRs "do not achieve a prevention or deterrent effect" on crime.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/Docs/Briefs/2024-05_InDetail-ALPR.pdf |title=Automated License Plate Readers (In Detail) |website=Colorado Division of Criminal Justice |date=1 May 2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

Oakland Police Department reported 182 arrests from ALPR in the first year, representing 1.4% of homicides, robberies, burglaries, and firearm assaults. The Northern California Regional Intelligence Center states approximately 1-2 vehicles out of 1,000 initiate alerts — a hit rate of just 0.1-0.2%.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://ncric.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/California-Law-Enforcement-ALPR-FAQ.pdf |title=California Law Enforcement ALPR FAQ |website=NCRIC |date=2021 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

==Camera locations==
The locations of many Flock Cameras have been mapped by the OpenStreetMap project. A viewer of the locations of these cameras is located here: [https://deflock.me/map ALPR Map | DeFlock]

====Cease and desist to DeFlock.me====
DeFlock.me is a website allowing users to log and view the locations of ALPRs, such as Flock products. On 30 January 2025, Flock sent a cease and desist notice to the owner of DeFlock demanding the name of the website be changed to exclude the company's brand name. The letter also stated that "the Website also implies that various license plate readers are vulnerable to security hacks [...]" which Flock alleged "[...] provides a false impression about the security of Flock Products."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Matz |first=Sarah M. |title=2025 01 31 DEFLOCK CD final |url=https://www.eff.org/files/2025/02/26/2025_01_31_deflock_cd_ex-3.pdf |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=30 Jan 2025 |access-date=27 Oct 2025 |url-status=live |format=PDF}}</ref>

==External links==
*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock live map of active ALPRs]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRS movement in United States]
*[https://plateprivacy.com/ The Plate Privacy Project]
*[https://eyesonflock.com/ Eyes On Flock]
*[https://wiki.alprwatch.org/index.php/Main_Page ALPR Watch Wiki]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Automatic license plate readers]]
[[Category:Flock Safety]]

Flock license plate readers

2025-11-08T17:01:36Z

Beanie Bo: /* Legal challenges */ added new public records info

{{ProductCargo
|Company=Flock Safety
|ProductLine=Flock Safety Falcon
|ReleaseYear=2017
|InProduction=Yes
|ArticleType=Product
|Category=Cameras, Security, Surveillance
|Logo=Flock License plate readers (LPR).png
|Website=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers
|Description=AI-powered automated license plate reader (ALPR) system that creates "Vehicle Fingerprints" by recording license plates, vehicle characteristics, and movement patterns for law enforcement use without individual consent or warrants.
}}
'''Flock License Plate Readers''' (previously known as '''Flock Safety Falcon'''<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/devices/falcon|title=Falcon|work=Flock Safety |access-date=6 Dec 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/UjKM5 |archive-date=6 Dec 2024 |url-status=usurped}}</ref>), are a network of AI-powered surveillance cameras that record vehicle data for law enforcement agencies. The system operates in over 5,000 communities across 49 states in the U.S.A.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hamid |first=Sarah |last2=Alajaji |first2=Rindala |date=27 Jun 2025 |title=Flock Safety's Feature Updates Cannot Make Automated License Plate Readers Safe |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250628052030/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/flock-safetys-feature-updates-cannot-make-automated-license-plate-readers-safe |archive-date=28 Jun 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref> According to the company's own marketing materials, Flock performs over 20 billion vehicle scans monthly.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/iVsBZ |archive-date=26 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>

==Consumer impact summary==
====Freedom====
Residents and taxpayers have no mechanism to opt out of [[Flock Safety]]'s surveillance network. The cameras operate 24/7 in public spaces, recording all passing vehicles regardless of consent. They are also placed on private premises like universities, hospitals, businesses, and neighborhood associations, which often share this data with law enforcement.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Brewster |first=Thomas |date=19 Jun 2024 |title=FedEx's Secretive Police Force Is Helping Cops Build An AI Car Surveillance Network |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/19/fedex-police-help-cops-build-an-ai-car-surveillance-network/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240619112629/https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2024/06/19/fedex-police-help-cops-build-an-ai-car-surveillance-network/ |archive-date=19 Jun 2024 |access-date=25 Aug 2025 |website=Forbes}}</ref> This data can later be integrated into predictive police platforms like {{Wplink|Palantir Technologies|Palantir}}.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rettberg |first=Jill Walker |title=Machine Vision: How Algorithms are Changing the Way We See the World |date=11 Sep 2023 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons. |year=2023 |location=Google Books |pages=45-46 |language=English}}</ref>

Unlike traditional security cameras that may be avoided by choosing different routes, Flock's expanding network of over 40,000 cameras makes avoidance increasingly difficult.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://deflock.me/ |title=Find Nearby ALPRs |work=DeFlock |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250728224453/https://deflock.me/|archive-date=2025-07-28 |url-status=live}}</ref> The system uses AI to create ''"Vehicle Fingerprints"'' that identify vehicles by characteristics beyond license plates, including make, model, color, aftermarket parts, window stickers, and roof racks.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stanley |first=Jay |date=23 Jul 2025 |title=Surveillance Company Flock Now Using AI to Report Us to Police if it Thinks Our Movement Patterns Are "Suspicious" |url=https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250814053755/https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/surveillance-company-flock-now-using-ai-to-report-us-to-police-if-it-thinks-our-movement-patterns-are-suspicious |archive-date=14 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=American Civil Liberties Union}}</ref>

====Privacy====
While Flock Safety claims their system doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights because ''"license plates are not personal information,"''<ref name="Flock-PE">{{Cite web |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/privacy-ethics |title=Privacy & Ethics |work=Flock Safety |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.ph/OP55p |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref> federal courts have challenged this interpretation. In February 2024, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit challenging Norfolk, Virginia's use of 172 Flock cameras could proceed, finding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged the system creates a ''"detailed chronicle of a person's physical presence compiled every day."''<ref name="norfolk">{{Cite web |last=King |first=Dan |date=6 Feb 2024 |title=Judge Rules Lawsuit Challenging Norfolk's Use of Flock Cameras Can Proceed |url=https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250717001536/https://ij.org/press-release/judge-rules-lawsuit-challenging-norfolks-use-of-flock-cameras-can-proceed/ |archive-date=17 Jul 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Institute for Justice}}</ref>

Data collected includes location history that can reveal sensitive information about medical visits, religious attendance, political activities, and personal associations. While Flock states data is deleted after 30 days, contracts grant them ''"perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license"'' to use anonymized data indefinitely.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title=Terms and Conditions |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/terms-and-conditions |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/DSqUM |archive-date=26 Oct 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref> The system shares data across a network of over 4,800 law enforcement agencies nationally.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Koebler |first=Jason |date=2024 |title=Lawsuit Argues Warrantless Use of Flock Surveillance Cameras Is Unconstitutional |url=https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250826013458/https://www.404media.co/lawsuit-argues-warrantless-use-of-flock-surveillance-cameras-is-unconstitutional/ |archive-date=26 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=404 Media}}</ref>

====="Anonymized Data"=====
While Flock's Terms and Conditions define "Anonymized Data" as customer data that is ''"permanently stripped of identifying details and any potential personally identifiable information"'' and is rendered so that a person or entity ''"can no longer be identified directly or indirectly,"'' this definition includes information such as vehicle make, model, color, location patterns, and other non–license-plate attributes.<ref name=":1" />

Privacy researchers caution that mobility datasets labeled as "anonymized" can still be re-identified. A 2013 MIT study found that just four spatio-temporal points uniquely identified 95% of individuals in an anonymized location dataset.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=de Montjoye |first=Y.-A. |last2=Hidalgo |first2=C. A. |last3=Verleysen |first3=M. |last4=Blondel |first4=V. D. |year=2013 |title=Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01376 |journal=Scientific Reports |volume=3 |pages=1376 |doi=10.1038/srep01376 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> Multiple peer-reviewed studies from 2018-2024 demonstrate that "anonymized" vehicle location data can be re-identified with high accuracy. A 2022 study showed researchers could re-identify drivers from raw vehicle network data with 97% accuracy by exploiting inter-dependencies in sensor measurements.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167404822002139 |title=Privacy-preserving vehicle trajectory matching |website=ScienceDirect |date=2022 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref> Research published in the Journal of Computer Science and Technology (2022) found that even three to four location points can uniquely identify individuals.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sun |first=She |last2=Ma |first2=Shuai |last3=Song |first3=Jing-He |last4=Yue |first4=Wen-Hai |last5=Lin |first5=Xue-Lian |last6=Ma |first6=Tiejun |date=2022 |title=Experiments and Analyses of Anonymization Mechanisms for Trajectory Data Publishing |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11390-022-2409-x |journal=Journal of Computer Science and Technology |doi=10.1007/s11390-022-2409-x |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

====Business model====
Flock operates on a subscription model charging municipalities and law enforcement agencies $2,500 USD per camera annually plus installation costs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://campbellca.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=279 |title=How much does a Flock Safety camera cost? |work=City of Campbell |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> Private businesses including Home Depot, Lowe's, and FedEx also deploy cameras, sharing data with law enforcement.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/ |title=Home Depot and Lowe's Share Data From Hundreds of AI Cameras With Cops |first=Jason |last=Koebler |date=6 Aug 2025 |work=404 Media |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250823135847/https://www.404media.co/home-depot-and-lowes-share-data-from-hundreds-of-ai-cameras-with-cops/ |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":0" /> Contracts include automatic renewal clauses and limit municipal oversight capabilities, with cities unable to audit system operations or control how other agencies use shared data.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/flock_1.pdf |title=How to Pump the Brakes on Your Police Department's Use of Flock's Mass Surveillance License Plate Readers |work=American Civil Liberties Union |date=2024 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

====Market control====
Flock Safety has rapidly expanded to become a dominant force in automated license plate recognition, operating in 49 states with over 40,000 cameras deployed. The company's network effect creates pressure for additional jurisdictions to join, as law enforcement effectiveness depends on network coverage. Several states have begun restricting access following privacy violations, with California, Illinois, and New York limiting data sharing after immigration and abortion-related tracking incidents.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.michaelrcronin.com/post/flock-blocks-ice-from-license-plate-reader-access-in-several-states |title='Flock' Blocks ICE from License Plate Reader Access in Several States |work=Yes You Can Go |date=2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

===Premise of a "license plate camera"===
While marketed as "license plate readers,"' Flock cameras use what the company calls "Vehicle Fingerprint" technology which tracks vehicles using characteristics beyond just license plates. The system catalogs vehicles based on numerous distinguishing features including make, model, color, bumper stickers, dents, damage patterns, roof racks, aftermarket modifications such as wheels or spoilers, window stickers, and even mismatching paint colors.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harwell |first=Drew |date=2021-10-22 |title=Flock license plate readers spark controversy in Golden, Colo. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/22/crime-suburbs-license-plate-readers/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=The Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Flock Safety ALPR |url=https://www.campbellca.gov/1260/Flock-Safety-ALPR |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=City of Campbell}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |date= |title=LPR Cameras |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers |url-status=usurped |access-date=26 Oct 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>. According to Flock's own marketing materials, the system can identify vehicles even when license plates cannot be captured, advertised as turning "images into actionable evidence — no plate required."<ref>{{Cite web |title=License Plate Readers |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/products/license-plate-readers |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/D9JGD |archive-date=23 Aug 2025 |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Flock Safety}}</ref>

Flock claims this capability is ''"unique among ALPR systems"'' and allows law enforcement to search for vehicles based on these characteristics even without a visible license plate.

This technology changes the nature of the surveillance from license plate reading to comprehensive vehicle tracking. A person could still be tracked by the unique combination of their vehicle's physical characteristics. The Electronic Frontier Foundation warns that these ''"vehicle fingerprints"'' could flag vehicles based on political bumper stickers, revealing ''"information on the political or social views of the driver,"'' or economic indicators like rust or damage, potentially "endangering anyone who might not feel the need (or have the income required) to keep their car in perfect shape."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-09-14 |title=Things to Know Before Your Neighborhood Installs an Automated License Plate Reader |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/flock-license-plate-reader-homeowners-association-safe-problems |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

Privacy advocates note that this expanded tracking capability makes the term ''"license plate reader"'' misleading, as Flock systems create detailed vehicle profiles that persist even without readable plates. It turns any distinguishing feature of a vehicle into a tracking identifier.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Stop Flock |url=https://www.stopflock.com/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Stop Flock}}</ref>

==Patent for person identification by race and physical characteristics==
A U.S. Patent granted to Flock Group Inc. in August 2022 reveals the company has developed and patented technology to identify and classify people based on race, gender, and other physical characteristics.<ref name="patent11416545">{{Cite web |url=https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/77/9a/03/7b3b26499077d4/US11416545.pdf |title=System and Method for Object Based Query of Video Content Captured by a Dynamic Surveillance Network |website=United States Patent and Trademark Office |date=16 Aug 2022 |access-date=21 Jan 2025 |format=PDF |first1=Garrett |last1=Langley |first2=Matt |last2=Feury }}</ref> Patent US 11,416,545 B1 describes a system that goes beyond vehicle identification to analyze human subjects captured in surveillance footage.

According to the patent documentation, when the system identifies a human being in captured footage, it uses neural network modules specifically configured to classify people by "male, female, race, etc." The patent further describes using additional neural networks to identify clothing types, estimate height and weight, and other physical characteristics of individuals.<ref name="patent11416545" /> The system can then store this classification data in searchable databases, allowing law enforcement to query for people based on these physical attributes.

The patent shows that Flock's technology is designed to create comprehensive profiles that can track individuals across multiple camera locations by matching physical characteristics. While Flock publicly markets its products as ''"license plate readers"'' focused on vehicles, this patent demonstrates the company has developed capabilities for detailed human surveillance and classification by protected characteristics including race and gender.<ref name="patent11416545" />

Privacy advocates have raised concerns that this technology could enable discriminatory policing practices and racial profiling at scale.{{Citation needed}} The ability to search for people by race or other physical characteristics across a network of thousands of cameras is a large expansion of surveillance capabilities beyond what is typically disclosed in Flock's public marketing materials.{{Citation needed}}

==Legal challenges==

=== Washington state judge declares Flock footage as public records ''(6 Nov 2025)'' ===
An Oregon resident filed FOIA requests at various police departments in the state of Washington regarding information collected from Flock cameras. One police department filed a lawsuit to reject the resident's request with their attorney stating that publicizing Flock footage may be a violation of privacy that could lead to stalking.

The judge declared that the camera footage was "so broad and indiscriminate" with no distinction between criminal activity and casual civilian activity that the data had to be released to the public.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ingalls |first=Chris |date=6 Nov 2025 |title=Judge orders police to release surveillance camera data, raising privacy questions |url=https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/investigators/judge-orders-washington-police-release-surveillance-camera-data-privacy-questions/281-c2037d52-6afb-4bf7-95ad-0eceaf477864 |access-date=8 Nov 2025 |website=KING5}}</ref>

===Norfolk federal lawsuit ''(February 2025)''===
In February 2025, Chief Judge Mark S. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied Norfolk's motion to dismiss a landmark Fourth Amendment lawsuit. The case involves two residents whose vehicles were tracked 526 times in 4.5 months and 849 times over the same period, figures revealed in a September 2025 court filing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/virginia-police-used-flock-cameras-track-driver-safety-lawsuit-surveil-rcna230399|title=Virginia police used Flock cameras to track driver 526 times in 4 months, lawsuit says|work=NBC News|date=2025-09-18|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> Norfolk installed 172 Flock Safety cameras in 2023 at a cost of $430,000-$516,000 annually. Police Chief Mark Talbot stated the goal was making it ''"difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere."''<ref name="norfolk" />

Judge Davis's ruling relied on ''Carpenter v. United States'', the 2018 Supreme Court decision requiring warrants for historical cell phone location data. The court found Norfolk's ALPR network "notably similar" to the surveillance the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional. However, courts remain divided. In November 2024, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne in the same district denied a motion to suppress Flock evidence, holding that three vehicle snapshots don't constitute "persistent surveillance" requiring a warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://valawyersweekly.com/2024/11/11/mosaic-theory-rejected-flock-camera-evidence-does-not-violate-fourth-amendment/|title='Mosaic theory' rejected: Flock camera evidence does not violate Fourth Amendment|website=Virginia Lawyers Weekly|date=2024-11-11|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Virginia state courts show similar disagreement. Norfolk Circuit Court Judge Jamilah LeCruise granted a suppression motion in May 2024, finding that the breadth of Flock cameras covering Norfolk requires a warrant.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/virginia-judge-rejects-alpr-evidence-without-warrant|title=Virginia Judge Rejects ALPR Evidence Without Warrant|website=Government Technology|date=2024-05-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Yet three other Norfolk circuit court judges denied similar motions in 2024.

===State regulatory landscape===
Only 16 states have enacted any form of ALPR regulation as of 2024 according to University of Michigan research.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://stpp.fordschool.umich.edu/news/2023/automated-license-plate-readers-widely-used-subject-abuse|title=Automated License Plate Readers widely used, subject to abuse|website=University of Michigan|date=2023|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Virginia enacted House Bill 2724 in 2025 creating annual reporting requirements.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://vscc.virginia.gov/Annual%20Reports/2024%20VSCC%20Annual%20Report%20-Law%20Enforcement%20Use%20of%20ALPR.pdf|title=2024 VSCC Annual Report - Law Enforcement Use of ALPR|website=Virginia State Crime Commission|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> Illinois Public Act 103-0540 explicitly prohibits use for reproductive healthcare punishment and immigration investigations.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/103/103-0540.htm|title=Public Act 103-0540|website=Illinois General Assembly|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Illinois prohibits law enforcement agencies from sharing ALPR data with other jurisdictions in relation to a person's immigration status.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Public Act 103-0540 |url=https://www.ilga.gov/documents/legislation/publicacts/103/PDF/103-0540.pdf |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=Illinois General Assembly}}</ref> New Hampshire requires a three-minute purge of data from ALPR use with the exception of ongoing investigations. <ref>{{Cite web |title=261:75-b Use of Number Plate Scanning Devices Regulated. |url=https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/title-xxi/chapter-261/section-261-75-b/ |url-status=usurped |access-date=23 Aug 2025 |work=New Hampshire General Court}}</ref>

California’s SB 34 requires public agencies using ALPR systems to implement usage and privacy policies as well as limits to data sharing. <ref name=":3">{{Cite web |url=https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB34 |title=SB-34 Automated license plate recognition systems: use of data |work=California Legislative Information |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref> However, enforcement remains inconsistent, with a 2020 state audit finding widespread non-compliance.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/index.html |title=Automated License Plate Readers |work=California State Auditor |date=13 Feb 2020 |access-date=23 Aug 2025}}</ref>

==Notable incidents==

====Illinois audit findings (2024-2025)====
Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias announced in late August 2024 that Flock Safety violated state law by allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to access Illinois license plate data for immigration enforcement.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safetys-response-to-illinois-lpr-data-use-and-out-of-state-sharing-concerns|title=Flock Safety's Response to Illinois LPR Data Use and Out-of-State Sharing Concerns|website=Flock Safety|date=2024-08-25|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The audit of 12 local law enforcement agencies revealed unauthorized pilot programs with CBP and Homeland Security Investigations, violating Illinois law prohibiting data sharing for immigration enforcement, gender-affirming care investigations, and abortion-related matters. Following the audit, 47 out-of-state agencies were removed from access to Illinois data.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.govtech.com/biz/flock-pledges-changes-after-illinois-data-sharing-accusation|title=Flock Pledges Changes After Illinois Data-Sharing Accusation|website=Government Technology|date=2024-08-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Mount Prospect, Illinois reported 262 immigration-related license plate reader searches in just the first few months of 2025. A Palos Heights detective shared Flock login credentials with a DEA agent who conducted 28 unauthorized searches of Oak Park ALPR data explicitly labeled "immigration violation."<ref name="dea">{{Cite web|url=https://unraveledpress.com/a-dea-agent-used-an-illinois-police-officers-flock-license-plate-reader-password-for-unauthorized-immigration-enforcement-searches/|title=DEA agent used Illinois cop's Flock license plate reader password for immigration enforcement searches|work=Unraveled Press|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

====California violations (2015-2025)====
California passed Senate Bill 34<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_201520160sb34|title=Senate Bill 34|access-date=2025-08-27}}</ref> in 2015 to limit how California police departments can use and share data collected from these cameras with other state's and federal law enforcement agencies. These limits have been found to be violated on several occasions with little enforcement or consequences for the misusing departments<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sfstandard.com/2025/07/23/california-police-sharing-flock-license-plate-data/|access-date=2025-08-27|title=California cops are breaking surveillance laws|website=San Francisco Standard|date=2025-07-23}}</ref>.

A 2023 EFF investigation found 71 California police agencies in 22 counties illegally shared data with out-of-state law enforcement. San Francisco Police Department alone allowed 1.6 million illegal searches by out-of-state agencies from 2024-2025.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://sfstandard.com/2025/09/08/sfpd-flock-alpr-ice-data-sharing/|title=SFPD let Georgia, Texas cops illegally search city surveillance data on behalf of ICE|website=San Francisco Standard|date=2025-09-08|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The California Attorney General filed the first enforcement action against the City of El Cajon in 2025 for sharing with 26 states.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-el-cajon-illegally-sharing-license-plate-data-out|title=Attorney General Bonta Sues El Cajon for Illegally Sharing License Plate Data|website=California DOJ|date=2025|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===False positive incidents===

====Families detained at gunpoint====
In Española, New Mexico, 21-year-old Jaclynn Gonzales and her 12-year-old sister were held at gunpoint and handcuffed after Flock's system mistook a "2" for a "7" on their license plate, falsely flagging their vehicle as stolen.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2023-09-28 |title=License plate cover leads to traffic stop mishap |url=https://www.koat.com/article/espanola-police-license-plate-stolen-cover-traffic-stop/45361740|website=KOAT|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025 |title=Flock Safety: Eroding Your Privacy & Keeping You Safe with Surveillance |url=https://redact.dev/blog/flock-safety-lpr-privacy-surveillance/ |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=Redact}}</ref>

ALPR systems often misread license plates according to multiple investigations, leading to hardship & legal trouble for innocent civilians.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/11/human-toll-alpr-errors|title=The Human Toll of ALPR Errors|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=2024-11-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Law enforcement stalking incidents===

In October 2022, Kechi, Kansas Police Lieutenant Victor Heiar was arrested and later pleaded guilty to computer crimes and stalking after using Flock cameras to track his estranged wife's movements over four months.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.kwch.com/2022/10/31/kechi-police-lieutenant-arrested-using-police-technology-stalk-wife/|title=Kechi police lieutenant arrested for using police technology to stalk wife|work=KWCH|date=2022-10-31|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> In a separate Kansas incident, Sedgwick Police Chief Lee Nygaard accessed Flock data 164 times to track his ex-girlfriend before resigning after admitting to the misuse.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/kansas-police-chief-used-flock-093300946.html|title=Kansas police chief used Flock license plate cameras 164 times to track ex-girlfriend|work=Yahoo News|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Multiple other documented cases include Las Vegas Metro Officer Christopher Young arrested in December 2023 for stalking his ex-fiancée using police databases, and Riverside County Deputy Eric Piscatella pleading guilty in February 2024 to seven counts of misusing sheriff's department databases to stalk a woman he met at Coachella.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.fox5vegas.com/2024/02/16/las-vegas-police-officer-arrested-reportedly-stalking-ex-fiancee/?outputType=amp|title=Las Vegas police officer arrested for reportedly stalking ex-fiancée|website=FOX5 Vegas|date=2024-02-16|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Abortion and reproductive healthcare tracking===
In May 2025, Johnson County, Texas sheriff's deputies used Flock's network to track a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. They conducted searches across 83,000+ Flock cameras nationwide with the explicit reason: "had an abortion, search for female." The search accessed cameras across multiple states including those where abortion is legal. The incident led Illinois officials to investigate and subsequently block 47+ out-of-state agencies from accessing Illinois ALPR data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2025/06/13/after-finding-fetal-remains-north-texas-cops-used-camera-network-to-search-for-woman/|title=After finding fetal remains, North Texas cops used camera network to search for woman|work=The Dallas Morning News|date=2025-06-13|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/she-got-abortion-so-texas-cop-used-83000-cameras-track-her-down|title=She Got an Abortion. So A Texas Cop Used 83,000 Cameras to Track Her Down|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|date=2025-05-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

===Federal agency access===
Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintains a $6.1 million contract giving 9,000+ ICE officers access to the Vigilant Solutions ALPR database containing over 5 billion location data points.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/documents-reveal-ice-using-driver-location-data|title=Documents Reveal ICE Using Driver Location Data From Local Police for Deportations|website=ACLU|date=2024|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref> The Drug Enforcement Administration operates a National License Plate Reader Program with over 10,000 license plate readers shared throughout the United States. 404 Media revealed over 4,000 searches by local and state police for federal immigration enforcement purposes, despite Flock having no formal ICE contract.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.404media.co/ice-taps-into-nationwide-ai-enabled-camera-network-data-shows/|title=ICE Taps into Nationwide AI-Enabled Camera Network, Data Shows|work=404 Media|date=2025|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref> A DEA agent was found using an Illinois police officer's credentials to conduct unauthorized immigration searches.<ref name="dea" />

===Illegal Camera Installations===
In South Carolina, Flock installed over 200 cameras without authorization, leading to a statewide moratorium on new installations.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Ferrara |first=David |date=2024-03-11 |title=A company installed license plate cameras without permission. SC agency wants clear rules |url=https://www.postandcourier.com/news/alpr-cameras-south-carolina-flock-safety-license-plate-readers/article_787a262a-dbd2-11ee-a901-634acead588b.html |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=The Post and Courier}}</ref>

In Illinois, a Flock representative allegedly threatened a Department of Transportation official with police pressure when questioned about permit applications.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Uprise RI Staff |date=2024-10-23 |title=As Flock Surveillance Cameras Proliferate in Rhode Island, Lawsuit Challenges Their Legality |url=https://upriseri.com/as-flock-surveillance-cameras-proliferate-in-rhode-island-lawsuit-challenges-their-legality/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-25 |website=UPRISE RI}}</ref>

====='''Evanston, IL'''=====
Flock was ordered to remove 18 stationary cameras. The city put the contract with Flock on a 30-day termination notice on August 26. Flock Initially appeared to comply, removing 15 of the cameras by September 8. Later, Flock was caught reinstalling all of them by the following Tuesday without authorization from the city. The city of Evanston responded with a cease-and-desist order for Flock to remove the new and unauthorized camera equipment. Because Flock reinstalled the cameras without permission, Evanston was forced to cover the cameras with tape and bags to block them from potentially logging vehicle data.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Harrison |first=Alex |date=2025-09-25 |title=City covers Flock cameras while waiting for removal |url=https://evanstonroundtable.com/2025/09/25/city-covers-up-flock-cameras-while-waiting-for-removal/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/PD1qe |archive-date=2025-10-10 |access-date=2025-10-10 |website=Evanston Roundtable}}</ref>

===City rejections and terminations===

Multiple cities have rejected or terminated Flock contracts following privacy concerns and effectiveness issues:

'''0.2% effectiveness rate, low arrests:''' Austin, Texas terminated its contract in July 2025 after an audit revealed "systematic compliance failures" and only 165 arrests from 113 million license plate scans (0.146% effectiveness rate).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/flock-ceo-responds-to-austin-backlash-as-city-contract-nears-expiration|title=Flock CEO responds to Austin backlash as city contract nears expiration|work=CBS Austin|date=2025-06-21|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

Denver City Council unanimously rejected a $666,000 contract extension in May 2025 following revelations of 1,400+ ICE-related searches in Colorado data.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://denverite.com/2025/05/05/denver-rejects-flock-camera-license-plate-readers/|title=Denver rejects $666,000 extension for license-plate surveillance cameras after backlash|work=Denverite|date=2025-05-05|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

San Marcos, Texas voted 5-2 to deny camera expansion after discovering no required audits had been conducted since 2022.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Velez |first=Abigail |date=2025-06-04 |title=San Marcos City Council votes to deny flock camera expansion after hours of heated debate |url=https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/san-marcos-city-council-votes-to-deny-flock-camera-expansion-after-hours-of-heated-debate |access-date=2025-08-23 |work=CBS Austin}}</ref>

Oak Park, Illinois terminated their contract entirely following the Illinois investigation into illegal data sharing.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.oakpark.com/2025/08/07/oak-park-terminates-flock-license-plate-reader-contract/|title=Oak Park terminates Flock license plate reader contract|work=Wednesday Journal|date=2025-08-07|access-date=2025-08-23}}</ref>

===Arizona deployments===
Sedona, Arizona became the first Arizona city to completely terminate its Flock Safety contract in September 2025 after citizen backlash. The city had installed 11 cameras in June 2025 without prior public notice at a cost of $51,146 for the first year. The council voted 5-1 to pause the program, then unanimously 7-0 on September 9 to permanently terminate after Flock CEO Garrett Langley admitted the company had been sharing data with federal agencies. Vice Mayor Holli Ploog called Flock "not an honorable company" for the conflicting data-sharing claims.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://westvalleyfamilies.substack.com/p/sedona-pulls-the-plug-on-flock-safety|title=Sedona Pulls the Plug on Flock Safety|website=West Valley Families|date=2025-09-10|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.knau.org/knau-and-arizona-news/2025-09-11/sedona-council-permanently-ends-license-plate-camera-program|title=Sedona council permanently ends license plate camera program|website=KNAU|date=2025-09-11|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Flagstaff deployed 32 Flock cameras in summer 2024 at a cost of $143,100 annually. By September 2025, a petition signed by 25+ residents demanded cancellation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.kjzz.org/fronteras-desk/2025-09-01/after-sedona-paused-flock-safety-camera-system-flagstaff-is-considering-the-same-issue|title=After Sedona paused Flock Safety camera system, Flagstaff is considering the same issue|website=KJZZ|date=2025-09-01|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

University of Arizona contracted with Flock in February 2025 for 54 ALPR cameras at $160,000 annually. Students and faculty launched a "Deflock Tucson" campaign citing concerns about tracking international students and potential data sharing with federal immigration authorities.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://azluminaria.org/2025/09/15/ua-students-and-faculty-question-use-of-flock-safety-cameras-on-campus/|title=UA students and faculty question use of Flock Safety cameras on campus|website=AZ Luminaria|date=2025-09-15|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Casa Grande approved a $10 million "Safe City Initiative" in September 2025 including 100 license plate readers. Chief Mark McCrory reported the current 22 license plate readers led to 212 stolen vehicles identified and 168 arrests.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.inmaricopa.com/we-mapped-all-flock-cameras/|title=We mapped the city's Flock cameras|website=InMaricopa|date=2025|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

Despite documented deployments across Arizona including Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler, Scottsdale, Tempe, Surprise, Youngtown, Litchfield Park, and Yuma, the state has no ALPR-specific regulation.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://azmirror.com/2019/07/08/how-do-automated-license-plate-readers-work/|title=How do automated license plate readers work?|website=Arizona Mirror|date=2019-07-08|access-date=2025-10-05}}</ref>

==Security vulnerabilities==
In 2025, Flock Safety reported security vulnerabilities in its devices and submitted them to MITRE for inclusion in the National Vulnerability Database, including issues such as hard-coded credentials and improper access controls.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-05-05 |title=Gunshot Detection and License Plate Reader Security Alert |url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/gunshot-detection-and-license-plate-reader-security-alert |website=Flock Safety}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-10-02 |title=CVE-2025-59403 : The Flock Safety Android Collins application (aka com.flocksafety.android.collin |url=https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2025-59403/ |website=CVEdetails.com}}</ref> Similar security concerns have affected other ALPR systems, including exposure of default passwords and unencrypted data storage.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Quintin |first=Cooper |date=28 Oct 2015 |title=License Plate Readers Exposed! How Public Safety Agencies Responded to Major Vulnerabilities in Vehicle Surveillance Tech |url=https://www.eff.org/ur/deeplinks/2015/10/license-plate-readers-exposed-how-public-safety-agencies-responded-massive |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation}}</ref>

This represents one of several major security disclosures in the past decade. In 2015, the Electronic Frontier Foundation documented more than 100 ALPR cameras accessible on the open internet, often without passwords or proper configuration.<ref name=":4" /> A more serious documented breach occurred in 2019, when Perceptics, LLC, a subcontractor for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, exposed approximately 105,000 license plate images and 184,000 traveler facial images.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Review of CBP's Major Cybersecurity Incident During a 2019 Biometric Pilot |url=https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2020-09/OIG-20-71-Sep20.pdf}}</ref>

==Government accountability and oversight==

===State audit findings===
California State Auditor's February 2020 investigation found the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), with a 320 million image database, had no ALPR-specific policy at all. The audit found 96% of agencies claim to have policies, but most are incomplete. Data retention periods varied wildly with no justification. LAPD maintained a minimum five-year retention period, yet couldn't demonstrate that images stored for years had investigative value. The audit found that 99.9% of the 320 million images Los Angeles stores are for vehicles that were not on a "hot list" when the image was made.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://information.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2019-118/summary.html |title=Automated License Plate Readers |website=California State Auditor |date=13 Feb 2020 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

New Jersey provides a contrasting model with mandatory annual audits of all 523 law enforcement agencies. The 2024 audit reported only two significant violations, both involving users who hadn't completed required training.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://nj.gov/njsp/ALPR/pdf/2024_Audit_Automated_License_Plate_Recognition_(ALPR)_Data_Collected_Utilized_NJ_Law_Enforcement_Agencies.pdf |title=2024 Audit of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Data |website=New Jersey State Police |date=2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

A Government Technology analysis found that agencies often fail to audit ALPR systems regularly, leaving them "open to abuse by neglecting to institute sufficient oversight."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.govtech.com/biz/data/alpr-audit-takeaways-what-we-learned-about-policy-gaps |title=ALPR Audit Takeaways: What We Learned About Policy Gaps |website=Government Technology |date=2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

===Cost-benefit analysis===
Arizona Department of Transportation's 2008 study of generic ALPR technology (predating Flock Safety by nine years) estimated $9.98 million for a hypothetical statewide ALPR system. The projected benefit-to-cost ratio of 9.6:1 came entirely from registration and insurance compliance, not crime reduction.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://apps.azdot.gov/files/ADOTLibrary/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ637.pdf |title=Automated License Plate Recognition Technology Implementation Report |website=Arizona Department of Transportation |date=1 Jun 2008 |access-date=5 Oct 2025}}</ref>

Colorado's Office of Research and Statistics reported that while ALPR systems are expanding, independent academic research contradicts vendor claims. A 2011 George Mason University study concluded ALPRs "do not achieve a prevention or deterrent effect" on crime.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/Docs/Briefs/2024-05_InDetail-ALPR.pdf |title=Automated License Plate Readers (In Detail) |website=Colorado Division of Criminal Justice |date=1 May 2024 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

Oakland Police Department reported 182 arrests from ALPR in the first year, representing 1.4% of homicides, robberies, burglaries, and firearm assaults. The Northern California Regional Intelligence Center states approximately 1-2 vehicles out of 1,000 initiate alerts — a hit rate of just 0.1-0.2%.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://ncric.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/California-Law-Enforcement-ALPR-FAQ.pdf |title=California Law Enforcement ALPR FAQ |website=NCRIC |date=2021 |access-date=5 Oct 2025 |format=PDF}}</ref>

==Camera locations==
The locations of many Flock Cameras have been mapped by the OpenStreetMap project. A viewer of the locations of these cameras is located here: [https://deflock.me/map ALPR Map | DeFlock]

====Cease and desist to DeFlock.me====
DeFlock.me is a website allowing users to log and view the locations of ALPRs, such as Flock products. On 30 January 2025, Flock sent a cease and desist notice to the owner of DeFlock demanding the name of the website be changed to exclude the company's brand name. The letter also stated that "the Website also implies that various license plate readers are vulnerable to security hacks [...]" which Flock alleged "[...] provides a false impression about the security of Flock Products."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Matz |first=Sarah M. |title=2025 01 31 DEFLOCK CD final |url=https://www.eff.org/files/2025/02/26/2025_01_31_deflock_cd_ex-3.pdf |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |date=30 Jan 2025 |access-date=27 Oct 2025 |url-status=live |format=PDF}}</ref>

==External links==
*[https://deflock.me/ DeFlock live map of active ALPRs]
*[https://www.noalprs.org/ No ALPRS movement in United States]
*[https://plateprivacy.com/ The Plate Privacy Project]
*[https://eyesonflock.com/ Eyes On Flock]
*[https://wiki.alprwatch.org/index.php/Main_Page ALPR Watch Wiki]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Automatic license plate readers]]
[[Category:Flock Safety]]

Sketchfab

2025-11-07T17:52:18Z

Beanie Bo:

{{StubNotice}}

[https://sketchfab.com/ Sketchfab] is a repository for downloading 3D models. It was created March 10 2011, and July 21 2021 it was bought by [[Epic Games]].

December 11 2025 they plan to require login using [[Epic Games]].

(And my prediction is that this is eventually going to roll out for everyone)
[[File:Sketchfab Email Nov 6 2025.png|thumb|[https://sketchfab.com/terms Sketchfab TOS] [https://sketchfab.com/blogs/community/?page_id=142060003276&preview=true Sketchfab TOS Update]]]
Please format and fact check this page, this was just a rough draft created in a couple of minutes

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

2025-11-07T15:54:38Z

Beanie Bo: /* What does the AI/LLM template mean? */ Reply

<div style="margin: {{#ifeq:{{{navbox|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|2px}} 0 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; {{{style|border: 1px solid #A0A5AD;}}} {{{backgroundstyle|background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #eaf3ff); color: inherit;}}}">
<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 120%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold; {{{titlestyle|background-color: var(--background-color-content-added, #aad1ff); color: inherit;}}}">Welcome — post issues of interest to Moderators</div>
*Post '''appeals''' to article notice templates (e.g. Incomplete, Stub, etc.)
*Post requests for '''moderator action''' here (e.g. blocks)
*Just need a mod? Post here or ping a mod with a question.
*Post any information or news relevant to the moderation team here.
*To request an article to be created, do not post here, try [[Article suggestions]] instead.
*Do not report technical issues here, please use the [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs|Bugs noticeboard]] instead.

<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Start a new section]]</div>
</div>
 
{{Archives}} 
==Open tasks==

*[[:Category:Articles with deletion requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles with merge requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles marked as irrelevant]]
*[[Special:NewPages]]

==Itron article has been flagged for questionable relevance.==

I believe the [[Itron]] article has been mistakenly flagged for questionable relevance. I have added several Incidents to the page to further show Itron's systemic patterns of consumer privacy violations please see the below:

''Itron's Smart meters allow them to collect, process, and store data without the end users' knowledge. (1980-Present)''

''NYSEG requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (November 2022-Present)''

''CenterPoint Energy requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face one-time and monthly service charges (Unknown-Present)''

''Southern California Edison requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (Unknown-Present)''

Smart meter (and smart grid solutions) usage by utility companies involves a lot of layers but these are what I find to be most concerning:

''Lack of data privacy, utility companies can freely share customer data with third party smart meter companies (such as Itron) without customer knowledge.''

''Lack of freedom to choose whether or not you have a smart meter recording your electricity usage. This data can be used to infer all sorts of things from what kind of appliances you own to when you are home.''

''Itron's Data Processing Agreement is un-viewable (at least for me) and not easy to find either, and end users typically do not know they will have an Itron smart meter until after it is installed by their electric company.''

Itron is not the only smart meter and smart grid solutions game in town but they are big and not end user friendly,.

Thank Mods! [[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] ([[User talk:Privacywarrior|talk]]) 19:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

:So sorry for not getting to this sooner.
:For now, I've changed the relevancy tag to an incomplete one (lacking verification), the issue being that there are no sources that actually implicate itron in having done anything wrong, with most of the stuff surrounding 'maybe it could be/has been hacked' being authorial speculation insofar as I can tell.
:There's also no secondary reporting - i.e. no media sources cited as framing any of these things as a problem. This is something which should be there to demonstrate notability. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
::Understood, unfortunately most of the articles I found the place blame on the distribution companies for invasive policies. The real issue is Itron has unlimited access to any of their smart meters data with out the end users knowledge. I am not quite sure how to capture this topic fully. [[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] ([[User talk:Privacywarrior|talk]]) 14:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] Not mad at you or anything but on Wikipedia at least its common practice to not edit the archive at all although I see why you did it, so I’ve reverted your edit there and added it back here. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

==In the verifiability section, aren't government policies, regulations with propagandas/agendas allowed to be cited there?==

I'm just wondering if this can cause concerns for staffs in this wiki, for example [https://www.resecurity.com/blog/article/shinyhunters-attacked-vietnams-financial-system-cic-data-leak like this one] (there's english translation but it's all google translated and for full texts translation it's locked behind paywall, so apologies for that) [[User:Justarandomguy111|Justarandomguy111]] ([[User talk:Justarandomguy111|talk]]) 09:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:Can you rephrase your question? I'm not sure exactly what you're asking or how the link you shared is relevant [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==please delete all pages created by this user==

[[Special:Contributions/81.221.216.80|this user]] creates chatgpt raw output articles. While i dont doubt the relevance of the information, the method of creation is odd, and frankly, detrimental to this website's reputation. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:I’m not going to myself, but can one of the mods post a reminder to not do that? ChatGPT can be decent starting point '''if undetected''' and people keep updating it and it feels less sloppy, but this is out of hand. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, those ones are particularly bad. if they don't come back and clean them up by tomorrow I'll probably just delete them, as they're pretty much unusable as starting points [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==So many pages with stub/incomplete notices==

Hey there, I've been messing around pressing the random article button for a while. I've noticed that about 9/10 articles on this wiki have either a stub notice or a incomplete notice. I understand why : this wiki has limited resources to polish these articles and also wish not to add friction for article creation not to deter potential contributors. However, in my opinion, it kinda ruins the image of the website. It looks unpolished, unfinished and amateur.

Is there some plan to eventually add a little friction to the system, to incentivize polishing and finishing articles. I understand this can be complicated, but right now articles are being created with a title and maybe two or three links and then left there to rot. Dont get me wrong, I am also guilty of this, though i wish i werent, and i wish there was a system preventing this kind of low-effort-good-faith contribution.

thank you for hearing me [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 22:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:Not a mod and this may be completely wrong (especially as I don’t use discord) but I think they just want to make articles for now and later polish them. The thing is that I’m pretty sure this is how Wikipedia developed, with just making articles and later on polishing. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:There will absolutely be a tightening of standards later down the line, but ultimately the reason it looks unfinished is because, at present, it *is* unfinished. There'll be a lot of work needed to get it to the point where the articles have the kind of average quality we'd want them to. At the moment we really can't afford to be picky with contributions, and have to embrace the 'something is better than nothing' mentality. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==Can a mod please remove this?==

Can a mod remove the sloppyai tags [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|on my userpage]] and [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson/Sandbox|my sandbox page]]? The abuse filter is making impossible to remove. Just delete the part that says SloppyAI which is in the first paragraph on both. Thanks! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see a SloppyAI notice [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::You will see SloppyAI with two curly brackets around it, not the full notice. I forgot to clarify. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Do you mean where it says: "Apparently, adding template {{sloppyai}} is a crime." [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, that. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Done <nowiki>{{Smiley}}</nowiki> [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::Well that didn't work [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::To do it, click the source button and then try. What happened was it put <nowiki> tags around it (which basically make it ignore wikitext) because it detected wiki markup in visualeditor, which it doesn’t allow. Putting this in source: {{Smiley}}. I can’t believe I had to do that just to remove it though! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 13:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

i wish the page Category:Trading_card_companies to be deleted.

argument : it is redundant with Category:Playing_card_manufacturers

Both have 1 element : Nintendo, though the latter is embedded within Category:Game_manufacturers and the former not, thus it can be deleted [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

i wish the page [[:Category:Information_technology_companies]] to be deleted

argument : it serves no purpose. all items should be moved to [[:Category:Technology_companies]]

please it will help tidy things up : an impossible task. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} (about to do when first typing this) but it might take a little bit to move everything over. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

I wish the page [[:Category:Canadian_Internet_Providers_-_Circumvent_CRTC_protection_-_Time_based_increases.]]

argument : It is a byproduct of an old spelling mistake. I've cleaned up the mess a bit. this page now needs to be deleted [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:actually all pages in [[Special:UnusedCategories]] [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::{{Done}} partially (only removed the specific category you mentioned) but a [[Special:UnusedCategories]] cleanup will be done by me in the near future. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, you can also use the [[Template:DeletionRequest|Deletionrequest template]] for this as although it might not be done very quickly, it is generally cleaner and easier for admins. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::::will do. I didnt know i was allowed to use it. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 18:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, anyone can use that to mark an article. It won't delete it, it just adds a notice for a mod to delete it (although it can be a bit slow at times!) [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==page categories.==

Hi i'd like some clarification regarding categories.

from what i've noticed, each page has a category with the page name as a name. ex: Apple has a Category:Apple.

Now, does that mean all other "tags" go in Category:Apple or should they go in Apple ? Or both ? (by "tags" i mean "Category:Technology_company" or "Category:Video_game")

Please clarify this as both methods are currently used through this wiki.

Thank you for your time and hard work. I want to help out more but this question needs a definitive answer before [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, I’m pretty sure all tags are meant to go in the category:Apple, although some pages may have lots of categories when there’s only a few in the actual category for it (or none if there’s no category). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
::I’m also going to link to [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Categorization]] because of how good it is as a resource for learning about categories. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
:::thanks. i hadnt found that page. i will give it a good read [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

==I've added the 'nocat' parameter to Citation needed==

Just letting mods know because if you see ANY issues with the citation needed template, then please immediately rollback the edits I have made. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

==My submission is fine and the notice is not accurate nor able to discern context of the submission==

The sources are actually threaded conversations. I'm not sure how the bot thinks a link to a threaded forum is a news article.

I worked hard making sure my first submission was encompassing.

Yes the "titles" of the forum posts sourced may not be the same as my wiki title here as those are not my posts and would you rather not put the titles of the forum posts?, i made sure to include a "why it matters" section to clarify certain aspects stated in those threads that pertain to the issue at hand. The topic INSIDE OF THE THREADS on the forum posts were exactly pertinent.

If my submission is eligible for deletion then i'm unsure how anything gets published here. I seriously think the bot that looks over submissions needs refinement if it flags my submission like that. Also, realistically a submission page with form fields is the way to go for this. Normal people are not wiki site gurus and template perfect people. They will never use the site. I understand this is outside the scope of this particular message, but I think there are some people that have a very good grasp on wiki sites, template adherence, shortcuts, that completely confusing to a normal person cite page that gets linked and overall these people are flagging posts that normal people are trying to make. The average person that comes into contact with company issues that this site proclaims to want to address will not be able to abide by the standards of a wiki style submission process if this is the outcome of when they sincerely try to contribute. (Again, it should just be form fields and a submit button.)

Nevertheless, I am posting here as directed by the robot. [[Special:Contributions/66.191.58.153|66.191.58.153]] 09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

:On the off-topic remark (I do not know what your original submission was), I agree that the Visual editor UI could be a bit easier to use.
:Some important "Insert" items like Citations should not be under a "More" menu (Windows 11 right click vibes); it took me about 15 minutes to find a source and add my first proper citation despite being a somewhat tech-savvy person. (Although, I started here making '''edits''' and thus did not see the Citation "tutorial" within the Create an article page, only the
:There could also be a quick link(s) within the editor (like the ? button) to CRW's Wiki policy with helpful description like "Contains rules, writing guidelines and the mission statement to ensure the Wiki remains credible."
:In my opinion, starting to edit wikis really feels like booting up CS 1.6 as a first timer, going on multiplayer servers and getting 20 deaths in a row for not already knowing how to wallbang. This is okay for late night LAN parties, not so motivating when people make their first contribution and get edit summaries that aren't directly constructive in their email.
:Nevertheless I could be wrong on these points. I appreciate discussion and feedback. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 13:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::There are a lot of quirks with MediaWiki in general (the software is 20 years old at this point), and especially for this new wiki that has a lot of bugs and UI stuff to work out. There's supposed to be a major UI haul within the next few months or so, so hopefully that will address some of these issues you mentioned.
::Ctrl+Shift+K is a keyboard shortcut for adding citations. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:Hi. Which article specifically are you referring to? [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==Spam articles==

I've checked [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=13 Filter 13's log] and there seems to be a consistent stream of spam articles shown there. Should we block the users doing this? I assume so, but I want to be sure. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

:Normally, we would consider this, but the types of users that end up filling up this log tend to make several accounts at a time, making blocking effectively useless. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Question on wiki scope==

This wiki has a Legislation category, covering existing legislation.

I'd like to write up my ideas for things that could be considered for future legislation (as a matter of fact, I started: [[User:CorpoBlight/Product quality - and manufacturer incentives]]). But after I started, I began to wonder if it was in-scope for this wiki or not. If too far away from the preferred direction of this wiki, any suggestions for a different wiki where it would fit better? To be clear, I am ''not'' a lawyer. [[User:CorpoBlight|CorpoBlight]] ([[User talk:CorpoBlight|talk]]) 20:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

:This would be outside of scope for the wiki as personal opinion write ups or personal interpritations of law aren't really within scope. Please let us know if you have any other questions about this. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 07:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal deletion of xbox==

[[Xbox]] was proposed for deletion based on its not having been edited in a long time. I think it should be kept. The Microsoft article has several items that would be appropriate for xbox. I have seen enough commentary on xbox and the direction it is going, etc. that I am sure there are sources out there to make a good article. There are a lot of pages that link to the page, so it is probably important.
Having stubs helps the wiki grow. Gives a place for people to expand. Gives reminders of, oh yeah, that thing. Creating a stub article is a pain, why should somebody have to do it again?
If people propose deletion just because something hasn't been worked on in a while, what do they want? Editors to periodically go around and touch every article they think is worthwhile? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]], The Wiki tends to remove articles that have not been worked on in order to improve the perceived quality of the place. If you wish to fill in the article accordingly, I can gladly remove the deletion notice from the article for you. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 01:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Where is this policy documented/explained? There are several problems with the policy which I would like to be sure have been discussed, and I am interested in participating in the discussion.
::In this case the article has sat unmodified for at most 2 months. That seems absurdly short for a timeout.
::The policy feels very manipulative, "work on this or the article gets it." Xbox is not my priority, but it will probably be someones. It is a shame to lose what progress is made every time somebody has other things in their life.
::I have a few main interests (AI at the moment), but dabble in lots of other things. I would rather be free to improve things here and there as I feel. The policy plainly penalizes that work style.
::(The Mary Condo follower uses a hammer to put in a screw because the screwdriver did not bring them joy. The eclectic person uses a hammer to put in a screw because they can't find one of their dozens of screwdrivers among all their other tools.)
::In general this policy seems extremely short-sighted for the wiki. Why should I work on this wiki if anything I am working on will be deleted if I get busy for a couple of months, or after I move on to other things? So I will not adopt the xbox article, but I will try to advocate to extend protection for it and all the orphans, and thereby help grow the wiki.
::I have more to say, but will save it until I find what has been said and the right place to say it. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi, @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]], the Xbox article has been in an excessively unfinished state for more than a month. Policy generally states that we need to remove barely-developed articles after 1 month. Our general expectation is that if a user is going to create an article, that they at least fill in the framework within 1 week of creation, but we give extra leeway.
:::Of course, please remember that just because a page is deleted, it does not mean that it cannot be made again! [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] Where are these policies stated on the wiki?
::::I just looked through [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki policy index]] and couldn't find anything there about the 1 month rule, nor the 1 week expectation. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 06:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd say there is a difference between starting an article, and literally just filling in the page creation form and nothing else. On the Xbox article, even just the amount of text you've added is enough for me to be happy leaving it as a stub instead of deleting it (and as such I have removed the deletion notice). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with both points. While the Create a Page flow suggest a standard for an acceptable article: "if you're not going to be able to get the very basics of a page created today (a basic statement of wht <nowiki>{{sic}}</nowiki> the article's about with a couple of references), it might be better to make a draft in your [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:How_to_use_your_user_space|user space]]." which suggest people disobeying the notice not reading due to the attention spans of today; I have to ask if there are measures that prevent or atleast warn articles being published with (1) no citations or (2) sections with template infoboxes. (I would verify this, but don't want to accidentally create a page as a result. If such a system isn't present yet it's understandable, probably harder than I imagine to implement it.) [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi, @[[User:Raster|Raster]], because the wiki is intended to allow users without accounts to create pages, we cannot design a system to remind them to work on their unfinished articles. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi @[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]], I don't mean "remind", I mean "prevent" like how one would disable a submit button in a webpage if some requirements are not met. Apologies for any unclear wording on my side [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hi, @[[User:Raster|Raster]], unfortunately this is not a system we can enforce without excessively modifying the codebase of MediaWiki. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]], that's understandable. Thank you for the reply. I was going to suggest putting such a warning in the new page info boxes, but not sure where to put in a way people will actually read it. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, to be a bit more specific, because pages are created through the form, a page will always be first created as an unfinished template. that's why we generally leave a day to allow newly submitted articles to be edited into their 'starting state' before worrying about article notices and so on. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Template "Userspace Draft" copied from wikipedia==

I tried to use the [[Template:Userspace draft|Userspace_draft]] template, only to find that it didn't exist. I started with the source of that template from wikipedia, updating the wording a bit and deleting quite a bit.

I commented out a chunk that caused an error "'''Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "[".'''" I couldn't see how the chunk in question could cause that error, so someone with more mediawiki template experience may wish to take a look. [[User:CorpoBlight|CorpoBlight]] ([[User talk:CorpoBlight|talk]]) 05:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Warning: Prohibited words detected?==

It's telling me this, but it won't tell me what I've said wrong.

Can't save the page as a result. How can I find out what words are wrong so I can remove them. I can't find a list anywhere on the site + the error doesn't really tell me much. Also, the page I'm editing has a deletion request...but it will be fully populated with reference once I can edit and save my copy. Thanks in advance for your help. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.50.131|84.239.50.131]] 07:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, this is because of the abuse filter, which blocks edits it thinks are harmful. The edit it blocked you from sending seems completely fine and was a false positive, so I'll make the change on your behalf. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Hi, I'm also here because I ran afoul of this filter. My edit does affect about every line of the Article Suggestions table (it's an attempt at alphabetisation) so I can see it looking Big and Awful to an automatic filter! [[User:Neuropirate|Neuropirate]] ([[User talk:Neuropirate|talk]]) 23:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Done}} the edit and also confirmed you so you won’t have to deal with the filter that stopped you again. Also nice work putting it in alphabetical order! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you to @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] for getting the edit, but I just wanted to add that if you create an account, then after a few edits you won't need to worry about the filters or similar. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you to @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] as well.
::And you know @[[User:Keith|Keith]], you make a good point. This was kind of supposed to be a one time thing...but maybe it shouldn't be. I'll go ahead and register. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.50.131|84.239.50.131]] 16:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==How does thanking edits work? Some questions;==

This is the first Wiki I've seen with such a cool and human feature, but I need to know if I'm using it correctly instead of just baffling everyone with how much I click them buttons in the Recent Changes page. So some questions:

#How public is "Publicly send thanks?" Does it appear anywhere else other than the Your notices section?
#Does it keep track of which edits have already been thanked? I see some that I have thanked acknowledge that upon a refresh, but most of the time I see the thank button appear again. In this case, does clicking it spam the person's notifications again? Or is this a browser cache issue?
#Assuming this is some sort of MediaWiki plugin, is it open source?

Personally I love my experience with it thus far, as I don't vibe with the idea of an online scoreboard. Thanks! [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 12:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:1. It is mainly directed straight to the user being thanked, but if you go to [[Special:Log/thanks]], there is a thanks log there.
:2. I think you can spam notifications by thanking different edits, but I don’t think you can thank twice.
:3. It is a MediaWiki plugin, I think that it is after looking at [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Thanks the page for it]. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal tone notice - Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if Powershare feature is used==

I believe [[Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if Powershare feature is used|the article's]] wording now fits within [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines#Use of tone|the guidelines]]. If there are still areas that need improvement tone-wise, do mention what they are. Thank you for your time [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 08:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:Done! Thanks for improving the article! [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal tone notice-Electronic Arts==

I believe that the [[Electronic arts|article]] fits under the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines#Use of tone|guidelines]]. If it does, please mention what they are. [[User:Beef|Beef]] ([[User talk:Beef|talk]]) 13:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} sorry for delay! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

==note for someone who can modify the localsettings.php file to jump at==

Although it has 'bot' flag, NewUserMessage still shows up in recent changes. I did a bit of digging and found out that all you need to fix it is a line in the localsettings.php file. Setting <code>$wgNewUserSuppressRC</code> to <code>true</code> should do the trick.

Also, just found before posting that to substitute the template (something I suggested earlier), putting any text in page <code>[[MediaWiki:Newusermessage-substitute]]‎</code> should do the trick (which will keep the message the same as when it was posted even when the template itself is updated, like doing it manually instead of via a template). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

:This would be something that needs to be passed on to our tech folks. I'll let them know this exists - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 07:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

==Possible solution for hiding IPs?==

IPs have been shown for editing since the start of wikis, but it isn’t private for the IP users, and also Wikipedia is changing that now with temporary accounts. They will instead put it behind a random username, of sorts, that looks kinda like this: ~2025-8371-275. This is also viewable by the ‘temporary account IP viewer’ right or if users are CheckUsers (which I’m pretty sure isn't on the Wiki right now). This is also coming VERY soon, in 4 or so days on the English Wikipedia I think, so it can be implemented quickly. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

:Ok nice, if this comes out via mediawiki, hopefully we can just get it patched into the wiki [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

==Strangeness - Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Rules==

@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] @[[User:Keith|Keith]]On the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Rules]] if I click on the discussion tab it takes me to [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Code of conduct]]. The content looks similar to the rules, but it is a talk page for a non-existent article.
Looking at the history, it looks like something that needs to be fixed by an admin who knows what was going on and which one is the real rules.
Since neither one looks like a talk page, thought better to mention it here. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 05:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} Hey I can delete articles too! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::Wait nevermind, I only deleted the redirect. I’m not sure what the code of conduct is about? I’ll move it out of talk namespace anyway. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Note for mods: Page now located at [[Project:Code of conduct]] [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you, but this still leaves a confusing situation, where the (now orphaned) [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Code of conduct]] looks like an official policy, but it says different things than [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Rules]].
::::Please either:
::::#put a disclaimer box on it saying readers should ignore it (it is a draft).
::::#Move it to a namespace that makes it obvious that it isn't official (e.g. part of somebodies user page).
::::#If it isn't needed anymore, delete it (or blank the contents if want to keep the history).
::::#Protect it so only moderators can see it.
::::#Do something else to make it clear to the casual reader what its status is, and where to find the official version.
::::Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

==Who made the CRW logo?==

just curious lol [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal deletion - Amazon fraudulent product page==

The article [[Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review]] has a deletion request that says "old aigen article that has not seen any use."

The article
#Has several paragraphs of meaningful content (not a stub).
#Has several references
#Is about an issue that I have heard of and seems noteworthy (Fraud against consumers by one of the largest retailers in the US).

What exactly are the criteria that this article violates that it should be deleted?
*The "seen any use" seems to indicate that there is some criterion on how much people read an article, which this one hasn't met. What is the use benchmark articles have to pass? How can we see how much use an article gets?
*AI generated - how is this determined? I have skimmed the article, it doesn't seem overly painful to read. (It isn't Kippling or Hemmingway, but it isn't bureaucrateese either.)

I am appealing the deletion of this article, since it meets all the inclusion criteria of which I am aware.
If there are policies that it violates, which are not spelled out in the rules, please spell them out.
Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:The "has not seen any use" bit is something I usually add to articles if it hasn't been edited, but there is no guideline on it. AIgen is shown to me partly because loads of info was suddenly added. I do have to admit though that it doesn't make much sense and if nothing happens to it in a year or 2 maybe it'll get deleted then? I'll remove the deletionreq. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you.
::Not quite sure I understand what you are saying. I thought the goal of the wiki was to have a reference. Unfortunately, that entails a necessary evil of having to write/edit articles. If an article is good enough that it hasn't required editing in months or years, isn't that a good thing? (Not saying the article is great, but once something is sort of okay, editors might focus on more skeletal articles vs. polishing something that has the basics.)
::Is there something undesirable about writing something offline, and then adding it? I have been drafting a few things locally, it didn't occur to me that there would be anything suspicious or bad about crafting in private and then releasing what would look sudden to others. Please help me understand. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I’ll simplify it to this: My reasons for adding a deletion request were overall pretty stupid. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
::::No worries. The article isn't of the greatest quality, so I can see why you may have mistakenly added the notice. I put some notes in the Discussion tab if you're interested in how the page could potentially be improved. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

==What does the AI/LLM template mean?==

(Note, this question was prompted by [[ Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review]] and other articles.)
I feel generally uncomfortable with the LLM tag, because I can't figure out what it means. (I have seen it added to various articles, for no readily apparent reason.) All I can figure so far is that it seems like a particularly insulting way of saying that the tagger doesn't like somebodies writing style. (I strongly object to the overuse of LLMs, saying one writes like one is dehumanizing in the extreme.)

If adding that tag is based on a particular tool, then it would help to have the tool called out so one could experiment and learn how to appease the tool.

There are readability and grammar assistance tools (not recent AI garbage, but reliable old-style programs, like Grammatic), perhaps a link to such tools might be useful to add to the template?

It might help if the adder of the AI/LLM template were required to add specifics about what they find problematic. (Are there inaccuracies, is it use of particular words, is it cliched or verbose, ...) Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:the SloppyAI tag is basically just if its fully/mostly AI generated, not based on tools and just at the adder's discretion. It's my least favorite template though, and I should probably rework the wording and add an issue part like the one in the Incomplete notice. I'll keep your ideas in mind if/when I do it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:The AI notice is primarily for quality control - whether it means the references haven't been vetted, or the content hasn't been vetted, or even if the content itself is too "AI-sounding" that it can deter readers. It's a great notice to have because it means the content is still relevant but may require editing to be up to quality standards. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
::I'll work on the template in my sandbox now. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]]. If the visual editor could present a short list of a few typical reasons why the tag might be added, with a checkbox for each. That might give an easy way for the tagger to provide more helpful information to other editors. (I am thinking things like "wordy" (or "omit needless words"), "repetitive" (for says same thing over and over), "jargon" (or "overly technical"), "fact check". Those are just what comes to my mind, pick whatever sins of AI/poor writing you see commonly.)
:::If the visual editor can't do that (and for those who don't use the editor), the documentation could provide a list of cues for taggers to use.
:::Rather than saying AI, could it be more - help improve clarity/readability?
:::I just want the reader/writer to clearly communicate what they can do to improve the article. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::This would be very helpful, thanks! Just make sure to check with Keith first before finalizing anything. I do also like Drakeula's idea of having options or perhaps write-ins like the Incomplete notice does. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::::As a matter of fact, the notice already has the issues outlined, so if you know how to add a write-in box, I think that would clear things up better. Thanks for working on it! [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::I unfortunately cannot make boxes that you can tick to select different options for visual editor, but it is very easy to just make a box where you can type in what the issue is, and make it required. Question though, would you rather have seperate issues laid out like in the [[Template:Incomplete|Incomplete template]] or just one box to write all issues in like the [[Template:DeletionRequest|DeletionRequest template]]? [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 15:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::I like the idea.
::::::@[[User:Keith|Keith]] What do you think of this convo? Are you cool with them editing the AI/LLM notice? [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 15:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

==[[Wikimedia Foundation]]==
As far as things goes, there was a heated discussion about contents at [[Wikimedia Foundation]] where [[User:Beanie Bo]] insisted that many contents we've added are out of the scope, although later on some mods clarified on the Discord server that the so-called "name and shame" pages on Wikipedia do fall in the scope since they constitute privacy violations. But now Beanie Bo, who apparently is out of the loop from the Discord server discussion, had went against that consensus by removing the section about the privacy violations, while putting the page up for deletion which will mean the compromise of impartiality which wouldn't make a good look for Louis as he reportedly wants to present the findings to the Congress one day. Pinging [[User:Keith]] and [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] for third opinions. [[Special:Contributions/15.181.161.29|15.181.161.29]] 14:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not out of the loop. I'm the main person you were talking to on Discord, NK. I suggested that you may create a separate Wikipedia page for the incidents that are relevant to consumer rights violations. Meanwhile, the WikiMedia Foundation page that had already been deemed irrelevant before you even added information, would be deleted for lack of relevance. Painting WMF with a broad brush of negativity for issues that pertain to the running of Wikipedia is inaccurate and unfair. As a company, there have yet to be any validity to its inclusion on the Consumer Rights Wiki. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::Duly noted. @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] can you make a draft page for the Wikipedia article just like last time you did with the inactive accounts deletion topic? Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/15.181.163.103|15.181.163.103]] 14:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Wallbox Quasar

2025-11-07T14:43:01Z

Beanie Bo: removed relevance, changed to incomplete

{{Incomplete}}{{ProductLineCargo
|Company=Wallbox
|InProduction=No
|ArticleType=Product
|Category=Hardware
|Website=https://wallbox.com/
|Description=A DC bi-directional electric car charger.
}}
{{Ph-C-Int}}

This article is a very slow work in progress. Please feel free to add suggestions.

The Quasar (not to be confused with the Quasar 2) is a DC Vehicle to Grid (V2G) electric car charger with a CHAdeMO connector. It is rated to charge or discharge a car at 7kW.

There is an official app to monitor and control the charger. The app can connect directly via Bluetooth, or indirectly over the internet if the charger is connected via Ethernet or Wi-Fi. The charger also has hand gesture recognition, and can be automated using a modified version of OCPP 1.6 .

==Consumer-impact summary==
{{Ph-C-CIS}}

====Reset Procedure====
In the event that something malfunctions and the charger needs to be reset, there is a restart button and a factory reset button in the app.<ref>{{Cite web |title=How to restore your charger to factory settings? |url=https://support.wallbox.com/en/knowledge-base/how-to-restore-your-charger/ |access-date=28 August 2025 |website=Wallbox}}</ref> If the app is unable to connect to the charger, and power cycling the charger does not fix it, there are 2 reset buttons inside the unit.

---Reference needed---

Wallbox decided not to provide instructions to reset the charger, and instead stated that a qualified technician would need to perform the reset procedure.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Understanding Wallbox app Error Codes and How to Resolve Them |url=https://support.wallbox.com/na/knowledge-base/understanding-wallbox-app-error-codes-and-how-to-resolve-them/ |access-date=28 August 2025 |website=Wallbox}}</ref> The reset procedure involves removing and disassembling the display unit to access the 2 reset buttons inside, then re-attaching the disassembled display unit to the charger.

Once the opened display unit is attached to the charger and the charger is powered:

*Press and hold both buttons at the same time
*Wait 3 seconds then release the button labeled "RST"
*Wait 10 seconds then release the other button

Any other combination of button pressing or holding will have no effect.

====Wallbox App====
The Wallbox app is designed to control all Wallbox chargers, not just the Quasar.

In 2023, the app could be used to control the charge and discharge rate of the Quasar while the Quasar was running. In January 2024, an app update was pushed which changed how the charge rate is displayed. For all AC chargers this change is mostly cosmetic. For the Quasar, it removed the ability to change the discharge rate while the charger is running.

The possible workarounds include:

*Stop the discharge session, change the discharge rate, then restart the discharge session
*Control the charger using OCPP
*Control the charger using a reverse engineered script

All of these options have drawbacks. ---reference relevant sections where they're written---

When informed of the issue, Wallbox refused to make any further changes or fixes to the app.

====Error/status codes====
The Wallbox website lists app error codes,<ref name=":0" /> but the app can display "Error" with no additional information.

The charger has a red status LED on the front which flashes status codes. These codes have not been made available by Wallbox, and are not included in the owner's manual<ref>{{Cite web |title=Wallbox QUASAR User Manual |url=https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1799429/Wallbox-Quasar.html |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-30 |website=manualslib}}</ref>, installation manual<ref>{{Cite web |title=Quasar - Installation Guide |url=https://support.wallbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/EN_Quasar_Installation_Guide_multilingual.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240210232047/https://support.wallbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/EN_Quasar_Installation_Guide_multilingual.pdf |archive-date=2024-02-10 |access-date=2025-08-30}}</ref>, or the technical datasheet<ref>{{Cite web |title=Quasar - Technical Datasheet |url=https://support.wallbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/EN_Quasar_Datasheet_English.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230329155744/https://support.wallbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/EN_Quasar_Datasheet_English.pdf |archive-date=2023-03-29 |access-date=2025-08-30}}</ref>. The status codes have been made available on third party websites.<ref>{{Cite web |title=WallBox Quasar Fault - Red Service / Error Light |url=https://parkrecharge.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/69000817597-wallbox-quasar-fault-red-service-error-light |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241110013231/https://parkrecharge.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/69000817597-wallbox-quasar-fault-red-service-error-light |archive-date=2024-11-10 |access-date=2025-08-30 |website=Park & Recharge}}</ref>

==Incidents==
{{Ph-C-Inc}}
This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents related to this product line. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].
===Example incident one (''date'')===
{{Main|link to the main CR Wiki article}}
Short summary of the incident (could be the same as the summary preceding the article).
===Example incident two (''date'')===
...

==Products==
{{Ph-C-P}}

==See also==
{{Ph-C-SA}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Talk:Texas Attorney General

2025-11-07T14:40:26Z

Beanie Bo: /* Relevance? */ Reply

==Relevance?==

I can't see any reason why this page exists. Many countries, states, and or cities has consumer resources. Will they all get a wiki article too? [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 17:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:Keith|Keith]] Thoughts on this before I add a deletion req? [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

2025-11-07T14:30:30Z

Beanie Bo: /* Wikimedia Foundation */ Reply

<div style="margin: {{#ifeq:{{{navbox|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|2px}} 0 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; {{{style|border: 1px solid #A0A5AD;}}} {{{backgroundstyle|background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #eaf3ff); color: inherit;}}}">
<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 120%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold; {{{titlestyle|background-color: var(--background-color-content-added, #aad1ff); color: inherit;}}}">Welcome — post issues of interest to Moderators</div>
*Post '''appeals''' to article notice templates (e.g. Incomplete, Stub, etc.)
*Post requests for '''moderator action''' here (e.g. blocks)
*Just need a mod? Post here or ping a mod with a question.
*Post any information or news relevant to the moderation team here.
*To request an article to be created, do not post here, try [[Article suggestions]] instead.
*Do not report technical issues here, please use the [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs|Bugs noticeboard]] instead.

<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Start a new section]]</div>
</div>
 
{{Archives}} 
==Open tasks==

*[[:Category:Articles with deletion requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles with merge requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles marked as irrelevant]]
*[[Special:NewPages]]

==Itron article has been flagged for questionable relevance.==

I believe the [[Itron]] article has been mistakenly flagged for questionable relevance. I have added several Incidents to the page to further show Itron's systemic patterns of consumer privacy violations please see the below:

''Itron's Smart meters allow them to collect, process, and store data without the end users' knowledge. (1980-Present)''

''NYSEG requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (November 2022-Present)''

''CenterPoint Energy requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face one-time and monthly service charges (Unknown-Present)''

''Southern California Edison requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (Unknown-Present)''

Smart meter (and smart grid solutions) usage by utility companies involves a lot of layers but these are what I find to be most concerning:

''Lack of data privacy, utility companies can freely share customer data with third party smart meter companies (such as Itron) without customer knowledge.''

''Lack of freedom to choose whether or not you have a smart meter recording your electricity usage. This data can be used to infer all sorts of things from what kind of appliances you own to when you are home.''

''Itron's Data Processing Agreement is un-viewable (at least for me) and not easy to find either, and end users typically do not know they will have an Itron smart meter until after it is installed by their electric company.''

Itron is not the only smart meter and smart grid solutions game in town but they are big and not end user friendly,.

Thank Mods! [[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] ([[User talk:Privacywarrior|talk]]) 19:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

:So sorry for not getting to this sooner.
:For now, I've changed the relevancy tag to an incomplete one (lacking verification), the issue being that there are no sources that actually implicate itron in having done anything wrong, with most of the stuff surrounding 'maybe it could be/has been hacked' being authorial speculation insofar as I can tell.
:There's also no secondary reporting - i.e. no media sources cited as framing any of these things as a problem. This is something which should be there to demonstrate notability. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
::Understood, unfortunately most of the articles I found the place blame on the distribution companies for invasive policies. The real issue is Itron has unlimited access to any of their smart meters data with out the end users knowledge. I am not quite sure how to capture this topic fully. [[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] ([[User talk:Privacywarrior|talk]]) 14:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] Not mad at you or anything but on Wikipedia at least its common practice to not edit the archive at all although I see why you did it, so I’ve reverted your edit there and added it back here. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

==In the verifiability section, aren't government policies, regulations with propagandas/agendas allowed to be cited there?==

I'm just wondering if this can cause concerns for staffs in this wiki, for example [https://www.resecurity.com/blog/article/shinyhunters-attacked-vietnams-financial-system-cic-data-leak like this one] (there's english translation but it's all google translated and for full texts translation it's locked behind paywall, so apologies for that) [[User:Justarandomguy111|Justarandomguy111]] ([[User talk:Justarandomguy111|talk]]) 09:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:Can you rephrase your question? I'm not sure exactly what you're asking or how the link you shared is relevant [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==please delete all pages created by this user==

[[Special:Contributions/81.221.216.80|this user]] creates chatgpt raw output articles. While i dont doubt the relevance of the information, the method of creation is odd, and frankly, detrimental to this website's reputation. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:I’m not going to myself, but can one of the mods post a reminder to not do that? ChatGPT can be decent starting point '''if undetected''' and people keep updating it and it feels less sloppy, but this is out of hand. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, those ones are particularly bad. if they don't come back and clean them up by tomorrow I'll probably just delete them, as they're pretty much unusable as starting points [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==So many pages with stub/incomplete notices==

Hey there, I've been messing around pressing the random article button for a while. I've noticed that about 9/10 articles on this wiki have either a stub notice or a incomplete notice. I understand why : this wiki has limited resources to polish these articles and also wish not to add friction for article creation not to deter potential contributors. However, in my opinion, it kinda ruins the image of the website. It looks unpolished, unfinished and amateur.

Is there some plan to eventually add a little friction to the system, to incentivize polishing and finishing articles. I understand this can be complicated, but right now articles are being created with a title and maybe two or three links and then left there to rot. Dont get me wrong, I am also guilty of this, though i wish i werent, and i wish there was a system preventing this kind of low-effort-good-faith contribution.

thank you for hearing me [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 22:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:Not a mod and this may be completely wrong (especially as I don’t use discord) but I think they just want to make articles for now and later polish them. The thing is that I’m pretty sure this is how Wikipedia developed, with just making articles and later on polishing. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:There will absolutely be a tightening of standards later down the line, but ultimately the reason it looks unfinished is because, at present, it *is* unfinished. There'll be a lot of work needed to get it to the point where the articles have the kind of average quality we'd want them to. At the moment we really can't afford to be picky with contributions, and have to embrace the 'something is better than nothing' mentality. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==Can a mod please remove this?==

Can a mod remove the sloppyai tags [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|on my userpage]] and [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson/Sandbox|my sandbox page]]? The abuse filter is making impossible to remove. Just delete the part that says SloppyAI which is in the first paragraph on both. Thanks! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see a SloppyAI notice [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::You will see SloppyAI with two curly brackets around it, not the full notice. I forgot to clarify. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Do you mean where it says: "Apparently, adding template {{sloppyai}} is a crime." [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, that. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Done <nowiki>{{Smiley}}</nowiki> [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::Well that didn't work [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::To do it, click the source button and then try. What happened was it put <nowiki> tags around it (which basically make it ignore wikitext) because it detected wiki markup in visualeditor, which it doesn’t allow. Putting this in source: {{Smiley}}. I can’t believe I had to do that just to remove it though! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 13:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

i wish the page Category:Trading_card_companies to be deleted.

argument : it is redundant with Category:Playing_card_manufacturers

Both have 1 element : Nintendo, though the latter is embedded within Category:Game_manufacturers and the former not, thus it can be deleted [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

i wish the page [[:Category:Information_technology_companies]] to be deleted

argument : it serves no purpose. all items should be moved to [[:Category:Technology_companies]]

please it will help tidy things up : an impossible task. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} (about to do when first typing this) but it might take a little bit to move everything over. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

I wish the page [[:Category:Canadian_Internet_Providers_-_Circumvent_CRTC_protection_-_Time_based_increases.]]

argument : It is a byproduct of an old spelling mistake. I've cleaned up the mess a bit. this page now needs to be deleted [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:actually all pages in [[Special:UnusedCategories]] [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::{{Done}} partially (only removed the specific category you mentioned) but a [[Special:UnusedCategories]] cleanup will be done by me in the near future. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, you can also use the [[Template:DeletionRequest|Deletionrequest template]] for this as although it might not be done very quickly, it is generally cleaner and easier for admins. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::::will do. I didnt know i was allowed to use it. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 18:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, anyone can use that to mark an article. It won't delete it, it just adds a notice for a mod to delete it (although it can be a bit slow at times!) [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==page categories.==

Hi i'd like some clarification regarding categories.

from what i've noticed, each page has a category with the page name as a name. ex: Apple has a Category:Apple.

Now, does that mean all other "tags" go in Category:Apple or should they go in Apple ? Or both ? (by "tags" i mean "Category:Technology_company" or "Category:Video_game")

Please clarify this as both methods are currently used through this wiki.

Thank you for your time and hard work. I want to help out more but this question needs a definitive answer before [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, I’m pretty sure all tags are meant to go in the category:Apple, although some pages may have lots of categories when there’s only a few in the actual category for it (or none if there’s no category). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
::I’m also going to link to [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Categorization]] because of how good it is as a resource for learning about categories. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
:::thanks. i hadnt found that page. i will give it a good read [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

==I've added the 'nocat' parameter to Citation needed==

Just letting mods know because if you see ANY issues with the citation needed template, then please immediately rollback the edits I have made. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

==My submission is fine and the notice is not accurate nor able to discern context of the submission==

The sources are actually threaded conversations. I'm not sure how the bot thinks a link to a threaded forum is a news article.

I worked hard making sure my first submission was encompassing.

Yes the "titles" of the forum posts sourced may not be the same as my wiki title here as those are not my posts and would you rather not put the titles of the forum posts?, i made sure to include a "why it matters" section to clarify certain aspects stated in those threads that pertain to the issue at hand. The topic INSIDE OF THE THREADS on the forum posts were exactly pertinent.

If my submission is eligible for deletion then i'm unsure how anything gets published here. I seriously think the bot that looks over submissions needs refinement if it flags my submission like that. Also, realistically a submission page with form fields is the way to go for this. Normal people are not wiki site gurus and template perfect people. They will never use the site. I understand this is outside the scope of this particular message, but I think there are some people that have a very good grasp on wiki sites, template adherence, shortcuts, that completely confusing to a normal person cite page that gets linked and overall these people are flagging posts that normal people are trying to make. The average person that comes into contact with company issues that this site proclaims to want to address will not be able to abide by the standards of a wiki style submission process if this is the outcome of when they sincerely try to contribute. (Again, it should just be form fields and a submit button.)

Nevertheless, I am posting here as directed by the robot. [[Special:Contributions/66.191.58.153|66.191.58.153]] 09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

:On the off-topic remark (I do not know what your original submission was), I agree that the Visual editor UI could be a bit easier to use.
:Some important "Insert" items like Citations should not be under a "More" menu (Windows 11 right click vibes); it took me about 15 minutes to find a source and add my first proper citation despite being a somewhat tech-savvy person. (Although, I started here making '''edits''' and thus did not see the Citation "tutorial" within the Create an article page, only the
:There could also be a quick link(s) within the editor (like the ? button) to CRW's Wiki policy with helpful description like "Contains rules, writing guidelines and the mission statement to ensure the Wiki remains credible."
:In my opinion, starting to edit wikis really feels like booting up CS 1.6 as a first timer, going on multiplayer servers and getting 20 deaths in a row for not already knowing how to wallbang. This is okay for late night LAN parties, not so motivating when people make their first contribution and get edit summaries that aren't directly constructive in their email.
:Nevertheless I could be wrong on these points. I appreciate discussion and feedback. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 13:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::There are a lot of quirks with MediaWiki in general (the software is 20 years old at this point), and especially for this new wiki that has a lot of bugs and UI stuff to work out. There's supposed to be a major UI haul within the next few months or so, so hopefully that will address some of these issues you mentioned.
::Ctrl+Shift+K is a keyboard shortcut for adding citations. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:Hi. Which article specifically are you referring to? [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==Spam articles==

I've checked [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=13 Filter 13's log] and there seems to be a consistent stream of spam articles shown there. Should we block the users doing this? I assume so, but I want to be sure. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

:Normally, we would consider this, but the types of users that end up filling up this log tend to make several accounts at a time, making blocking effectively useless. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Question on wiki scope==

This wiki has a Legislation category, covering existing legislation.

I'd like to write up my ideas for things that could be considered for future legislation (as a matter of fact, I started: [[User:CorpoBlight/Product quality - and manufacturer incentives]]). But after I started, I began to wonder if it was in-scope for this wiki or not. If too far away from the preferred direction of this wiki, any suggestions for a different wiki where it would fit better? To be clear, I am ''not'' a lawyer. [[User:CorpoBlight|CorpoBlight]] ([[User talk:CorpoBlight|talk]]) 20:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

:This would be outside of scope for the wiki as personal opinion write ups or personal interpritations of law aren't really within scope. Please let us know if you have any other questions about this. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 07:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal deletion of xbox==

[[Xbox]] was proposed for deletion based on its not having been edited in a long time. I think it should be kept. The Microsoft article has several items that would be appropriate for xbox. I have seen enough commentary on xbox and the direction it is going, etc. that I am sure there are sources out there to make a good article. There are a lot of pages that link to the page, so it is probably important.
Having stubs helps the wiki grow. Gives a place for people to expand. Gives reminders of, oh yeah, that thing. Creating a stub article is a pain, why should somebody have to do it again?
If people propose deletion just because something hasn't been worked on in a while, what do they want? Editors to periodically go around and touch every article they think is worthwhile? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]], The Wiki tends to remove articles that have not been worked on in order to improve the perceived quality of the place. If you wish to fill in the article accordingly, I can gladly remove the deletion notice from the article for you. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 01:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Where is this policy documented/explained? There are several problems with the policy which I would like to be sure have been discussed, and I am interested in participating in the discussion.
::In this case the article has sat unmodified for at most 2 months. That seems absurdly short for a timeout.
::The policy feels very manipulative, "work on this or the article gets it." Xbox is not my priority, but it will probably be someones. It is a shame to lose what progress is made every time somebody has other things in their life.
::I have a few main interests (AI at the moment), but dabble in lots of other things. I would rather be free to improve things here and there as I feel. The policy plainly penalizes that work style.
::(The Mary Condo follower uses a hammer to put in a screw because the screwdriver did not bring them joy. The eclectic person uses a hammer to put in a screw because they can't find one of their dozens of screwdrivers among all their other tools.)
::In general this policy seems extremely short-sighted for the wiki. Why should I work on this wiki if anything I am working on will be deleted if I get busy for a couple of months, or after I move on to other things? So I will not adopt the xbox article, but I will try to advocate to extend protection for it and all the orphans, and thereby help grow the wiki.
::I have more to say, but will save it until I find what has been said and the right place to say it. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi, @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]], the Xbox article has been in an excessively unfinished state for more than a month. Policy generally states that we need to remove barely-developed articles after 1 month. Our general expectation is that if a user is going to create an article, that they at least fill in the framework within 1 week of creation, but we give extra leeway.
:::Of course, please remember that just because a page is deleted, it does not mean that it cannot be made again! [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] Where are these policies stated on the wiki?
::::I just looked through [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki policy index]] and couldn't find anything there about the 1 month rule, nor the 1 week expectation. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 06:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd say there is a difference between starting an article, and literally just filling in the page creation form and nothing else. On the Xbox article, even just the amount of text you've added is enough for me to be happy leaving it as a stub instead of deleting it (and as such I have removed the deletion notice). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with both points. While the Create a Page flow suggest a standard for an acceptable article: "if you're not going to be able to get the very basics of a page created today (a basic statement of wht <nowiki>{{sic}}</nowiki> the article's about with a couple of references), it might be better to make a draft in your [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:How_to_use_your_user_space|user space]]." which suggest people disobeying the notice not reading due to the attention spans of today; I have to ask if there are measures that prevent or atleast warn articles being published with (1) no citations or (2) sections with template infoboxes. (I would verify this, but don't want to accidentally create a page as a result. If such a system isn't present yet it's understandable, probably harder than I imagine to implement it.) [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi, @[[User:Raster|Raster]], because the wiki is intended to allow users without accounts to create pages, we cannot design a system to remind them to work on their unfinished articles. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi @[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]], I don't mean "remind", I mean "prevent" like how one would disable a submit button in a webpage if some requirements are not met. Apologies for any unclear wording on my side [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hi, @[[User:Raster|Raster]], unfortunately this is not a system we can enforce without excessively modifying the codebase of MediaWiki. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]], that's understandable. Thank you for the reply. I was going to suggest putting such a warning in the new page info boxes, but not sure where to put in a way people will actually read it. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, to be a bit more specific, because pages are created through the form, a page will always be first created as an unfinished template. that's why we generally leave a day to allow newly submitted articles to be edited into their 'starting state' before worrying about article notices and so on. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Template "Userspace Draft" copied from wikipedia==

I tried to use the [[Template:Userspace draft|Userspace_draft]] template, only to find that it didn't exist. I started with the source of that template from wikipedia, updating the wording a bit and deleting quite a bit.

I commented out a chunk that caused an error "'''Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "[".'''" I couldn't see how the chunk in question could cause that error, so someone with more mediawiki template experience may wish to take a look. [[User:CorpoBlight|CorpoBlight]] ([[User talk:CorpoBlight|talk]]) 05:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Warning: Prohibited words detected?==

It's telling me this, but it won't tell me what I've said wrong.

Can't save the page as a result. How can I find out what words are wrong so I can remove them. I can't find a list anywhere on the site + the error doesn't really tell me much. Also, the page I'm editing has a deletion request...but it will be fully populated with reference once I can edit and save my copy. Thanks in advance for your help. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.50.131|84.239.50.131]] 07:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, this is because of the abuse filter, which blocks edits it thinks are harmful. The edit it blocked you from sending seems completely fine and was a false positive, so I'll make the change on your behalf. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Hi, I'm also here because I ran afoul of this filter. My edit does affect about every line of the Article Suggestions table (it's an attempt at alphabetisation) so I can see it looking Big and Awful to an automatic filter! [[User:Neuropirate|Neuropirate]] ([[User talk:Neuropirate|talk]]) 23:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Done}} the edit and also confirmed you so you won’t have to deal with the filter that stopped you again. Also nice work putting it in alphabetical order! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you to @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] for getting the edit, but I just wanted to add that if you create an account, then after a few edits you won't need to worry about the filters or similar. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you to @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] as well.
::And you know @[[User:Keith|Keith]], you make a good point. This was kind of supposed to be a one time thing...but maybe it shouldn't be. I'll go ahead and register. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.50.131|84.239.50.131]] 16:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==How does thanking edits work? Some questions;==

This is the first Wiki I've seen with such a cool and human feature, but I need to know if I'm using it correctly instead of just baffling everyone with how much I click them buttons in the Recent Changes page. So some questions:

#How public is "Publicly send thanks?" Does it appear anywhere else other than the Your notices section?
#Does it keep track of which edits have already been thanked? I see some that I have thanked acknowledge that upon a refresh, but most of the time I see the thank button appear again. In this case, does clicking it spam the person's notifications again? Or is this a browser cache issue?
#Assuming this is some sort of MediaWiki plugin, is it open source?

Personally I love my experience with it thus far, as I don't vibe with the idea of an online scoreboard. Thanks! [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 12:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:1. It is mainly directed straight to the user being thanked, but if you go to [[Special:Log/thanks]], there is a thanks log there.
:2. I think you can spam notifications by thanking different edits, but I don’t think you can thank twice.
:3. It is a MediaWiki plugin, I think that it is after looking at [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Thanks the page for it]. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal tone notice - Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if Powershare feature is used==

I believe [[Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if Powershare feature is used|the article's]] wording now fits within [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines#Use of tone|the guidelines]]. If there are still areas that need improvement tone-wise, do mention what they are. Thank you for your time [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 08:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:Done! Thanks for improving the article! [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal tone notice-Electronic Arts==

I believe that the [[Electronic arts|article]] fits under the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines#Use of tone|guidelines]]. If it does, please mention what they are. [[User:Beef|Beef]] ([[User talk:Beef|talk]]) 13:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} sorry for delay! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

==note for someone who can modify the localsettings.php file to jump at==

Although it has 'bot' flag, NewUserMessage still shows up in recent changes. I did a bit of digging and found out that all you need to fix it is a line in the localsettings.php file. Setting <code>$wgNewUserSuppressRC</code> to <code>true</code> should do the trick.

Also, just found before posting that to substitute the template (something I suggested earlier), putting any text in page <code>[[MediaWiki:Newusermessage-substitute]]‎</code> should do the trick (which will keep the message the same as when it was posted even when the template itself is updated, like doing it manually instead of via a template). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

:This would be something that needs to be passed on to our tech folks. I'll let them know this exists - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 07:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

==Possible solution for hiding IPs?==

IPs have been shown for editing since the start of wikis, but it isn’t private for the IP users, and also Wikipedia is changing that now with temporary accounts. They will instead put it behind a random username, of sorts, that looks kinda like this: ~2025-8371-275. This is also viewable by the ‘temporary account IP viewer’ right or if users are CheckUsers (which I’m pretty sure isn't on the Wiki right now). This is also coming VERY soon, in 4 or so days on the English Wikipedia I think, so it can be implemented quickly. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

:Ok nice, if this comes out via mediawiki, hopefully we can just get it patched into the wiki [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

==Strangeness - Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Rules==

@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] @[[User:Keith|Keith]]On the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Rules]] if I click on the discussion tab it takes me to [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Code of conduct]]. The content looks similar to the rules, but it is a talk page for a non-existent article.
Looking at the history, it looks like something that needs to be fixed by an admin who knows what was going on and which one is the real rules.
Since neither one looks like a talk page, thought better to mention it here. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 05:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} Hey I can delete articles too! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::Wait nevermind, I only deleted the redirect. I’m not sure what the code of conduct is about? I’ll move it out of talk namespace anyway. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Note for mods: Page now located at [[Project:Code of conduct]] [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you, but this still leaves a confusing situation, where the (now orphaned) [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Code of conduct]] looks like an official policy, but it says different things than [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Rules]].
::::Please either:
::::#put a disclaimer box on it saying readers should ignore it (it is a draft).
::::#Move it to a namespace that makes it obvious that it isn't official (e.g. part of somebodies user page).
::::#If it isn't needed anymore, delete it (or blank the contents if want to keep the history).
::::#Protect it so only moderators can see it.
::::#Do something else to make it clear to the casual reader what its status is, and where to find the official version.
::::Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

==Who made the CRW logo?==

just curious lol [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal deletion - Amazon fraudulent product page==

The article [[Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review]] has a deletion request that says "old aigen article that has not seen any use."

The article
#Has several paragraphs of meaningful content (not a stub).
#Has several references
#Is about an issue that I have heard of and seems noteworthy (Fraud against consumers by one of the largest retailers in the US).

What exactly are the criteria that this article violates that it should be deleted?
*The "seen any use" seems to indicate that there is some criterion on how much people read an article, which this one hasn't met. What is the use benchmark articles have to pass? How can we see how much use an article gets?
*AI generated - how is this determined? I have skimmed the article, it doesn't seem overly painful to read. (It isn't Kippling or Hemmingway, but it isn't bureaucrateese either.)

I am appealing the deletion of this article, since it meets all the inclusion criteria of which I am aware.
If there are policies that it violates, which are not spelled out in the rules, please spell them out.
Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:The "has not seen any use" bit is something I usually add to articles if it hasn't been edited, but there is no guideline on it. AIgen is shown to me partly because loads of info was suddenly added. I do have to admit though that it doesn't make much sense and if nothing happens to it in a year or 2 maybe it'll get deleted then? I'll remove the deletionreq. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you.
::Not quite sure I understand what you are saying. I thought the goal of the wiki was to have a reference. Unfortunately, that entails a necessary evil of having to write/edit articles. If an article is good enough that it hasn't required editing in months or years, isn't that a good thing? (Not saying the article is great, but once something is sort of okay, editors might focus on more skeletal articles vs. polishing something that has the basics.)
::Is there something undesirable about writing something offline, and then adding it? I have been drafting a few things locally, it didn't occur to me that there would be anything suspicious or bad about crafting in private and then releasing what would look sudden to others. Please help me understand. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I’ll simplify it to this: My reasons for adding a deletion request were overall pretty stupid. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
::::No worries. The article isn't of the greatest quality, so I can see why you may have mistakenly added the notice. I put some notes in the Discussion tab if you're interested in how the page could potentially be improved. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

==What does the AI/LLM template mean?==

(Note, this question was prompted by [[ Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review]] and other articles.)
I feel generally uncomfortable with the LLM tag, because I can't figure out what it means. (I have seen it added to various articles, for no readily apparent reason.) All I can figure so far is that it seems like a particularly insulting way of saying that the tagger doesn't like somebodies writing style. (I strongly object to the overuse of LLMs, saying one writes like one is dehumanizing in the extreme.)

If adding that tag is based on a particular tool, then it would help to have the tool called out so one could experiment and learn how to appease the tool.

There are readability and grammar assistance tools (not recent AI garbage, but reliable old-style programs, like Grammatic), perhaps a link to such tools might be useful to add to the template?

It might help if the adder of the AI/LLM template were required to add specifics about what they find problematic. (Are there inaccuracies, is it use of particular words, is it cliched or verbose, ...) Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:the SloppyAI tag is basically just if its fully/mostly AI generated, not based on tools and just at the adder's discretion. It's my least favorite template though, and I should probably rework the wording and add an issue part like the one in the Incomplete notice. I'll keep your ideas in mind if/when I do it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:The AI notice is primarily for quality control - whether it means the references haven't been vetted, or the content hasn't been vetted, or even if the content itself is too "AI-sounding" that it can deter readers. It's a great notice to have because it means the content is still relevant but may require editing to be up to quality standards. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
::I'll work on the template in my sandbox now. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]]. If the visual editor could present a short list of a few typical reasons why the tag might be added, with a checkbox for each. That might give an easy way for the tagger to provide more helpful information to other editors. (I am thinking things like "wordy" (or "omit needless words"), "repetitive" (for says same thing over and over), "jargon" (or "overly technical"), "fact check". Those are just what comes to my mind, pick whatever sins of AI/poor writing you see commonly.)
:::If the visual editor can't do that (and for those who don't use the editor), the documentation could provide a list of cues for taggers to use.
:::Rather than saying AI, could it be more - help improve clarity/readability?
:::I just want the reader/writer to clearly communicate what they can do to improve the article. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::This would be very helpful, thanks! Just make sure to check with Keith first before finalizing anything. I do also like Drakeula's idea of having options or perhaps write-ins like the Incomplete notice does. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::::As a matter of fact, the notice already has the issues outlined, so if you know how to add a write-in box, I think that would clear things up better. Thanks for working on it! [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

==[[Wikimedia Foundation]]==
As far as things goes, there was a heated discussion about contents at [[Wikimedia Foundation]] where [[User:Beanie Bo]] insisted that many contents we've added are out of the scope, although later on some mods clarified on the Discord server that the so-called "name and shame" pages on Wikipedia do fall in the scope since they constitute privacy violations. But now Beanie Bo, who apparently is out of the loop from the Discord server discussion, had went against that consensus by removing the section about the privacy violations, while putting the page up for deletion which will mean the compromise of impartiality which wouldn't make a good look for Louis as he reportedly wants to present the findings to the Congress one day. Pinging [[User:Keith]] and [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] for third opinions. [[Special:Contributions/15.181.161.29|15.181.161.29]] 14:22, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not out of the loop. I'm the main person you were talking to on Discord, NK. I suggested that you may create a separate Wikipedia page for the incidents that are relevant to consumer rights violations. Meanwhile, the WikiMedia Foundation page that had already been deemed irrelevant before you even added information, would be deleted for lack of relevance. Painting WMF with a broad brush of negativity for issues that pertain to the running of Wikipedia is inaccurate and unfair. As a company, there have yet to be any validity to its inclusion on the Consumer Rights Wiki. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Lenovo Mirage AR

2025-11-07T14:26:20Z

Beanie Bo: removed relevance, changed to incomplete

{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Article must follow proper incident page format, or appended to relevant company or product page}}

==Overview==
{{ProductCargo
|Company=Lenovo, Disney, Marvel
|ReleaseYear=2017
|InProduction=No
|ArticleType=Product
|Category=Video Games
|Website=
|Description=Lenovo Mirage AR was an augmented reality headset, that used a smartphone connection to play games.
}}
Lenovo Mirage AR, is a consumer augmented reality headset device that utilized a connected smartphone in order to play games. However the apps required to use the headset have been delisted from their respective app-stores, and the servers needed for core functionalities of the game have been turned offline. This has made the headset, and related accessories completely unusable in current year.

==Consumer-impact summary==
Unlike other legacy gaming devices, the Lenovo Mirage AR headset is now completely unusable in current year, because of choices made by the manufactures of the device. The manufacturer has also stated that they will not provide any refunds for the product.

<ref>{{Cite web |title=MARVEL Dimension of Heroes has been retired |url=https://appsupport.disney.com/hc/en-us/articles/6530709116052-MARVEL-Dimension-of-Heroes-has-been-retired}}</ref>

==References==
<references />
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Talk:Wikimedia Foundation

2025-11-07T14:23:40Z

Beanie Bo: /* PSA */ Reply

==Noted issues==

- Opening paragraph is directly copied from Wikipedia (unsure how this fits within CRW's policty)

- Consumer Impact Summary notes that Wikimedia is generally good with pro-consumer values yet does not describe any of it. This section needs a lot of elaboration to fairly represent the organization.

- Article consistently conflates Wikimedia with Wikipedia. These are '''two distinct entities.''' Wikimedia Foundation hosts Wikipedia, while Wikipedia itself is run by volunteer editors. There may be more nuance that I'm not aware of, but '''this distinction is crucial.''' Wikipedia may need its own section (rather than being conflated with Mediawiki) in cases where the Foundation's control is limited/blurry [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 03:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

==Relevance==

None of the incidents listed on this page are related to consumers. Nor is the consumer-impact summary related to consumer right violations. I'm adding an irrelevant notice. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 18:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:In Wikimedia/Wikipedia's case a gray area is certainly in play. The thing about Wikipedia is theoretically, any readers can become editors at any time so the lines are really blurred in that case. Maybe the Consumer Wiki policy should add some kind of exemptions regarding that case, although a prohibition against naming the defendants or the accused can be implemented to prevent any potential legal issues.[[Special:Contributions/2406:DA18:492:9301:7266:9698:97CA:9E35|2406:DA18:492:9301:7266:9698:97CA:9E35]] 18:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

==PSA==

To the user who continues to add irrelevant information under IP edits, you've been asked multiple times not to do this. Your personal gripes with your experience in Wikipedia-editing is completely irrelevant. There is no gray area and this article is irrelevant. It will be deleted in 24 hrs. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

:The Discord server discussion explicitly stated that "name and shame" pages are under the scope of the coverage.[[Special:Contributions/15.181.161.29|15.181.161.29]] 14:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::Create an article for Wikipedia and ''follow the relevance'' guidelines, if that's what you want to do. WMF will be deleted. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:GrapheneOS

2025-11-07T14:19:09Z

Beanie Bo: /* Relevancy discussion */ Reply

==Relevancy discussion==

Posting my comments from conversing with the author on Discord here:

Yeah, I think we just generally need to have a discussion as a community on exactly where the line should be for creating articles about companies or entities which embody positive aspects of consumer protection, and what the appropriate level of detail is when talking about them

Might be better to have this conversation on the wiki and try and draw some people's attention to it, but I'll put some thoughts here for now:

I've been playing around in my head trying to come up with some rules for this, e. g. if x, then it should be included, if y, then it should not. I've not come up with anything properly satisfactory, but one idea I've played with is essentially 'if what's notable in a positive about a company/entity can be fully conveyed by linking to its wikipedia page, then it does not need a page here'. One of my concerns with something like the Graphene article, is where it might lead to article creep. e.g. 'if we have a graphene OS article, then why not an article on every major linux distro?' Personally I feel like Graphene is more unique and notable than your average linux distro, but it would be a hard line to draw and argue. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 13:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

:What if the criteria must be that the organization or product must provide overwhelming emphasis and work into being either private or secure? For example: My Mullvad VPN article would fit within the criteria because they provide extended features for privacy and security, such as: requiring no private information, using diskless servers, and offering various methods of anonymous payments. However: the Fedora Linux distro would not fit the criteria because their main offer is not security or privacy, rather a beneficial secondary feature. Tails, however, would fit the criteria because their sole purpose is to be an amnesic operating system for the user's security and privacy. Although emphasis is vague, I believe it is just specific enough for people to get the gist and is a good way to categorize which products/organizations should be included on the Wiki! [[User:Pancho|Pancho]] ([[User talk:Pancho|talk]]) 16:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:I think it can be good to have examples of 'good companies'. Its a fine line to balance but I think its something that could help the wiki overall. Maybe an idea to help limit it is to restrict the sourcing policy to only reliable secondary sources for 'good' attributes to cut down on spam or marketing. If a company gets a shout-out for being openly pro-consumer, and its not a marketing piece, imo it deserves a place here. [[User:JackFromWisconsin|JackFromWisconsin]] ([[User talk:JackFromWisconsin|talk]]) 16:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::I agree! It is imperative that we maintain the integrity of the contribution guidelines regardless if the company is "good" or "bad."
::I think secondary sources are valuable for reception and verification, but primary sources would be best when talking about their "Privacy Policy," "Terms of Service," and license. [[User:Pancho|Pancho]] ([[User talk:Pancho|talk]]) 17:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
::Yes - having a strict approach to sourcing will probably be neccesary to prevent the wiki from being flooded in this way.
::We should also consider what kinds of 'good' attributes are relevant to the wiki, as our relevancy criteria, at the moment, only really examine what kinds of negative attributes are relevant. Obviously it is beneficial for the consumer if a high-quality product is offered at a low price, but that shouldn't be sufficient for an article to appear on the wiki. Maybe we need to draw something up around the definition of 'new' consumer protection as defined in the [[Mission statement]]? [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::I will draft up a proposal of the necessary requirements for this category of companies and products and include it here! [[User:Pancho|Pancho]] ([[User talk:Pancho|talk]]) 20:17, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Keith|Keith]] Pinging to revisit this discussion since we're discussing wiki scope [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L8mU6XROuh9o18jjnHKiQGvQ_82CzTE2/view?usp=sharing A link to my proposal. [[User:Pancho|Pancho]] ([[User talk:Pancho|talk]]) 22:52, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Google Gemini

2025-11-07T14:17:06Z

Beanie Bo: /* Relevancy discussion */ Reply

Glasswire

2025-11-07T14:15:39Z

Beanie Bo: removed relevance, changed to incomplete

{{Incomplete}}

GlassWire initially launched as a freeware network monitoring tool, gaining widespread recognition and user trust due to its free access and useful features. However, over time, its business model underwent a significant shift, culminating in a fully subscription-based service. This transition is widely regarded as a textbook example of bait-and-switch tactics in software monetization{{citation needed}}.

==Timeline of Changes==

#'''Freeware Launch (August 21, 2014)''' – GlassWire was originally free, attracting extensive media coverage and word-of-mouth promotion.<ref>https://www.glasswire.com/blog/2014/08/21/glasswire-launched-to-the-public/</ref>
#'''Introduction of Paid Features (May 29, 2015)''' – Paid tiers were introduced, while the free version still remained available.<ref>https://www.glasswire.com/blog/2015/05/29/introducing-glasswire-2/</ref>
#'''Subscription Model''' – Over time, the shift towards subscriptions began, with more features locked behind paywalls.
#'''End of Lifetime Licenses''' – Users who had legally purchased lifetime licenses started receiving intrusive notifications pushing them to upgrade.
#'''Full Subscription Enforcement''' – GlassWire 2.0 officially became subscription-only, removing all non-subscription options.

==Intrusive Popups and Forced Upgrades==
Users of GlassWire 1.2.121, the final update before version 2.0, including those who purchased lifetime licenses, now encounter unavoidable pop-ups that force an alt-tab interruption, displaying messages such as:

GlassWire 1.0 is no longer supported. Please upgrade to the latest version.

There is no way to disable this popup, effectively rendering older versions of the software disruptive to use, even though perfectly functional.

==GlassWire's Justification for Subscriptions==
GlassWire provides the following reasoning for its transition to a subscription model<ref>https://forum.glasswire.com/t/only-subscription/8112</ref>:<blockquote>
GlassWire is an ad-free and tracking-free app, so we rely on our customers to fund our work (please check our privacy policy for details). We are grateful to supporters who purchase our software and allow us to keep working on this project!
</blockquote><blockquote>
Some other types of software charge “upgrade fees” between versions of their apps. If you purchase that type of software, they usually say their software is a one-time fee, but unfortunately, they almost always charge for upgrades, and these upgrades can be more costly than subscriptions. With GlassWire, we sell a yearly subscription so you can continue to get free feature upgrades all the time as we update our software. As long as you are a GlassWire subscriber, you will never get an upgrade fee or be unable to download a GlassWire upgrade.
</blockquote><blockquote>
Your financial support allows us to continue working on GlassWire and create GlassWire for other operating systems like Mac, Linux, etc. Thanks for your support so we can continue working on this project to help people protect their data and privacy. We could not work on GlassWire without our loyal customers.
</blockquote>

==Community Backlash==
The transition to a subscription-only model has been met with widespread criticism, particularly from early adopters who supported the software under the impression that lifetime licenses meant perpetual access. The forced upgrade popups and lack of an opt-out mechanism have further fueled frustration among users.{{citation needed}}
<references />

Talk:Wikimedia Foundation

2025-11-07T14:03:52Z

Beanie Bo: /* PSA */ new section

== Noted issues ==

- Opening paragraph is directly copied from Wikipedia (unsure how this fits within CRW's policty)

- Consumer Impact Summary notes that Wikimedia is generally good with pro-consumer values yet does not describe any of it. This section needs a lot of elaboration to fairly represent the organization.

- Article consistently conflates Wikimedia with Wikipedia. These are '''two distinct entities.''' Wikimedia Foundation hosts Wikipedia, while Wikipedia itself is run by volunteer editors. There may be more nuance that I'm not aware of, but '''this distinction is crucial.''' Wikipedia may need its own section (rather than being conflated with Mediawiki) in cases where the Foundation's control is limited/blurry [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 03:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

== Relevance ==

None of the incidents listed on this page are related to consumers. Nor is the consumer-impact summary related to consumer right violations. I'm adding an irrelevant notice. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 18:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:In Wikimedia/Wikipedia's case a gray area is certainly in play. The thing about Wikipedia is theoretically, any readers can become editors at any time so the lines are really blurred in that case. Maybe the Consumer Wiki policy should add some kind of exemptions regarding that case, although a prohibition against naming the defendants or the accused can be implemented to prevent any potential legal issues.[[Special:Contributions/2406:DA18:492:9301:7266:9698:97CA:9E35|2406:DA18:492:9301:7266:9698:97CA:9E35]] 18:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

== PSA ==

To the user who continues to add irrelevant information under IP edits, you've been asked multiple times not to do this. Your personal gripes with your experience in Wikipedia-editing is completely irrelevant. There is no gray area and this article is irrelevant. It will be deleted in 24 hrs. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Excessive data collection by cars

2025-11-07T13:55:32Z

Beanie Bo: removed irrelevant, changed to incomplete

{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Article needs overhaul to be substantial theme article or list article}}{{StubNotice}}

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Suzuki, Hyundai
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=Suzuki Vitara, Hyundai Santa Fe
|Product=Car
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Terms of Service, Privacy
|Description=Car is forcing you to agree to spying on you by locking you out of some features.
}}
Car producers are forcing drivers to agree to invasive spying by locking them out of some car features until they comply.

==Background==
New cars with "smart" panels are forcing drivers to agree every time they start their car to sharing their information. If driver do not click Agree button panel is not usable, locking driver out of some features of car. There is no other option then to agree.

[[File:Suzuki Vitara forced agreement to spying.jpg|alt=Suzuki Vitara forced spying agreement|thumb|This is translation from Czech to English: "Do not use the unit while driving. The driver is always responsible for complying with traffic laws. There are connected services. Information about the vehicle, for example its location, is shared with Suzuki."]]

[[File:Hyundai.jpg|alt=Hyundai forced spying agreement|thumb|Hyundai forcing driver to agree to spying on them by locking some features of the car.Link in the message: [https://hyundaiusa.com/owner-privacy-policy.aspx hyundaiusa.com/owner-privacy-policy.aspx]]]
==Consumer response==

*Drivers in EU have right to request the data car producers collected on them. 

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Ph-I-C}}

[[Category:Automotive privacy]]
[[Category:Automotive security]]

Netatmo Zigbee devices refuse to connect to third-party gateways

2025-11-07T13:50:50Z

Beanie Bo: removed relevance, changed to incomplete

{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Article is overly technical|Issue 2=Article does not fit proper Incident structure & guidelines}}{{ToneWarning}}{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Legrand, BTicino, Netatmo
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=BTicino/Legrand/Netatmo zigbee devices
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Anticompetitive Behavior
|Description=Devices from Legrand and its subsidiaries refuse to connect unless they receive a special code during pairing to confirm it's a Legrand gateway
}}Legrand and its child companies (such as BTicino with their Living Now series) manufacture Zigbee-based smart devices. While these devices use the Zigbee protocol, they are intentionally restricted to work only with Legrand’s own gateways.

==[Incident]==
During the pairing process, Legrand devices send a '''non-standard Zigbee command''' and expect a specific reply from the coordinator. If the expected response is not received, the device will refuse to complete the pairing process.This effectively blocks the use of Legrand devices with third-party Zigbee gateways such as Zigbee2MQTT, Home Assistant’s ZHA, or other open-source coordinators.

When a Legrand device is powered on and attempts to join a network, it sends a '''read frame''' to every device on the network. The payload includes the number of seconds since the device was powered.

*If the coordinator responds with a valid value (e.g., 23 seconds), the device continues pairing.
*If the response is missing or the value is too high (e.g., 200), the device leaves the network and refuses to pair.

This mechanism acts as a vendor lock-in, ensuring that only Legrand’s own gateways can provide the expected response.

===Zigbee2MQTT Workaround===
The [http://zigbee2mqtt.io/ Zigbee2MQTT] project implevemented a workaround to support Legrand dices by simulating the expected response during pairing. Below is their current implementation:

<pre>// support Legrand security protocol
// when pairing, a powered device will send a read frame to every device on the network
// it expects at least one answer. The payload contains the number of seconds
// since when the device is powered. If the value is too high, it will leave & not pair
// 23 works, 200 doesn't
if (device.manufacturerID === Zcl.ManufacturerCode.LEGRAND_GROUP && !device.customReadResponse) {
device.customReadResponse = (frame, endpoint) => {
if (frame.isCluster("genBasic") && frame.payload.find((i: {attrId: number}) => i.attrId === 61440)) {
const options = {manufacturerCode: Zcl.ManufacturerCode.LEGRAND_GROUP, disableDefaultResponse: true};
const payload = {61440: {value: 23, type: 35}};

endpoint.readResponse("genBasic", frame.header.transactionSequenceNumber, payload, options).catch((e) => {
logger.warning(`Legrand security read response failed: ${e}`, NS);
});

return true;
}

return false;
};
}</pre>https://github.com/Koenkk/zigbee-herdsman-converters/blob/dd5d7092e65603c9aeee03d53c7b5e9b087f9bd7/src/index.ts#L638-L658

==References==

Acer settles online breach probe for $115k

2025-11-07T13:44:48Z

Beanie Bo: merge request before deletion

{{MergeRequest|Article is a news article, not an incident, and should be deleted. Info should be added to Acer page where relevant.}}{{Irrelevant}}

[[Acer]] agreed to pay $115,000 and reform its data security practices after a year-long lapse exposed the personal and financial information of more than 35,000 customers.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Schneiderman |first=Eric |date=2017-01-26 |title=A.G. Schneiderman Announces Settlement With Computer Manufacturer After Data Breach Exposed More Than 35,000 Credit Card Numbers |url=https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2017/ag-schneiderman-announces-settlement-computer-manufacturer-after-data-breach |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=New York State Attorney General's Press Releases}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Mlot |first=Stepanie |date=2017-01-27 |title=Acer Settles Online Breach Probe for $115k |url=https://www.pcmag.com/news/acer-settles-online-breach-probe-for-115k |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=PC Mag}}</ref> The New York Attorney General’s office found that Acer left its U.S. website misconfigured and in debugging mode, allowing attackers to access unencrypted credit card details and other sensitive data between 2015 and 2016.

==Background==
Acer is a Taiwan-based electronics manufacturer best known for producing computers, laptops, and related hardware. Its products are sold globally through various retail channels, including its U.S. online store, acer.com. At the time of the incident, Acer relied on this platform for direct-to-consumer sales, making the security of its website critical for handling sensitive customer data, including payment card transactions.

==Breach==
The breach began when Acer’s U.S. e-commerce platform was improperly managed between July 2015 and April 2016. An employee had enabled debugging mode, which stored customer data in plain text log files including: names, full credit card details, addresses, and login credentials. In addition, the website was misconfigured to allow directory browsing, enabling attackers to easily access subdirectories and extract sensitive files. Between November 2015 and April 2016, attackers made hundreds of unauthorized data requests, ultimately stealing the information of 35,071 individuals. The breach first came to light in January 2016, when Discover Card flagged Acer as a common point of purchase in fraudulent transactions.

===Acer's response===

According to the customer notice letter submitted to the California Attorney General’s office:<ref>Acer's Notice of Breach to Customers [https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/Customer%20Notice%20Letter%20-%20California_0.pdf? https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/Customer%20Notice%20Letter%20-%20California_0.pdf?]</ref>

*Notification: Acer sent a formal ''Notice of Data Breach'' to impacted customers, informing them that if they shopped on the Acer e-commerce site between May 12, 2015 and April 28, 2016, their personal and payment information may have been exposed, including name, address, credit card number (with the last digits specified), expiration date, and CVV security code. Acer clarified the hackers did not collect Social Security numbers, and they had no evidence that passwords or login credentials were compromised California DOJ Attorney General. It should be noted that in the settlement with the New York State Attorney General, Acer admitted username and passwords were part of the breach.<ref name=":0" />
*Remediation Actions: Acer stated that it took immediate steps to remediate the security issue upon discovery and enlisted outside cybersecurity experts to assist, though details on those steps were lacking. It reported the incident to its credit card payment processor and offered full cooperation to federal law enforcement California DOJ Attorney General.
*Consumer Guidance Offered: The notice included a Resources Guide advising customers to monitor their account statements, watch for signs of identity theft or fraud, and take proactive steps such as:
**Reviewing their free annual credit reports (via annualcreditreport.com),
**Filing a police report if they suspect identity theft,
**Contacting the Federal Trade Commission or their State Attorney General’s office for assistance,
**Placing fraud alerts and security freezes with national credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian, and Transunion.
*Acer offered a toll-free number for customer questions.

===Settlement with New York State Attorney General===
In January 2017, Acer reached a settlement with the New York Attorney General’s office, agreeing to pay $115,000 in penalties and adopt a range of security reforms.<ref name=":0" /> These included designating employees to oversee data protection, implementing annual staff training, adopting multi-factor authentication, deploying intrusion detection systems, and conducting regular penetration tests and vulnerability assessments. Acer also committed to following credit card industry data security standards and to hold service providers to the same level of compliance.

==Consumer response==

Consumers expressed frustration, distrust, and tangible harm following Acer’s data breach. On HardForum, several posters reported that they never received a notification from Acer despite being affected, and some discovered fraudulent charges on their credit cards after purchasing through Acer’s online store.<ref>{{Cite web |author=HardOCP News |date=2016-06-20 |title=Acer Admits Hackers Stole Up To 34,000 Customer Credit Cards |url=https://hardforum.com/threads/acer-admits-hackers-stole-up-to-34-000-customer-credit-cards.1902876/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=[H]ardForum}}</ref> Others criticized Acer for mishandling sensitive payment data, particularly for storing CVV codes, which violates standard payment card security rules. The overall tone was one of anger at both the breach and Acer’s poor communication.

On The Register’s forum, reactions were similarly skeptical and critical.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nichols |first=Shaun |date=2016-06-17 |title=You Acer holes! PC maker leaks payment cards in e-store hack |url=https://www.theregister.com/2016/06/17/what_a_pain_in_the_acer/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=The Register}}</ref> Commenters condemned Acer for failing to follow PCI DSS compliance standards and for allowing card verification codes to be compromised.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pasher |first=Justin |date=2016-06-17 |title=Re: Storing CC security verification codes |url=https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2016/06/17/what_a_pain_in_the_acer/ |url-status=live |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=Forum on 'The Register'}}</ref> Some users confirmed they did receive breach notification letters, though experiences varied widely. Many expressed concern that Acer’s negligence would push costs and risks onto consumers through fraudulent charges and credit monitoring needs.

Consumers faced heightened risks of identity theft and financial fraud due to the exposure of full credit card details, login credentials, and personal addresses. The fact that sensitive data was stored unencrypted in plain text worsened concerns about Acer’s handling of private information. While the settlement imposed stronger protections going forward, many customers were left to deal with potential fraudulent charges, credit monitoring, and long-term distrust in Acer’s ability to safeguard their personal information. Public statements from the Attorney General emphasized consumer expectations for companies to uphold basic data security standards, reflecting broader frustration with corporate negligence in protecting private data.<ref name=":0" />

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Acer]]

PETKIT Pura Max 2 — Region-Lock

2025-11-07T13:41:15Z

Beanie Bo: removed deletion notice. changed article to third person and removed some personal experiences. issue is systemic and relevant

{{StubNotice}}{{ToneWarning}}{{IncidentCargo
|Company=Petkit
|StartDate=2025-09-01
|EndDate=2025-10-24
|Status=Active
|ProductLine=Petkit
|Product=Pura Max 2
|ArticleType=Product
|Type=Product Termination
|Description=PETKIT Pura Max 2 – beware of regional lock scam
}}'''PETKIT Pura Max 2''' is an automatic litter box manufactured in China that connects to Wi-Fi. Users report upon leaving China that the company locks the device once connected to the internet.

==What Happened==
When users leave the country, the PETKIT app displays an error after attempting to connect to Wi-Fi:<blockquote>“Region restriction — this device cannot be used outside mainland China.”</blockquote>The device stopped functioning entirely, even for basic cleaning cycles.

All control depends on the PETKIT app, which refuses to connect.

This creates another loss where users who purchase the device and intend to leave the country have lost up to a few hundred dollars in baggage fees for a device that was unknowingly bricked the moment they left the country.

==Company response==
One user reports contacting a rep, who replied that they cannot unblock the device because “the system automatically enforces regional restrictions.” They admitted it’s a server-level lock and that support has “no tools to override or remove it.”

The user asked for escalation to engineering — they refused, saying the block is “permanent and automatic.”

===PETKIT’s Official Reply===
<blockquote>“The system is designed to automatically enforce regional restrictions for compliance and technical reasons. Once the system detects the device is operating outside its designated region, the blocking is triggered automatically… we do not have access or tools to override it.”</blockquote>

=== Why This Is a Consumer Rights Issue ===
*PETKIT never disclosed any '''regional restriction''' before purchase.
*Customers are not warned that the product will stop functioning abroad.
*PETKIT refuses to offer migration, unbinding, or any technical solution.
*The device remains perfectly functional but '''software-blocked by region'''.

This practice is misleading and anti-consumer — it violates transparency and reasonable use principles. I bought this product in good faith, expecting it to work like any other smart appliance.

==Evidence==

*Photos of the device, serial number, and box https://consumerrights.wiki/images/c/ce/Photo_2025-10-06_22-11-03_%283%29.jpg https://consumerrights.wiki/images/5/59/IMG_2972.JPG
*Email correspondence with PETKIT support (Ticket: ud:00cd22c0) [[:File:Gmail print.pdf]]

Talk:Malicious compliance

2025-11-07T13:33:06Z

Beanie Bo: /* Relevance */ Reply

==Relevance==

I get why this concept may be relevant, but I don't believe it's worth a dedicated article. It's vague and isn't fundamentally unethical. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 02:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

:It’s tiny too, you can go on the [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Moderators' noticeboard]] about this. Just not much to talk about at all. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
:I removed the deletion request. There is potential for this to be a theme article that notes relevant cases of malicious compliance, particularly related to GDPR and other legislation [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Malicious compliance

2025-11-07T13:32:24Z

Beanie Bo: Removed deletion request

{{Stub}}
Malicious compliance is an action where one complies with a request or demand, but in such a way that it follows the wording, but not the spirit or intent of the mandate.

Applied to consumer rights, this means a manufacturer or brand complies with regulations in word, but not in spirit, thus rendering the regulation ineffective.

Some common practices include making it intentionally difficult for a consumer to exercise their rights through use of [[Dark pattern|dark patterns]], obstacles such requiring communication by letter, imposing fees, requiring registration and many more.

==Prominent Examples==

*[[Apple]]: After being required by the EU to open up their devices to apps sold outside the [[Apple App Store]], the company created a multitude of hurdles, fees and complications to make it as difficult as possible for developers to actually do this, including a requirement that every independently distributed app still be approved by Apple and fees be paid by the developer.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mendes |first=Marcus |date=2025-05-27 |title=EU ruling: Apple’s App Store still in violation of DMA, 30 days to comply |url=https://9to5mac.com/2025/05/27/apple-dma-30-days-deadline/ |access-date=2025-08-29 |website=9to5Mac}}</ref>
*[[Apple]]: After the EU mandated USB-C as a charging port for all phones, Apple explored various ways to still require cable and accessorty manufacturers to go through their costly Made for iPhone certification programmes and require consumers to still buy additional cables and accessories.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Roberts |first=Paul |date=2023-09-12 |title=Will Apple Use a Loophole in EU’s USB-C Requirement? |url=https://de.ifixit.com/News/81197/will-apple-use-a-loophole-in-eus-usb-c-requirement |access-date=2025-08-29 |website=iFixit}}</ref>

==References==
[[Category:Common terms]]
<references />

Apple authorized service provider program

2025-11-07T13:28:44Z

Beanie Bo: Removed deletion request

{{StubNotice}}
{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = Apple Authorized Service Provider Program
| Release Year = 2021
| Product Type = Service
| In Production = Yes
| Official Website = https://support.apple.com/en-asia/aasp-program
| Logo = QuestionMark.svg
}}

The '''Apple Authorized Service Provider Program''' is a program created by [[Apple]] that attempts to provide third party authorized repair technicians with sufficient resources to repair Apple products.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-04-03 |title=Apple Authorized Service Provider Program |url=https://support.apple.com/en-asia/aasp-program |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250403140309/https://support.apple.com/en-asia/aasp-program |archive-date=2025-04-03 |access-date=2025-04-03 |website=support.apple.com}}</ref> The program has been criticized for being insufficient for good repair and has been accused as being a publicity stunt.{{CitationNeeded}}
==Incidents==
{{Ph-C-Inc}}

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Services]]

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

2025-11-07T13:25:58Z

Beanie Bo: /* What does the AI/LLM template mean? */ Reply

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

2025-11-07T13:22:42Z

Beanie Bo: /* Appeal deletion - Amazon fraudulent product page */ Reply

Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review

2025-11-07T13:20:55Z

Beanie Bo:

{{Incomplete|Issue 1=Article does not follow a clear structure. See Discussion tab}}

Sellers on Amazon can list products, gather reviews for them, and then modify the listings to sell entirely different items while retaining the reviews from the previously sold products. Additionally, Amazon continues to allow the sale of products that fail to deliver on the promises advertised.

These practices create significant challenges for customers, making it difficult to rely on reviews when making informed purchasing decisions on Amazon's platform.

===Removing Reviews (Including Verified Reviews)===
When Amazon removed reviews—presumably to eliminate those for unrelated products—they also deleted reviews from customers who had purchased the product currently being sold, including those marked as 'Verified Purchase' by Amazon. The removal of legitimate reviews makes it harder for potential buyers to determine whether a product is fraudulent or not. This is because reviews from verified purchases of the currently listed product, which could have alerted buyers to potential issues, were also removed.

====Examples Of Such and Related Incidents====

=====Portable Air Conditioner=====
Amazon sells a portable air conditioner<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Portable Air ConditionerS Portable AC Unit for Large Room |url=https://www.amazon.com/Portable-Conditioners-Control-Dehumidifier-Included/dp/B0CY85TKPF/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240706183221/https://www.amazon.com/Portable-Conditioners-Control-Dehumidifier-Included/dp/B0CY85TKPF/ |archive-date=6 Jul 2024 |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Amazon]]}}</ref> for which the aforementioned removing of reviews took place. This listing contained reviews for digital picture frames, desks, shower heads and balloons, adding to the number of positive reviews displayed for the portable air conditioner being sold.

The listing in questions has been available on Amazon since at least July of 2024<ref name=":0" /> and is currently still being listed in January 2025<ref name=":0" />.

=====Electrical Fuses=====
Electrical fuses are used to break an electrical circuit if too much current is flowing through them. This is essential to prevent circuits from operating and failing in an unsafe manner.

Amazon hosts listings for many such fuses. When purchasing and testing highly rated fuses from three different sellers on Amazon<ref>{{Cite web |title=Nilight - 50019R 272pcs Standard & Mini & Low Profile Mini Blade Fuse Assortment, 2A 5A 10A 15A 20A 25A 30A 35A Replacement Fuses for Car Boat Truck SUV Automotive |url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08D3R1BRY |url-status=live |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Amazon]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=140 Pcs Fuses Automotive Kit - Blade Auto Fuse Assortment Standard and Mini Car Fuse for Marine, RV, Camper, Boat, Truck (5A 7.5A 10A 15A 20A 25A 30AMP/ATC/ATO) |url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0899WR671?th=1 |url-status=live |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Amazon]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=CrocSee 250 Pieces - Car Fuses Assortment Kit, Blade-Type Automotive Fuses - Standard & Mini Size (2A/3A/5A/7.5A/10A/15A/ 20A/25A/30A/35A/40A), Replacement Fuses for Car/RV/Truck/Motorcycle/Boat |url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0895PV8S2?th=1 |url-status=live |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Amazon]]}}</ref>, it was found<ref>{{Cite web |last=Rossmann |first=Louis |date=30 Dec 2023 |title=Amazon Sells Fake Electrical Fuses |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B90_SNNbcoU |url-status=live |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[YouTube]]}}</ref> that the fuses did not perform as specified. Testing revealed that the fuses only failed after being subjected to multiple times their rated current. As a result, they did not break the connection as advertised, which could pose a significant safety risk if used in electrical circuits.

The fuses tested had and still have many reviews with a very high total rating. The fuses mentioned here, have been listed on Amazon since at least December of 2023 and are all still available for purchase. Due to the issues outlined above, a potential buyer relying on Amazon's reviews may have difficulties making an informed purchasing decision.

====Amazon on How They Keep Reviews Trustworthy and Useful====
Amazon themselves describes what they do to keep their reviews trustworthy and useful as follows:<blockquote>Our automated and human checks stop millions of suspicious reviews before customers ever see them. We also take legal action against groups that pay customers to post fake reviews. See our anti-manipulation policy.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Understanding Customer Reviews and Ratings |url=https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=G8UYX7LALQC8V9KA |url-status=live |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Amazon]]}}</ref></blockquote>

===The CPSC on Hazardous Products Sold by Third-Party Sellers on Amazon.com===
In July of 2024, the United States' Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) found Amazon responsible for hazardous products<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=30 Jul 2024 |title=CPSC Finds Amazon Responsible Under Federal Safety Law for Hazardous Products Sold by Third-Party Sellers on Amazon.com |url=https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2024/CPSC-Finds-Amazon-Responsible-Under-Federal-Safety-Law-for-Hazardous-Products-Sold-by-Third-Party-Sellers-on-Amazon-com |url-status=live |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[CPSC]]}}</ref> sold by third-party sellers on amazon.com. In particular, they stated the following:<blockquote>Amazon was a “distributor” of products that are defective or fail to meet federal consumer product safety standards, and therefore bears legal responsibility for their recall. More than 400,000 products are subject to this order: specifically, faulty carbon monoxide (CO) detectors, hairdryers without electrocution protection, and children’s sleepwear that violated federal flammability standards.<ref name=":1" /></blockquote><blockquote>The Commission determined that these products, listed on Amazon.com and sold by third-party sellers using the Fulfilled by Amazon program, pose a “substantial product hazard” under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).<ref name=":1" /></blockquote>

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Amazon]]

Talk:Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review

2025-11-07T13:19:05Z

Beanie Bo: /* Article structure */ new section

== Article structure ==

This seems to be an incident article(?) Multiple people have mentioned how the Amazon page (as well as Microsoft and Google for that matter) needs to be broken up for the different types of issues. I started working on the Microsoft one by creating [[Microsoft Windows]] to separate OS stuff from Microsoft as a company, etc.

I'm wondering if a page like this would benefit from being re-titled "Amazon Retailer" or "Amazon Manufacturer" or something along those lines. This way, these highly specific incidents can be listed/organized more clearly. Thoughts? [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

2025-11-07T12:31:16Z

Beanie Bo: /* What does the AI/LLM template mean? */ Reply

<div style="margin: {{#ifeq:{{{navbox|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|2px}} 0 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; {{{style|border: 1px solid #A0A5AD;}}} {{{backgroundstyle|background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #eaf3ff); color: inherit;}}}">
<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 120%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold; {{{titlestyle|background-color: var(--background-color-content-added, #aad1ff); color: inherit;}}}">Welcome — post issues of interest to Moderators</div>
*Post '''appeals''' to article notice templates (e.g. Incomplete, Stub, etc.)
*Post requests for '''moderator action''' here (e.g. blocks)
*Just need a mod? Post here or ping a mod with a question.
*Post any information or news relevant to the moderation team here.
*To request an article to be created, do not post here, try [[Article suggestions]] instead.
*Do not report technical issues here, please use the [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs|Bugs noticeboard]] instead.

<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Start a new section]]</div>
</div>
 
{{Archives}} 
==Open tasks==

*[[:Category:Articles with deletion requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles with merge requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles marked as irrelevant]]
*[[Special:NewPages]]

==Itron article has been flagged for questionable relevance.==

I believe the [[Itron]] article has been mistakenly flagged for questionable relevance. I have added several Incidents to the page to further show Itron's systemic patterns of consumer privacy violations please see the below:

''Itron's Smart meters allow them to collect, process, and store data without the end users' knowledge. (1980-Present)''

''NYSEG requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (November 2022-Present)''

''CenterPoint Energy requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face one-time and monthly service charges (Unknown-Present)''

''Southern California Edison requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (Unknown-Present)''

Smart meter (and smart grid solutions) usage by utility companies involves a lot of layers but these are what I find to be most concerning:

''Lack of data privacy, utility companies can freely share customer data with third party smart meter companies (such as Itron) without customer knowledge.''

''Lack of freedom to choose whether or not you have a smart meter recording your electricity usage. This data can be used to infer all sorts of things from what kind of appliances you own to when you are home.''

''Itron's Data Processing Agreement is un-viewable (at least for me) and not easy to find either, and end users typically do not know they will have an Itron smart meter until after it is installed by their electric company.''

Itron is not the only smart meter and smart grid solutions game in town but they are big and not end user friendly,.

Thank Mods! [[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] ([[User talk:Privacywarrior|talk]]) 19:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

:So sorry for not getting to this sooner.
:For now, I've changed the relevancy tag to an incomplete one (lacking verification), the issue being that there are no sources that actually implicate itron in having done anything wrong, with most of the stuff surrounding 'maybe it could be/has been hacked' being authorial speculation insofar as I can tell.
:There's also no secondary reporting - i.e. no media sources cited as framing any of these things as a problem. This is something which should be there to demonstrate notability. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
::Understood, unfortunately most of the articles I found the place blame on the distribution companies for invasive policies. The real issue is Itron has unlimited access to any of their smart meters data with out the end users knowledge. I am not quite sure how to capture this topic fully. [[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] ([[User talk:Privacywarrior|talk]]) 14:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] Not mad at you or anything but on Wikipedia at least its common practice to not edit the archive at all although I see why you did it, so I’ve reverted your edit there and added it back here. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

==In the verifiability section, aren't government policies, regulations with propagandas/agendas allowed to be cited there?==

I'm just wondering if this can cause concerns for staffs in this wiki, for example [https://www.resecurity.com/blog/article/shinyhunters-attacked-vietnams-financial-system-cic-data-leak like this one] (there's english translation but it's all google translated and for full texts translation it's locked behind paywall, so apologies for that) [[User:Justarandomguy111|Justarandomguy111]] ([[User talk:Justarandomguy111|talk]]) 09:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:Can you rephrase your question? I'm not sure exactly what you're asking or how the link you shared is relevant [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==please delete all pages created by this user==

[[Special:Contributions/81.221.216.80|this user]] creates chatgpt raw output articles. While i dont doubt the relevance of the information, the method of creation is odd, and frankly, detrimental to this website's reputation. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:I’m not going to myself, but can one of the mods post a reminder to not do that? ChatGPT can be decent starting point '''if undetected''' and people keep updating it and it feels less sloppy, but this is out of hand. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, those ones are particularly bad. if they don't come back and clean them up by tomorrow I'll probably just delete them, as they're pretty much unusable as starting points [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==So many pages with stub/incomplete notices==

Hey there, I've been messing around pressing the random article button for a while. I've noticed that about 9/10 articles on this wiki have either a stub notice or a incomplete notice. I understand why : this wiki has limited resources to polish these articles and also wish not to add friction for article creation not to deter potential contributors. However, in my opinion, it kinda ruins the image of the website. It looks unpolished, unfinished and amateur.

Is there some plan to eventually add a little friction to the system, to incentivize polishing and finishing articles. I understand this can be complicated, but right now articles are being created with a title and maybe two or three links and then left there to rot. Dont get me wrong, I am also guilty of this, though i wish i werent, and i wish there was a system preventing this kind of low-effort-good-faith contribution.

thank you for hearing me [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 22:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:Not a mod and this may be completely wrong (especially as I don’t use discord) but I think they just want to make articles for now and later polish them. The thing is that I’m pretty sure this is how Wikipedia developed, with just making articles and later on polishing. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:There will absolutely be a tightening of standards later down the line, but ultimately the reason it looks unfinished is because, at present, it *is* unfinished. There'll be a lot of work needed to get it to the point where the articles have the kind of average quality we'd want them to. At the moment we really can't afford to be picky with contributions, and have to embrace the 'something is better than nothing' mentality. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==Can a mod please remove this?==

Can a mod remove the sloppyai tags [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|on my userpage]] and [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson/Sandbox|my sandbox page]]? The abuse filter is making impossible to remove. Just delete the part that says SloppyAI which is in the first paragraph on both. Thanks! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see a SloppyAI notice [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::You will see SloppyAI with two curly brackets around it, not the full notice. I forgot to clarify. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Do you mean where it says: "Apparently, adding template {{sloppyai}} is a crime." [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, that. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Done <nowiki>{{Smiley}}</nowiki> [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::Well that didn't work [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::To do it, click the source button and then try. What happened was it put <nowiki> tags around it (which basically make it ignore wikitext) because it detected wiki markup in visualeditor, which it doesn’t allow. Putting this in source: {{Smiley}}. I can’t believe I had to do that just to remove it though! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 13:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

i wish the page Category:Trading_card_companies to be deleted.

argument : it is redundant with Category:Playing_card_manufacturers

Both have 1 element : Nintendo, though the latter is embedded within Category:Game_manufacturers and the former not, thus it can be deleted [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

i wish the page [[:Category:Information_technology_companies]] to be deleted

argument : it serves no purpose. all items should be moved to [[:Category:Technology_companies]]

please it will help tidy things up : an impossible task. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} (about to do when first typing this) but it might take a little bit to move everything over. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

I wish the page [[:Category:Canadian_Internet_Providers_-_Circumvent_CRTC_protection_-_Time_based_increases.]]

argument : It is a byproduct of an old spelling mistake. I've cleaned up the mess a bit. this page now needs to be deleted [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:actually all pages in [[Special:UnusedCategories]] [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::{{Done}} partially (only removed the specific category you mentioned) but a [[Special:UnusedCategories]] cleanup will be done by me in the near future. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, you can also use the [[Template:DeletionRequest|Deletionrequest template]] for this as although it might not be done very quickly, it is generally cleaner and easier for admins. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::::will do. I didnt know i was allowed to use it. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 18:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, anyone can use that to mark an article. It won't delete it, it just adds a notice for a mod to delete it (although it can be a bit slow at times!) [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==page categories.==

Hi i'd like some clarification regarding categories.

from what i've noticed, each page has a category with the page name as a name. ex: Apple has a Category:Apple.

Now, does that mean all other "tags" go in Category:Apple or should they go in Apple ? Or both ? (by "tags" i mean "Category:Technology_company" or "Category:Video_game")

Please clarify this as both methods are currently used through this wiki.

Thank you for your time and hard work. I want to help out more but this question needs a definitive answer before [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, I’m pretty sure all tags are meant to go in the category:Apple, although some pages may have lots of categories when there’s only a few in the actual category for it (or none if there’s no category). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
::I’m also going to link to [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Categorization]] because of how good it is as a resource for learning about categories. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
:::thanks. i hadnt found that page. i will give it a good read [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

==I've added the 'nocat' parameter to Citation needed==

Just letting mods know because if you see ANY issues with the citation needed template, then please immediately rollback the edits I have made. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

==My submission is fine and the notice is not accurate nor able to discern context of the submission==

The sources are actually threaded conversations. I'm not sure how the bot thinks a link to a threaded forum is a news article.

I worked hard making sure my first submission was encompassing.

Yes the "titles" of the forum posts sourced may not be the same as my wiki title here as those are not my posts and would you rather not put the titles of the forum posts?, i made sure to include a "why it matters" section to clarify certain aspects stated in those threads that pertain to the issue at hand. The topic INSIDE OF THE THREADS on the forum posts were exactly pertinent.

If my submission is eligible for deletion then i'm unsure how anything gets published here. I seriously think the bot that looks over submissions needs refinement if it flags my submission like that. Also, realistically a submission page with form fields is the way to go for this. Normal people are not wiki site gurus and template perfect people. They will never use the site. I understand this is outside the scope of this particular message, but I think there are some people that have a very good grasp on wiki sites, template adherence, shortcuts, that completely confusing to a normal person cite page that gets linked and overall these people are flagging posts that normal people are trying to make. The average person that comes into contact with company issues that this site proclaims to want to address will not be able to abide by the standards of a wiki style submission process if this is the outcome of when they sincerely try to contribute. (Again, it should just be form fields and a submit button.)

Nevertheless, I am posting here as directed by the robot. [[Special:Contributions/66.191.58.153|66.191.58.153]] 09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

:On the off-topic remark (I do not know what your original submission was), I agree that the Visual editor UI could be a bit easier to use.
:Some important "Insert" items like Citations should not be under a "More" menu (Windows 11 right click vibes); it took me about 15 minutes to find a source and add my first proper citation despite being a somewhat tech-savvy person. (Although, I started here making '''edits''' and thus did not see the Citation "tutorial" within the Create an article page, only the
:There could also be a quick link(s) within the editor (like the ? button) to CRW's Wiki policy with helpful description like "Contains rules, writing guidelines and the mission statement to ensure the Wiki remains credible."
:In my opinion, starting to edit wikis really feels like booting up CS 1.6 as a first timer, going on multiplayer servers and getting 20 deaths in a row for not already knowing how to wallbang. This is okay for late night LAN parties, not so motivating when people make their first contribution and get edit summaries that aren't directly constructive in their email.
:Nevertheless I could be wrong on these points. I appreciate discussion and feedback. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 13:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::There are a lot of quirks with MediaWiki in general (the software is 20 years old at this point), and especially for this new wiki that has a lot of bugs and UI stuff to work out. There's supposed to be a major UI haul within the next few months or so, so hopefully that will address some of these issues you mentioned.
::Ctrl+Shift+K is a keyboard shortcut for adding citations. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:Hi. Which article specifically are you referring to? [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==Spam articles==

I've checked [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=13 Filter 13's log] and there seems to be a consistent stream of spam articles shown there. Should we block the users doing this? I assume so, but I want to be sure. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

:Normally, we would consider this, but the types of users that end up filling up this log tend to make several accounts at a time, making blocking effectively useless. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Question on wiki scope==

This wiki has a Legislation category, covering existing legislation.

I'd like to write up my ideas for things that could be considered for future legislation (as a matter of fact, I started: [[User:CorpoBlight/Product quality - and manufacturer incentives]]). But after I started, I began to wonder if it was in-scope for this wiki or not. If too far away from the preferred direction of this wiki, any suggestions for a different wiki where it would fit better? To be clear, I am ''not'' a lawyer. [[User:CorpoBlight|CorpoBlight]] ([[User talk:CorpoBlight|talk]]) 20:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

:This would be outside of scope for the wiki as personal opinion write ups or personal interpritations of law aren't really within scope. Please let us know if you have any other questions about this. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 07:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal deletion of xbox==

[[Xbox]] was proposed for deletion based on its not having been edited in a long time. I think it should be kept. The Microsoft article has several items that would be appropriate for xbox. I have seen enough commentary on xbox and the direction it is going, etc. that I am sure there are sources out there to make a good article. There are a lot of pages that link to the page, so it is probably important.
Having stubs helps the wiki grow. Gives a place for people to expand. Gives reminders of, oh yeah, that thing. Creating a stub article is a pain, why should somebody have to do it again?
If people propose deletion just because something hasn't been worked on in a while, what do they want? Editors to periodically go around and touch every article they think is worthwhile? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]], The Wiki tends to remove articles that have not been worked on in order to improve the perceived quality of the place. If you wish to fill in the article accordingly, I can gladly remove the deletion notice from the article for you. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 01:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Where is this policy documented/explained? There are several problems with the policy which I would like to be sure have been discussed, and I am interested in participating in the discussion.
::In this case the article has sat unmodified for at most 2 months. That seems absurdly short for a timeout.
::The policy feels very manipulative, "work on this or the article gets it." Xbox is not my priority, but it will probably be someones. It is a shame to lose what progress is made every time somebody has other things in their life.
::I have a few main interests (AI at the moment), but dabble in lots of other things. I would rather be free to improve things here and there as I feel. The policy plainly penalizes that work style.
::(The Mary Condo follower uses a hammer to put in a screw because the screwdriver did not bring them joy. The eclectic person uses a hammer to put in a screw because they can't find one of their dozens of screwdrivers among all their other tools.)
::In general this policy seems extremely short-sighted for the wiki. Why should I work on this wiki if anything I am working on will be deleted if I get busy for a couple of months, or after I move on to other things? So I will not adopt the xbox article, but I will try to advocate to extend protection for it and all the orphans, and thereby help grow the wiki.
::I have more to say, but will save it until I find what has been said and the right place to say it. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi, @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]], the Xbox article has been in an excessively unfinished state for more than a month. Policy generally states that we need to remove barely-developed articles after 1 month. Our general expectation is that if a user is going to create an article, that they at least fill in the framework within 1 week of creation, but we give extra leeway.
:::Of course, please remember that just because a page is deleted, it does not mean that it cannot be made again! [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] Where are these policies stated on the wiki?
::::I just looked through [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki policy index]] and couldn't find anything there about the 1 month rule, nor the 1 week expectation. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 06:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd say there is a difference between starting an article, and literally just filling in the page creation form and nothing else. On the Xbox article, even just the amount of text you've added is enough for me to be happy leaving it as a stub instead of deleting it (and as such I have removed the deletion notice). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with both points. While the Create a Page flow suggest a standard for an acceptable article: "if you're not going to be able to get the very basics of a page created today (a basic statement of wht <nowiki>{{sic}}</nowiki> the article's about with a couple of references), it might be better to make a draft in your [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:How_to_use_your_user_space|user space]]." which suggest people disobeying the notice not reading due to the attention spans of today; I have to ask if there are measures that prevent or atleast warn articles being published with (1) no citations or (2) sections with template infoboxes. (I would verify this, but don't want to accidentally create a page as a result. If such a system isn't present yet it's understandable, probably harder than I imagine to implement it.) [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi, @[[User:Raster|Raster]], because the wiki is intended to allow users without accounts to create pages, we cannot design a system to remind them to work on their unfinished articles. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi @[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]], I don't mean "remind", I mean "prevent" like how one would disable a submit button in a webpage if some requirements are not met. Apologies for any unclear wording on my side [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hi, @[[User:Raster|Raster]], unfortunately this is not a system we can enforce without excessively modifying the codebase of MediaWiki. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]], that's understandable. Thank you for the reply. I was going to suggest putting such a warning in the new page info boxes, but not sure where to put in a way people will actually read it. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, to be a bit more specific, because pages are created through the form, a page will always be first created as an unfinished template. that's why we generally leave a day to allow newly submitted articles to be edited into their 'starting state' before worrying about article notices and so on. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Template "Userspace Draft" copied from wikipedia==

I tried to use the [[Template:Userspace draft|Userspace_draft]] template, only to find that it didn't exist. I started with the source of that template from wikipedia, updating the wording a bit and deleting quite a bit.

I commented out a chunk that caused an error "'''Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "[".'''" I couldn't see how the chunk in question could cause that error, so someone with more mediawiki template experience may wish to take a look. [[User:CorpoBlight|CorpoBlight]] ([[User talk:CorpoBlight|talk]]) 05:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Warning: Prohibited words detected?==

It's telling me this, but it won't tell me what I've said wrong.

Can't save the page as a result. How can I find out what words are wrong so I can remove them. I can't find a list anywhere on the site + the error doesn't really tell me much. Also, the page I'm editing has a deletion request...but it will be fully populated with reference once I can edit and save my copy. Thanks in advance for your help. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.50.131|84.239.50.131]] 07:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, this is because of the abuse filter, which blocks edits it thinks are harmful. The edit it blocked you from sending seems completely fine and was a false positive, so I'll make the change on your behalf. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Hi, I'm also here because I ran afoul of this filter. My edit does affect about every line of the Article Suggestions table (it's an attempt at alphabetisation) so I can see it looking Big and Awful to an automatic filter! [[User:Neuropirate|Neuropirate]] ([[User talk:Neuropirate|talk]]) 23:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Done}} the edit and also confirmed you so you won’t have to deal with the filter that stopped you again. Also nice work putting it in alphabetical order! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you to @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] for getting the edit, but I just wanted to add that if you create an account, then after a few edits you won't need to worry about the filters or similar. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you to @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] as well.
::And you know @[[User:Keith|Keith]], you make a good point. This was kind of supposed to be a one time thing...but maybe it shouldn't be. I'll go ahead and register. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.50.131|84.239.50.131]] 16:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==How does thanking edits work? Some questions;==

This is the first Wiki I've seen with such a cool and human feature, but I need to know if I'm using it correctly instead of just baffling everyone with how much I click them buttons in the Recent Changes page. So some questions:

#How public is "Publicly send thanks?" Does it appear anywhere else other than the Your notices section?
#Does it keep track of which edits have already been thanked? I see some that I have thanked acknowledge that upon a refresh, but most of the time I see the thank button appear again. In this case, does clicking it spam the person's notifications again? Or is this a browser cache issue?
#Assuming this is some sort of MediaWiki plugin, is it open source?

Personally I love my experience with it thus far, as I don't vibe with the idea of an online scoreboard. Thanks! [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 12:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:1. It is mainly directed straight to the user being thanked, but if you go to [[Special:Log/thanks]], there is a thanks log there.
:2. I think you can spam notifications by thanking different edits, but I don’t think you can thank twice.
:3. It is a MediaWiki plugin, I think that it is after looking at [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Thanks the page for it]. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal tone notice - Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if Powershare feature is used==

I believe [[Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if Powershare feature is used|the article's]] wording now fits within [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines#Use of tone|the guidelines]]. If there are still areas that need improvement tone-wise, do mention what they are. Thank you for your time [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 08:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:Done! Thanks for improving the article! [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal tone notice-Electronic Arts==

I believe that the [[Electronic arts|article]] fits under the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines#Use of tone|guidelines]]. If it does, please mention what they are. [[User:Beef|Beef]] ([[User talk:Beef|talk]]) 13:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} sorry for delay! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

==note for someone who can modify the localsettings.php file to jump at==

Although it has 'bot' flag, NewUserMessage still shows up in recent changes. I did a bit of digging and found out that all you need to fix it is a line in the localsettings.php file. Setting <code>$wgNewUserSuppressRC</code> to <code>true</code> should do the trick.

Also, just found before posting that to substitute the template (something I suggested earlier), putting any text in page <code>[[MediaWiki:Newusermessage-substitute]]‎</code> should do the trick (which will keep the message the same as when it was posted even when the template itself is updated, like doing it manually instead of via a template). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

:This would be something that needs to be passed on to our tech folks. I'll let them know this exists - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 07:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

==Possible solution for hiding IPs?==

IPs have been shown for editing since the start of wikis, but it isn’t private for the IP users, and also Wikipedia is changing that now with temporary accounts. They will instead put it behind a random username, of sorts, that looks kinda like this: ~2025-8371-275. This is also viewable by the ‘temporary account IP viewer’ right or if users are CheckUsers (which I’m pretty sure isn't on the Wiki right now). This is also coming VERY soon, in 4 or so days on the English Wikipedia I think, so it can be implemented quickly. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

:Ok nice, if this comes out via mediawiki, hopefully we can just get it patched into the wiki [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

==Strangeness - Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Rules==

@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] @[[User:Keith|Keith]]On the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Rules]] if I click on the discussion tab it takes me to [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Code of conduct]]. The content looks similar to the rules, but it is a talk page for a non-existent article.
Looking at the history, it looks like something that needs to be fixed by an admin who knows what was going on and which one is the real rules.
Since neither one looks like a talk page, thought better to mention it here. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 05:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} Hey I can delete articles too! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::Wait nevermind, I only deleted the redirect. I’m not sure what the code of conduct is about? I’ll move it out of talk namespace anyway. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Note for mods: Page now located at [[Project:Code of conduct]] [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you, but this still leaves a confusing situation, where the (now orphaned) [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Code of conduct]] looks like an official policy, but it says different things than [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Rules]].
::::Please either:
::::#put a disclaimer box on it saying readers should ignore it (it is a draft).
::::#Move it to a namespace that makes it obvious that it isn't official (e.g. part of somebodies user page).
::::#If it isn't needed anymore, delete it (or blank the contents if want to keep the history).
::::#Protect it so only moderators can see it.
::::#Do something else to make it clear to the casual reader what its status is, and where to find the official version.
::::Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

==Who made the CRW logo?==

just curious lol [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal deletion - Amazon fraudulent product page==

The article [[Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review]] has a deletion request that says "old aigen article that has not seen any use."

The article
#Has several paragraphs of meaningful content (not a stub).
#Has several references
#Is about an issue that I have heard of and seems noteworthy (Fraud against consumers by one of the largest retailers in the US).

What exactly are the criteria that this article violates that it should be deleted?
*The "seen any use" seems to indicate that there is some criterion on how much people read an article, which this one hasn't met. What is the use benchmark articles have to pass? How can we see how much use an article gets?
*AI generated - how is this determined? I have skimmed the article, it doesn't seem overly painful to read. (It isn't Kippling or Hemmingway, but it isn't bureaucrateese either.)

I am appealing the deletion of this article, since it meets all the inclusion criteria of which I am aware.
If there are policies that it violates, which are not spelled out in the rules, please spell them out.
Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:The "has not seen any use" bit is something I usually add to articles if it hasn't been edited, but there is no guideline on it. AIgen is shown to me partly because loads of info was suddenly added. I do have to admit though that it doesn't make much sense and if nothing happens to it in a year or 2 maybe it'll get deleted then? I'll remove the deletionreq. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you.
::Not quite sure I understand what you are saying. I thought the goal of the wiki was to have a reference. Unfortunately, that entails a necessary evil of having to write/edit articles. If an article is good enough that it hasn't required editing in months or years, isn't that a good thing? (Not saying the article is great, but once something is sort of okay, editors might focus on more skeletal articles vs. polishing something that has the basics.)
::Is there something undesirable about writing something offline, and then adding it? I have been drafting a few things locally, it didn't occur to me that there would be anything suspicious or bad about crafting in private and then releasing what would look sudden to others. Please help me understand. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I’ll simplify it to this: My reasons for adding a deletion request were overall pretty stupid. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

==What does the AI/LLM template mean?==

(Note, this question was prompted by [[ Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review]] and other articles.)
I feel generally uncomfortable with the LLM tag, because I can't figure out what it means. (I have seen it added to various articles, for no readily apparent reason.) All I can figure so far is that it seems like a particularly insulting way of saying that the tagger doesn't like somebodies writing style. (I strongly object to the overuse of LLMs, saying one writes like one is dehumanizing in the extreme.)

If adding that tag is based on a particular tool, then it would help to have the tool called out so one could experiment and learn how to appease the tool.

There are readability and grammar assistance tools (not recent AI garbage, but reliable old-style programs, like Grammatic), perhaps a link to such tools might be useful to add to the template?

It might help if the adder of the AI/LLM template were required to add specifics about what they find problematic. (Are there inaccuracies, is it use of particular words, is it cliched or verbose, ...) Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:the SloppyAI tag is basically just if its fully/mostly AI generated, not based on tools and just at the adder's discretion. It's my least favorite template though, and I should probably rework the wording and add an issue part like the one in the Incomplete notice. I'll keep your ideas in mind if/when I do it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:The AI notice is primarily for quality control - whether it means the references haven't been vetted, or the content hasn't been vetted, or even if the content itself is too "AI-sounding" that it can deter readers. It's a great notice to have because it means the content is still relevant but may require editing to be up to quality standards. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
::I'll work on the template in my sandbox now. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]]. If the visual editor could present a short list of a few typical reasons why the tag might be added, with a checkbox for each. That might give an easy way for the tagger to provide more helpful information to other editors. (I am thinking things like "wordy" (or "omit needless words"), "repetitive" (for says same thing over and over), "jargon" (or "overly technical"), "fact check". Those are just what comes to my mind, pick whatever sins of AI/poor writing you see commonly.)
:::If the visual editor can't do that (and for those who don't use the editor), the documentation could provide a list of cues for taggers to use.
:::Rather than saying AI, could it be more - help improve clarity/readability?
:::I just want the reader/writer to clearly communicate what they can do to improve the article. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 18:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:::This would be very helpful, thanks! Just make sure to check with Keith first before finalizing anything. I do also like Drakeula's idea of having options or perhaps write-ins like the Incomplete notice does. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

2025-11-06T16:31:57Z

Beanie Bo: /* What does the AI/LLM template mean? */ -control, not troll

<div style="margin: {{#ifeq:{{{navbox|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|2px}} 0 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; {{{style|border: 1px solid #A0A5AD;}}} {{{backgroundstyle|background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #eaf3ff); color: inherit;}}}">
<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 120%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold; {{{titlestyle|background-color: var(--background-color-content-added, #aad1ff); color: inherit;}}}">Welcome — post issues of interest to Moderators</div>
*Post '''appeals''' to article notice templates (e.g. Incomplete, Stub, etc.)
*Post requests for '''moderator action''' here (e.g. blocks)
*Just need a mod? Post here or ping a mod with a question.
*Post any information or news relevant to the moderation team here.
*To request an article to be created, do not post here, try [[Article suggestions]] instead.
*Do not report technical issues here, please use the [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs|Bugs noticeboard]] instead.

<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Start a new section]]</div>
</div>
 
{{Archives}} 
==Open tasks==

*[[:Category:Articles with deletion requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles with merge requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles marked as irrelevant]]
*[[Special:NewPages]]

==Itron article has been flagged for questionable relevance.==

I believe the [[Itron]] article has been mistakenly flagged for questionable relevance. I have added several Incidents to the page to further show Itron's systemic patterns of consumer privacy violations please see the below:

''Itron's Smart meters allow them to collect, process, and store data without the end users' knowledge. (1980-Present)''

''NYSEG requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (November 2022-Present)''

''CenterPoint Energy requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face one-time and monthly service charges (Unknown-Present)''

''Southern California Edison requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (Unknown-Present)''

Smart meter (and smart grid solutions) usage by utility companies involves a lot of layers but these are what I find to be most concerning:

''Lack of data privacy, utility companies can freely share customer data with third party smart meter companies (such as Itron) without customer knowledge.''

''Lack of freedom to choose whether or not you have a smart meter recording your electricity usage. This data can be used to infer all sorts of things from what kind of appliances you own to when you are home.''

''Itron's Data Processing Agreement is un-viewable (at least for me) and not easy to find either, and end users typically do not know they will have an Itron smart meter until after it is installed by their electric company.''

Itron is not the only smart meter and smart grid solutions game in town but they are big and not end user friendly,.

Thank Mods! [[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] ([[User talk:Privacywarrior|talk]]) 19:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

:So sorry for not getting to this sooner.
:For now, I've changed the relevancy tag to an incomplete one (lacking verification), the issue being that there are no sources that actually implicate itron in having done anything wrong, with most of the stuff surrounding 'maybe it could be/has been hacked' being authorial speculation insofar as I can tell.
:There's also no secondary reporting - i.e. no media sources cited as framing any of these things as a problem. This is something which should be there to demonstrate notability. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
::Understood, unfortunately most of the articles I found the place blame on the distribution companies for invasive policies. The real issue is Itron has unlimited access to any of their smart meters data with out the end users knowledge. I am not quite sure how to capture this topic fully. [[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] ([[User talk:Privacywarrior|talk]]) 14:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] Not mad at you or anything but on Wikipedia at least its common practice to not edit the archive at all although I see why you did it, so I’ve reverted your edit there and added it back here. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

==In the verifiability section, aren't government policies, regulations with propagandas/agendas allowed to be cited there?==

I'm just wondering if this can cause concerns for staffs in this wiki, for example [https://www.resecurity.com/blog/article/shinyhunters-attacked-vietnams-financial-system-cic-data-leak like this one] (there's english translation but it's all google translated and for full texts translation it's locked behind paywall, so apologies for that) [[User:Justarandomguy111|Justarandomguy111]] ([[User talk:Justarandomguy111|talk]]) 09:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:Can you rephrase your question? I'm not sure exactly what you're asking or how the link you shared is relevant [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==please delete all pages created by this user==

[[Special:Contributions/81.221.216.80|this user]] creates chatgpt raw output articles. While i dont doubt the relevance of the information, the method of creation is odd, and frankly, detrimental to this website's reputation. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:I’m not going to myself, but can one of the mods post a reminder to not do that? ChatGPT can be decent starting point '''if undetected''' and people keep updating it and it feels less sloppy, but this is out of hand. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, those ones are particularly bad. if they don't come back and clean them up by tomorrow I'll probably just delete them, as they're pretty much unusable as starting points [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==So many pages with stub/incomplete notices==

Hey there, I've been messing around pressing the random article button for a while. I've noticed that about 9/10 articles on this wiki have either a stub notice or a incomplete notice. I understand why : this wiki has limited resources to polish these articles and also wish not to add friction for article creation not to deter potential contributors. However, in my opinion, it kinda ruins the image of the website. It looks unpolished, unfinished and amateur.

Is there some plan to eventually add a little friction to the system, to incentivize polishing and finishing articles. I understand this can be complicated, but right now articles are being created with a title and maybe two or three links and then left there to rot. Dont get me wrong, I am also guilty of this, though i wish i werent, and i wish there was a system preventing this kind of low-effort-good-faith contribution.

thank you for hearing me [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 22:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:Not a mod and this may be completely wrong (especially as I don’t use discord) but I think they just want to make articles for now and later polish them. The thing is that I’m pretty sure this is how Wikipedia developed, with just making articles and later on polishing. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:There will absolutely be a tightening of standards later down the line, but ultimately the reason it looks unfinished is because, at present, it *is* unfinished. There'll be a lot of work needed to get it to the point where the articles have the kind of average quality we'd want them to. At the moment we really can't afford to be picky with contributions, and have to embrace the 'something is better than nothing' mentality. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==Can a mod please remove this?==

Can a mod remove the sloppyai tags [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|on my userpage]] and [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson/Sandbox|my sandbox page]]? The abuse filter is making impossible to remove. Just delete the part that says SloppyAI which is in the first paragraph on both. Thanks! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see a SloppyAI notice [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::You will see SloppyAI with two curly brackets around it, not the full notice. I forgot to clarify. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Do you mean where it says: "Apparently, adding template {{sloppyai}} is a crime." [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, that. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Done <nowiki>{{Smiley}}</nowiki> [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::Well that didn't work [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::To do it, click the source button and then try. What happened was it put <nowiki> tags around it (which basically make it ignore wikitext) because it detected wiki markup in visualeditor, which it doesn’t allow. Putting this in source: {{Smiley}}. I can’t believe I had to do that just to remove it though! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 13:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

i wish the page Category:Trading_card_companies to be deleted.

argument : it is redundant with Category:Playing_card_manufacturers

Both have 1 element : Nintendo, though the latter is embedded within Category:Game_manufacturers and the former not, thus it can be deleted [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

i wish the page [[:Category:Information_technology_companies]] to be deleted

argument : it serves no purpose. all items should be moved to [[:Category:Technology_companies]]

please it will help tidy things up : an impossible task. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} (about to do when first typing this) but it might take a little bit to move everything over. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

I wish the page [[:Category:Canadian_Internet_Providers_-_Circumvent_CRTC_protection_-_Time_based_increases.]]

argument : It is a byproduct of an old spelling mistake. I've cleaned up the mess a bit. this page now needs to be deleted [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:actually all pages in [[Special:UnusedCategories]] [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::{{Done}} partially (only removed the specific category you mentioned) but a [[Special:UnusedCategories]] cleanup will be done by me in the near future. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, you can also use the [[Template:DeletionRequest|Deletionrequest template]] for this as although it might not be done very quickly, it is generally cleaner and easier for admins. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::::will do. I didnt know i was allowed to use it. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 18:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, anyone can use that to mark an article. It won't delete it, it just adds a notice for a mod to delete it (although it can be a bit slow at times!) [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==page categories.==

Hi i'd like some clarification regarding categories.

from what i've noticed, each page has a category with the page name as a name. ex: Apple has a Category:Apple.

Now, does that mean all other "tags" go in Category:Apple or should they go in Apple ? Or both ? (by "tags" i mean "Category:Technology_company" or "Category:Video_game")

Please clarify this as both methods are currently used through this wiki.

Thank you for your time and hard work. I want to help out more but this question needs a definitive answer before [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, I’m pretty sure all tags are meant to go in the category:Apple, although some pages may have lots of categories when there’s only a few in the actual category for it (or none if there’s no category). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
::I’m also going to link to [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Categorization]] because of how good it is as a resource for learning about categories. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
:::thanks. i hadnt found that page. i will give it a good read [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

==I've added the 'nocat' parameter to Citation needed==

Just letting mods know because if you see ANY issues with the citation needed template, then please immediately rollback the edits I have made. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

==My submission is fine and the notice is not accurate nor able to discern context of the submission==

The sources are actually threaded conversations. I'm not sure how the bot thinks a link to a threaded forum is a news article.

I worked hard making sure my first submission was encompassing.

Yes the "titles" of the forum posts sourced may not be the same as my wiki title here as those are not my posts and would you rather not put the titles of the forum posts?, i made sure to include a "why it matters" section to clarify certain aspects stated in those threads that pertain to the issue at hand. The topic INSIDE OF THE THREADS on the forum posts were exactly pertinent.

If my submission is eligible for deletion then i'm unsure how anything gets published here. I seriously think the bot that looks over submissions needs refinement if it flags my submission like that. Also, realistically a submission page with form fields is the way to go for this. Normal people are not wiki site gurus and template perfect people. They will never use the site. I understand this is outside the scope of this particular message, but I think there are some people that have a very good grasp on wiki sites, template adherence, shortcuts, that completely confusing to a normal person cite page that gets linked and overall these people are flagging posts that normal people are trying to make. The average person that comes into contact with company issues that this site proclaims to want to address will not be able to abide by the standards of a wiki style submission process if this is the outcome of when they sincerely try to contribute. (Again, it should just be form fields and a submit button.)

Nevertheless, I am posting here as directed by the robot. [[Special:Contributions/66.191.58.153|66.191.58.153]] 09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

:On the off-topic remark (I do not know what your original submission was), I agree that the Visual editor UI could be a bit easier to use.
:Some important "Insert" items like Citations should not be under a "More" menu (Windows 11 right click vibes); it took me about 15 minutes to find a source and add my first proper citation despite being a somewhat tech-savvy person. (Although, I started here making '''edits''' and thus did not see the Citation "tutorial" within the Create an article page, only the
:There could also be a quick link(s) within the editor (like the ? button) to CRW's Wiki policy with helpful description like "Contains rules, writing guidelines and the mission statement to ensure the Wiki remains credible."
:In my opinion, starting to edit wikis really feels like booting up CS 1.6 as a first timer, going on multiplayer servers and getting 20 deaths in a row for not already knowing how to wallbang. This is okay for late night LAN parties, not so motivating when people make their first contribution and get edit summaries that aren't directly constructive in their email.
:Nevertheless I could be wrong on these points. I appreciate discussion and feedback. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 13:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::There are a lot of quirks with MediaWiki in general (the software is 20 years old at this point), and especially for this new wiki that has a lot of bugs and UI stuff to work out. There's supposed to be a major UI haul within the next few months or so, so hopefully that will address some of these issues you mentioned.
::Ctrl+Shift+K is a keyboard shortcut for adding citations. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:Hi. Which article specifically are you referring to? [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==Spam articles==

I've checked [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=13 Filter 13's log] and there seems to be a consistent stream of spam articles shown there. Should we block the users doing this? I assume so, but I want to be sure. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

:Normally, we would consider this, but the types of users that end up filling up this log tend to make several accounts at a time, making blocking effectively useless. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Question on wiki scope==

This wiki has a Legislation category, covering existing legislation.

I'd like to write up my ideas for things that could be considered for future legislation (as a matter of fact, I started: [[User:CorpoBlight/Product quality - and manufacturer incentives]]). But after I started, I began to wonder if it was in-scope for this wiki or not. If too far away from the preferred direction of this wiki, any suggestions for a different wiki where it would fit better? To be clear, I am ''not'' a lawyer. [[User:CorpoBlight|CorpoBlight]] ([[User talk:CorpoBlight|talk]]) 20:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

:This would be outside of scope for the wiki as personal opinion write ups or personal interpritations of law aren't really within scope. Please let us know if you have any other questions about this. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 07:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal deletion of xbox==

[[Xbox]] was proposed for deletion based on its not having been edited in a long time. I think it should be kept. The Microsoft article has several items that would be appropriate for xbox. I have seen enough commentary on xbox and the direction it is going, etc. that I am sure there are sources out there to make a good article. There are a lot of pages that link to the page, so it is probably important.
Having stubs helps the wiki grow. Gives a place for people to expand. Gives reminders of, oh yeah, that thing. Creating a stub article is a pain, why should somebody have to do it again?
If people propose deletion just because something hasn't been worked on in a while, what do they want? Editors to periodically go around and touch every article they think is worthwhile? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]], The Wiki tends to remove articles that have not been worked on in order to improve the perceived quality of the place. If you wish to fill in the article accordingly, I can gladly remove the deletion notice from the article for you. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 01:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Where is this policy documented/explained? There are several problems with the policy which I would like to be sure have been discussed, and I am interested in participating in the discussion.
::In this case the article has sat unmodified for at most 2 months. That seems absurdly short for a timeout.
::The policy feels very manipulative, "work on this or the article gets it." Xbox is not my priority, but it will probably be someones. It is a shame to lose what progress is made every time somebody has other things in their life.
::I have a few main interests (AI at the moment), but dabble in lots of other things. I would rather be free to improve things here and there as I feel. The policy plainly penalizes that work style.
::(The Mary Condo follower uses a hammer to put in a screw because the screwdriver did not bring them joy. The eclectic person uses a hammer to put in a screw because they can't find one of their dozens of screwdrivers among all their other tools.)
::In general this policy seems extremely short-sighted for the wiki. Why should I work on this wiki if anything I am working on will be deleted if I get busy for a couple of months, or after I move on to other things? So I will not adopt the xbox article, but I will try to advocate to extend protection for it and all the orphans, and thereby help grow the wiki.
::I have more to say, but will save it until I find what has been said and the right place to say it. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi, @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]], the Xbox article has been in an excessively unfinished state for more than a month. Policy generally states that we need to remove barely-developed articles after 1 month. Our general expectation is that if a user is going to create an article, that they at least fill in the framework within 1 week of creation, but we give extra leeway.
:::Of course, please remember that just because a page is deleted, it does not mean that it cannot be made again! [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] Where are these policies stated on the wiki?
::::I just looked through [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki policy index]] and couldn't find anything there about the 1 month rule, nor the 1 week expectation. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 06:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd say there is a difference between starting an article, and literally just filling in the page creation form and nothing else. On the Xbox article, even just the amount of text you've added is enough for me to be happy leaving it as a stub instead of deleting it (and as such I have removed the deletion notice). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with both points. While the Create a Page flow suggest a standard for an acceptable article: "if you're not going to be able to get the very basics of a page created today (a basic statement of wht <nowiki>{{sic}}</nowiki> the article's about with a couple of references), it might be better to make a draft in your [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:How_to_use_your_user_space|user space]]." which suggest people disobeying the notice not reading due to the attention spans of today; I have to ask if there are measures that prevent or atleast warn articles being published with (1) no citations or (2) sections with template infoboxes. (I would verify this, but don't want to accidentally create a page as a result. If such a system isn't present yet it's understandable, probably harder than I imagine to implement it.) [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi, @[[User:Raster|Raster]], because the wiki is intended to allow users without accounts to create pages, we cannot design a system to remind them to work on their unfinished articles. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi @[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]], I don't mean "remind", I mean "prevent" like how one would disable a submit button in a webpage if some requirements are not met. Apologies for any unclear wording on my side [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hi, @[[User:Raster|Raster]], unfortunately this is not a system we can enforce without excessively modifying the codebase of MediaWiki. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]], that's understandable. Thank you for the reply. I was going to suggest putting such a warning in the new page info boxes, but not sure where to put in a way people will actually read it. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, to be a bit more specific, because pages are created through the form, a page will always be first created as an unfinished template. that's why we generally leave a day to allow newly submitted articles to be edited into their 'starting state' before worrying about article notices and so on. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Template "Userspace Draft" copied from wikipedia==

I tried to use the [[Template:Userspace draft|Userspace_draft]] template, only to find that it didn't exist. I started with the source of that template from wikipedia, updating the wording a bit and deleting quite a bit.

I commented out a chunk that caused an error "'''Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "[".'''" I couldn't see how the chunk in question could cause that error, so someone with more mediawiki template experience may wish to take a look. [[User:CorpoBlight|CorpoBlight]] ([[User talk:CorpoBlight|talk]]) 05:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Warning: Prohibited words detected?==

It's telling me this, but it won't tell me what I've said wrong.

Can't save the page as a result. How can I find out what words are wrong so I can remove them. I can't find a list anywhere on the site + the error doesn't really tell me much. Also, the page I'm editing has a deletion request...but it will be fully populated with reference once I can edit and save my copy. Thanks in advance for your help. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.50.131|84.239.50.131]] 07:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, this is because of the abuse filter, which blocks edits it thinks are harmful. The edit it blocked you from sending seems completely fine and was a false positive, so I'll make the change on your behalf. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Hi, I'm also here because I ran afoul of this filter. My edit does affect about every line of the Article Suggestions table (it's an attempt at alphabetisation) so I can see it looking Big and Awful to an automatic filter! [[User:Neuropirate|Neuropirate]] ([[User talk:Neuropirate|talk]]) 23:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Done}} the edit and also confirmed you so you won’t have to deal with the filter that stopped you again. Also nice work putting it in alphabetical order! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you to @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] for getting the edit, but I just wanted to add that if you create an account, then after a few edits you won't need to worry about the filters or similar. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you to @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] as well.
::And you know @[[User:Keith|Keith]], you make a good point. This was kind of supposed to be a one time thing...but maybe it shouldn't be. I'll go ahead and register. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.50.131|84.239.50.131]] 16:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==How does thanking edits work? Some questions;==

This is the first Wiki I've seen with such a cool and human feature, but I need to know if I'm using it correctly instead of just baffling everyone with how much I click them buttons in the Recent Changes page. So some questions:

#How public is "Publicly send thanks?" Does it appear anywhere else other than the Your notices section?
#Does it keep track of which edits have already been thanked? I see some that I have thanked acknowledge that upon a refresh, but most of the time I see the thank button appear again. In this case, does clicking it spam the person's notifications again? Or is this a browser cache issue?
#Assuming this is some sort of MediaWiki plugin, is it open source?

Personally I love my experience with it thus far, as I don't vibe with the idea of an online scoreboard. Thanks! [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 12:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:1. It is mainly directed straight to the user being thanked, but if you go to [[Special:Log/thanks]], there is a thanks log there.
:2. I think you can spam notifications by thanking different edits, but I don’t think you can thank twice.
:3. It is a MediaWiki plugin, I think that it is after looking at [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Thanks the page for it]. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal tone notice - Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if Powershare feature is used==

I believe [[Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if Powershare feature is used|the article's]] wording now fits within [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines#Use of tone|the guidelines]]. If there are still areas that need improvement tone-wise, do mention what they are. Thank you for your time [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 08:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:Done! Thanks for improving the article! [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal tone notice-Electronic Arts==

I believe that the [[Electronic arts|article]] fits under the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines#Use of tone|guidelines]]. If it does, please mention what they are. [[User:Beef|Beef]] ([[User talk:Beef|talk]]) 13:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} sorry for delay! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

==note for someone who can modify the localsettings.php file to jump at==

Although it has 'bot' flag, NewUserMessage still shows up in recent changes. I did a bit of digging and found out that all you need to fix it is a line in the localsettings.php file. Setting <code>$wgNewUserSuppressRC</code> to <code>true</code> should do the trick.

Also, just found before posting that to substitute the template (something I suggested earlier), putting any text in page <code>[[MediaWiki:Newusermessage-substitute]]‎</code> should do the trick (which will keep the message the same as when it was posted even when the template itself is updated, like doing it manually instead of via a template). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

:This would be something that needs to be passed on to our tech folks. I'll let them know this exists - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 07:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

==Possible solution for hiding IPs?==

IPs have been shown for editing since the start of wikis, but it isn’t private for the IP users, and also Wikipedia is changing that now with temporary accounts. They will instead put it behind a random username, of sorts, that looks kinda like this: ~2025-8371-275. This is also viewable by the ‘temporary account IP viewer’ right or if users are CheckUsers (which I’m pretty sure isn't on the Wiki right now). This is also coming VERY soon, in 4 or so days on the English Wikipedia I think, so it can be implemented quickly. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

:Ok nice, if this comes out via mediawiki, hopefully we can just get it patched into the wiki [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

==Strangeness - Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Rules==

@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] @[[User:Keith|Keith]]On the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Rules]] if I click on the discussion tab it takes me to [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Code of conduct]]. The content looks similar to the rules, but it is a talk page for a non-existent article.
Looking at the history, it looks like something that needs to be fixed by an admin who knows what was going on and which one is the real rules.
Since neither one looks like a talk page, thought better to mention it here. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 05:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} Hey I can delete articles too! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::Wait nevermind, I only deleted the redirect. I’m not sure what the code of conduct is about? I’ll move it out of talk namespace anyway. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Note for mods: Page now located at [[Project:Code of conduct]] [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you, but this still leaves a confusing situation, where the (now orphaned) [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Code of conduct]] looks like an official policy, but it says different things than [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Rules]].
::::Please either:
::::#put a disclaimer box on it saying readers should ignore it (it is a draft).
::::#Move it to a namespace that makes it obvious that it isn't official (e.g. part of somebodies user page).
::::#If it isn't needed anymore, delete it (or blank the contents if want to keep the history).
::::#Protect it so only moderators can see it.
::::#Do something else to make it clear to the casual reader what its status is, and where to find the official version.
::::Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

==Who made the CRW logo?==

just curious lol [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal deletion - Amazon fraudulent product page==

The article [[Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review]] has a deletion request that says "old aigen article that has not seen any use."

The article
#Has several paragraphs of meaningful content (not a stub).
#Has several references
#Is about an issue that I have heard of and seems noteworthy (Fraud against consumers by one of the largest retailers in the US).

What exactly are the criteria that this article violates that it should be deleted?
*The "seen any use" seems to indicate that there is some criterion on how much people read an article, which this one hasn't met. What is the use benchmark articles have to pass? How can we see how much use an article gets?
*AI generated - how is this determined? I have skimmed the article, it doesn't seem overly painful to read. (It isn't Kippling or Hemmingway, but it isn't bureaucrateese either.)

I am appealing the deletion of this article, since it meets all the inclusion criteria of which I am aware.
If there are policies that it violates, which are not spelled out in the rules, please spell them out.
Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:The "has not seen any use" bit is something I usually add to articles if it hasn't been edited, but there is no guideline on it. AIgen is shown to me partly because loads of info was suddenly added. I do have to admit though that it doesn't make much sense and if nothing happens to it in a year or 2 maybe it'll get deleted then? I'll remove the deletionreq. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

==What does the AI/LLM template mean?==

(Note, this question was prompted by [[ Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review]] and other articles.)
I feel generally uncomfortable with the LLM tag, because I can't figure out what it means. (I have seen it added to various articles, for no readily apparent reason.) All I can figure so far is that it seems like a particularly insulting way of saying that the tagger doesn't like somebodies writing style. (I strongly object to the overuse of LLMs, saying one writes like one is dehumanizing in the extreme.)

If adding that tag is based on a particular tool, then it would help to have the tool called out so one could experiment and learn how to appease the tool.

There are readability and grammar assistance tools (not recent AI garbage, but reliable old-style programs, like Grammatic), perhaps a link to such tools might be useful to add to the template?

It might help if the adder of the AI/LLM template were required to add specifics about what they find problematic. (Are there inaccuracies, is it use of particular words, is it cliched or verbose, ...) Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:the SloppyAI tag is basically just if its fully/mostly AI generated, not based on tools and just at the adder's discretion. It's my least favorite template though, and I should probably rework the wording and add an issue part like the one in the Incomplete notice. I'll keep your ideas in mind if/when I do it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:The AI notice is primarily for quality control - whether it means the references haven't been vetted, or the content hasn't been vetted, or even if the content itself is too "AI-sounding" that it can deter readers. It's a great notice to have because it means the content is still relevant but may require editing to be up to quality standards. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
::I'll work on the template in my sandbox now. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard

2025-11-06T16:28:03Z

Beanie Bo: /* What does the AI/LLM template mean? */ Reply

<div style="margin: {{#ifeq:{{{navbox|<noinclude>yes</noinclude>}}}|yes|2px}} 0 0.5em; padding: 0.5em; {{{style|border: 1px solid #A0A5AD;}}} {{{backgroundstyle|background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #eaf3ff); color: inherit;}}}">
<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 120%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold; {{{titlestyle|background-color: var(--background-color-content-added, #aad1ff); color: inherit;}}}">Welcome — post issues of interest to Moderators</div>
*Post '''appeals''' to article notice templates (e.g. Incomplete, Stub, etc.)
*Post requests for '''moderator action''' here (e.g. blocks)
*Just need a mod? Post here or ping a mod with a question.
*Post any information or news relevant to the moderation team here.
*To request an article to be created, do not post here, try [[Article suggestions]] instead.
*Do not report technical issues here, please use the [[Consumer_Rights_Wiki_talk:Bugs|Bugs noticeboard]] instead.

<div style="padding: 0.25em 0; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; border-radius: 3px; font-weight: bold">[[Special:NewSection/Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Moderators' noticeboard|Start a new section]]</div>
</div>
 
{{Archives}} 
==Open tasks==

*[[:Category:Articles with deletion requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles with merge requests]]
*[[:Category:Articles marked as irrelevant]]
*[[Special:NewPages]]

==Itron article has been flagged for questionable relevance.==

I believe the [[Itron]] article has been mistakenly flagged for questionable relevance. I have added several Incidents to the page to further show Itron's systemic patterns of consumer privacy violations please see the below:

''Itron's Smart meters allow them to collect, process, and store data without the end users' knowledge. (1980-Present)''

''NYSEG requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (November 2022-Present)''

''CenterPoint Energy requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face one-time and monthly service charges (Unknown-Present)''

''Southern California Edison requires customers to switch to Itron Smart meters or face monthly charge (Unknown-Present)''

Smart meter (and smart grid solutions) usage by utility companies involves a lot of layers but these are what I find to be most concerning:

''Lack of data privacy, utility companies can freely share customer data with third party smart meter companies (such as Itron) without customer knowledge.''

''Lack of freedom to choose whether or not you have a smart meter recording your electricity usage. This data can be used to infer all sorts of things from what kind of appliances you own to when you are home.''

''Itron's Data Processing Agreement is un-viewable (at least for me) and not easy to find either, and end users typically do not know they will have an Itron smart meter until after it is installed by their electric company.''

Itron is not the only smart meter and smart grid solutions game in town but they are big and not end user friendly,.

Thank Mods! [[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] ([[User talk:Privacywarrior|talk]]) 19:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

:So sorry for not getting to this sooner.
:For now, I've changed the relevancy tag to an incomplete one (lacking verification), the issue being that there are no sources that actually implicate itron in having done anything wrong, with most of the stuff surrounding 'maybe it could be/has been hacked' being authorial speculation insofar as I can tell.
:There's also no secondary reporting - i.e. no media sources cited as framing any of these things as a problem. This is something which should be there to demonstrate notability. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
::Understood, unfortunately most of the articles I found the place blame on the distribution companies for invasive policies. The real issue is Itron has unlimited access to any of their smart meters data with out the end users knowledge. I am not quite sure how to capture this topic fully. [[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] ([[User talk:Privacywarrior|talk]]) 14:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Privacywarrior|Privacywarrior]] Not mad at you or anything but on Wikipedia at least its common practice to not edit the archive at all although I see why you did it, so I’ve reverted your edit there and added it back here. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

==In the verifiability section, aren't government policies, regulations with propagandas/agendas allowed to be cited there?==

I'm just wondering if this can cause concerns for staffs in this wiki, for example [https://www.resecurity.com/blog/article/shinyhunters-attacked-vietnams-financial-system-cic-data-leak like this one] (there's english translation but it's all google translated and for full texts translation it's locked behind paywall, so apologies for that) [[User:Justarandomguy111|Justarandomguy111]] ([[User talk:Justarandomguy111|talk]]) 09:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:Can you rephrase your question? I'm not sure exactly what you're asking or how the link you shared is relevant [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==please delete all pages created by this user==

[[Special:Contributions/81.221.216.80|this user]] creates chatgpt raw output articles. While i dont doubt the relevance of the information, the method of creation is odd, and frankly, detrimental to this website's reputation. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:I’m not going to myself, but can one of the mods post a reminder to not do that? ChatGPT can be decent starting point '''if undetected''' and people keep updating it and it feels less sloppy, but this is out of hand. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, those ones are particularly bad. if they don't come back and clean them up by tomorrow I'll probably just delete them, as they're pretty much unusable as starting points [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==So many pages with stub/incomplete notices==

Hey there, I've been messing around pressing the random article button for a while. I've noticed that about 9/10 articles on this wiki have either a stub notice or a incomplete notice. I understand why : this wiki has limited resources to polish these articles and also wish not to add friction for article creation not to deter potential contributors. However, in my opinion, it kinda ruins the image of the website. It looks unpolished, unfinished and amateur.

Is there some plan to eventually add a little friction to the system, to incentivize polishing and finishing articles. I understand this can be complicated, but right now articles are being created with a title and maybe two or three links and then left there to rot. Dont get me wrong, I am also guilty of this, though i wish i werent, and i wish there was a system preventing this kind of low-effort-good-faith contribution.

thank you for hearing me [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 22:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

:Not a mod and this may be completely wrong (especially as I don’t use discord) but I think they just want to make articles for now and later polish them. The thing is that I’m pretty sure this is how Wikipedia developed, with just making articles and later on polishing. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:There will absolutely be a tightening of standards later down the line, but ultimately the reason it looks unfinished is because, at present, it *is* unfinished. There'll be a lot of work needed to get it to the point where the articles have the kind of average quality we'd want them to. At the moment we really can't afford to be picky with contributions, and have to embrace the 'something is better than nothing' mentality. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 09:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==Can a mod please remove this?==

Can a mod remove the sloppyai tags [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|on my userpage]] and [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson/Sandbox|my sandbox page]]? The abuse filter is making impossible to remove. Just delete the part that says SloppyAI which is in the first paragraph on both. Thanks! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see a SloppyAI notice [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::You will see SloppyAI with two curly brackets around it, not the full notice. I forgot to clarify. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Do you mean where it says: "Apparently, adding template {{sloppyai}} is a crime." [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 12:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, that. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 12:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Done <nowiki>{{Smiley}}</nowiki> [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::Well that didn't work [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::To do it, click the source button and then try. What happened was it put <nowiki> tags around it (which basically make it ignore wikitext) because it detected wiki markup in visualeditor, which it doesn’t allow. Putting this in source: {{Smiley}}. I can’t believe I had to do that just to remove it though! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 13:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

i wish the page Category:Trading_card_companies to be deleted.

argument : it is redundant with Category:Playing_card_manufacturers

Both have 1 element : Nintendo, though the latter is embedded within Category:Game_manufacturers and the former not, thus it can be deleted [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

i wish the page [[:Category:Information_technology_companies]] to be deleted

argument : it serves no purpose. all items should be moved to [[:Category:Technology_companies]]

please it will help tidy things up : an impossible task. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 20:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} (about to do when first typing this) but it might take a little bit to move everything over. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==deletion request==

I wish the page [[:Category:Canadian_Internet_Providers_-_Circumvent_CRTC_protection_-_Time_based_increases.]]

argument : It is a byproduct of an old spelling mistake. I've cleaned up the mess a bit. this page now needs to be deleted [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:actually all pages in [[Special:UnusedCategories]] [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
::{{Done}} partially (only removed the specific category you mentioned) but a [[Special:UnusedCategories]] cleanup will be done by me in the near future. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, you can also use the [[Template:DeletionRequest|Deletionrequest template]] for this as although it might not be done very quickly, it is generally cleaner and easier for admins. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::::will do. I didnt know i was allowed to use it. [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 18:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, anyone can use that to mark an article. It won't delete it, it just adds a notice for a mod to delete it (although it can be a bit slow at times!) [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 19:22, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==page categories.==

Hi i'd like some clarification regarding categories.

from what i've noticed, each page has a category with the page name as a name. ex: Apple has a Category:Apple.

Now, does that mean all other "tags" go in Category:Apple or should they go in Apple ? Or both ? (by "tags" i mean "Category:Technology_company" or "Category:Video_game")

Please clarify this as both methods are currently used through this wiki.

Thank you for your time and hard work. I want to help out more but this question needs a definitive answer before [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, I’m pretty sure all tags are meant to go in the category:Apple, although some pages may have lots of categories when there’s only a few in the actual category for it (or none if there’s no category). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
::I’m also going to link to [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Categorization]] because of how good it is as a resource for learning about categories. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 05:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
:::thanks. i hadnt found that page. i will give it a good read [[User:Plankton|Plankton]] ([[User talk:Plankton|talk]]) 21:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

==I've added the 'nocat' parameter to Citation needed==

Just letting mods know because if you see ANY issues with the citation needed template, then please immediately rollback the edits I have made. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 18:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

==My submission is fine and the notice is not accurate nor able to discern context of the submission==

The sources are actually threaded conversations. I'm not sure how the bot thinks a link to a threaded forum is a news article.

I worked hard making sure my first submission was encompassing.

Yes the "titles" of the forum posts sourced may not be the same as my wiki title here as those are not my posts and would you rather not put the titles of the forum posts?, i made sure to include a "why it matters" section to clarify certain aspects stated in those threads that pertain to the issue at hand. The topic INSIDE OF THE THREADS on the forum posts were exactly pertinent.

If my submission is eligible for deletion then i'm unsure how anything gets published here. I seriously think the bot that looks over submissions needs refinement if it flags my submission like that. Also, realistically a submission page with form fields is the way to go for this. Normal people are not wiki site gurus and template perfect people. They will never use the site. I understand this is outside the scope of this particular message, but I think there are some people that have a very good grasp on wiki sites, template adherence, shortcuts, that completely confusing to a normal person cite page that gets linked and overall these people are flagging posts that normal people are trying to make. The average person that comes into contact with company issues that this site proclaims to want to address will not be able to abide by the standards of a wiki style submission process if this is the outcome of when they sincerely try to contribute. (Again, it should just be form fields and a submit button.)

Nevertheless, I am posting here as directed by the robot. [[Special:Contributions/66.191.58.153|66.191.58.153]] 09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

:On the off-topic remark (I do not know what your original submission was), I agree that the Visual editor UI could be a bit easier to use.
:Some important "Insert" items like Citations should not be under a "More" menu (Windows 11 right click vibes); it took me about 15 minutes to find a source and add my first proper citation despite being a somewhat tech-savvy person. (Although, I started here making '''edits''' and thus did not see the Citation "tutorial" within the Create an article page, only the
:There could also be a quick link(s) within the editor (like the ? button) to CRW's Wiki policy with helpful description like "Contains rules, writing guidelines and the mission statement to ensure the Wiki remains credible."
:In my opinion, starting to edit wikis really feels like booting up CS 1.6 as a first timer, going on multiplayer servers and getting 20 deaths in a row for not already knowing how to wallbang. This is okay for late night LAN parties, not so motivating when people make their first contribution and get edit summaries that aren't directly constructive in their email.
:Nevertheless I could be wrong on these points. I appreciate discussion and feedback. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 13:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
::There are a lot of quirks with MediaWiki in general (the software is 20 years old at this point), and especially for this new wiki that has a lot of bugs and UI stuff to work out. There's supposed to be a major UI haul within the next few months or so, so hopefully that will address some of these issues you mentioned.
::Ctrl+Shift+K is a keyboard shortcut for adding citations. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
:Hi. Which article specifically are you referring to? [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

==Spam articles==

I've checked [https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchFilter=13 Filter 13's log] and there seems to be a consistent stream of spam articles shown there. Should we block the users doing this? I assume so, but I want to be sure. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

:Normally, we would consider this, but the types of users that end up filling up this log tend to make several accounts at a time, making blocking effectively useless. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Question on wiki scope==

This wiki has a Legislation category, covering existing legislation.

I'd like to write up my ideas for things that could be considered for future legislation (as a matter of fact, I started: [[User:CorpoBlight/Product quality - and manufacturer incentives]]). But after I started, I began to wonder if it was in-scope for this wiki or not. If too far away from the preferred direction of this wiki, any suggestions for a different wiki where it would fit better? To be clear, I am ''not'' a lawyer. [[User:CorpoBlight|CorpoBlight]] ([[User talk:CorpoBlight|talk]]) 20:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

:This would be outside of scope for the wiki as personal opinion write ups or personal interpritations of law aren't really within scope. Please let us know if you have any other questions about this. - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 07:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal deletion of xbox==

[[Xbox]] was proposed for deletion based on its not having been edited in a long time. I think it should be kept. The Microsoft article has several items that would be appropriate for xbox. I have seen enough commentary on xbox and the direction it is going, etc. that I am sure there are sources out there to make a good article. There are a lot of pages that link to the page, so it is probably important.
Having stubs helps the wiki grow. Gives a place for people to expand. Gives reminders of, oh yeah, that thing. Creating a stub article is a pain, why should somebody have to do it again?
If people propose deletion just because something hasn't been worked on in a while, what do they want? Editors to periodically go around and touch every article they think is worthwhile? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hi, @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]], The Wiki tends to remove articles that have not been worked on in order to improve the perceived quality of the place. If you wish to fill in the article accordingly, I can gladly remove the deletion notice from the article for you. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 01:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Where is this policy documented/explained? There are several problems with the policy which I would like to be sure have been discussed, and I am interested in participating in the discussion.
::In this case the article has sat unmodified for at most 2 months. That seems absurdly short for a timeout.
::The policy feels very manipulative, "work on this or the article gets it." Xbox is not my priority, but it will probably be someones. It is a shame to lose what progress is made every time somebody has other things in their life.
::I have a few main interests (AI at the moment), but dabble in lots of other things. I would rather be free to improve things here and there as I feel. The policy plainly penalizes that work style.
::(The Mary Condo follower uses a hammer to put in a screw because the screwdriver did not bring them joy. The eclectic person uses a hammer to put in a screw because they can't find one of their dozens of screwdrivers among all their other tools.)
::In general this policy seems extremely short-sighted for the wiki. Why should I work on this wiki if anything I am working on will be deleted if I get busy for a couple of months, or after I move on to other things? So I will not adopt the xbox article, but I will try to advocate to extend protection for it and all the orphans, and thereby help grow the wiki.
::I have more to say, but will save it until I find what has been said and the right place to say it. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi, @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]], the Xbox article has been in an excessively unfinished state for more than a month. Policy generally states that we need to remove barely-developed articles after 1 month. Our general expectation is that if a user is going to create an article, that they at least fill in the framework within 1 week of creation, but we give extra leeway.
:::Of course, please remember that just because a page is deleted, it does not mean that it cannot be made again! [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] Where are these policies stated on the wiki?
::::I just looked through [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Wiki policy index]] and couldn't find anything there about the 1 month rule, nor the 1 week expectation. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 06:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I'd say there is a difference between starting an article, and literally just filling in the page creation form and nothing else. On the Xbox article, even just the amount of text you've added is enough for me to be happy leaving it as a stub instead of deleting it (and as such I have removed the deletion notice). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::I agree with both points. While the Create a Page flow suggest a standard for an acceptable article: "if you're not going to be able to get the very basics of a page created today (a basic statement of wht <nowiki>{{sic}}</nowiki> the article's about with a couple of references), it might be better to make a draft in your [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:How_to_use_your_user_space|user space]]." which suggest people disobeying the notice not reading due to the attention spans of today; I have to ask if there are measures that prevent or atleast warn articles being published with (1) no citations or (2) sections with template infoboxes. (I would verify this, but don't want to accidentally create a page as a result. If such a system isn't present yet it's understandable, probably harder than I imagine to implement it.) [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Hi, @[[User:Raster|Raster]], because the wiki is intended to allow users without accounts to create pages, we cannot design a system to remind them to work on their unfinished articles. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi @[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]], I don't mean "remind", I mean "prevent" like how one would disable a submit button in a webpage if some requirements are not met. Apologies for any unclear wording on my side [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hi, @[[User:Raster|Raster]], unfortunately this is not a system we can enforce without excessively modifying the codebase of MediaWiki. [[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG|talk]]) 03:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:JamesTDG|JamesTDG]], that's understandable. Thank you for the reply. I was going to suggest putting such a warning in the new page info boxes, but not sure where to put in a way people will actually read it. [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 03:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, to be a bit more specific, because pages are created through the form, a page will always be first created as an unfinished template. that's why we generally leave a day to allow newly submitted articles to be edited into their 'starting state' before worrying about article notices and so on. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Template "Userspace Draft" copied from wikipedia==

I tried to use the [[Template:Userspace draft|Userspace_draft]] template, only to find that it didn't exist. I started with the source of that template from wikipedia, updating the wording a bit and deleting quite a bit.

I commented out a chunk that caused an error "'''Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "[".'''" I couldn't see how the chunk in question could cause that error, so someone with more mediawiki template experience may wish to take a look. [[User:CorpoBlight|CorpoBlight]] ([[User talk:CorpoBlight|talk]]) 05:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==Warning: Prohibited words detected?==

It's telling me this, but it won't tell me what I've said wrong.

Can't save the page as a result. How can I find out what words are wrong so I can remove them. I can't find a list anywhere on the site + the error doesn't really tell me much. Also, the page I'm editing has a deletion request...but it will be fully populated with reference once I can edit and save my copy. Thanks in advance for your help. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.50.131|84.239.50.131]] 07:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:Hello, this is because of the abuse filter, which blocks edits it thinks are harmful. The edit it blocked you from sending seems completely fine and was a false positive, so I'll make the change on your behalf. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 07:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Hi, I'm also here because I ran afoul of this filter. My edit does affect about every line of the Article Suggestions table (it's an attempt at alphabetisation) so I can see it looking Big and Awful to an automatic filter! [[User:Neuropirate|Neuropirate]] ([[User talk:Neuropirate|talk]]) 23:10, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Done}} the edit and also confirmed you so you won’t have to deal with the filter that stopped you again. Also nice work putting it in alphabetical order! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you to @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] for getting the edit, but I just wanted to add that if you create an account, then after a few edits you won't need to worry about the filters or similar. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you to @[[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] as well.
::And you know @[[User:Keith|Keith]], you make a good point. This was kind of supposed to be a one time thing...but maybe it shouldn't be. I'll go ahead and register. [[Special:Contributions/84.239.50.131|84.239.50.131]] 16:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

==How does thanking edits work? Some questions;==

This is the first Wiki I've seen with such a cool and human feature, but I need to know if I'm using it correctly instead of just baffling everyone with how much I click them buttons in the Recent Changes page. So some questions:

#How public is "Publicly send thanks?" Does it appear anywhere else other than the Your notices section?
#Does it keep track of which edits have already been thanked? I see some that I have thanked acknowledge that upon a refresh, but most of the time I see the thank button appear again. In this case, does clicking it spam the person's notifications again? Or is this a browser cache issue?
#Assuming this is some sort of MediaWiki plugin, is it open source?

Personally I love my experience with it thus far, as I don't vibe with the idea of an online scoreboard. Thanks! [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 12:19, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

:1. It is mainly directed straight to the user being thanked, but if you go to [[Special:Log/thanks]], there is a thanks log there.
:2. I think you can spam notifications by thanking different edits, but I don’t think you can thank twice.
:3. It is a MediaWiki plugin, I think that it is after looking at [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Thanks the page for it]. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal tone notice - Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if Powershare feature is used==

I believe [[Tesla Cybertruck voids warranty if Powershare feature is used|the article's]] wording now fits within [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines#Use of tone|the guidelines]]. If there are still areas that need improvement tone-wise, do mention what they are. Thank you for your time [[User:Raster|Raster]] ([[User talk:Raster|talk]]) 08:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:Done! Thanks for improving the article! [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal tone notice-Electronic Arts==

I believe that the [[Electronic arts|article]] fits under the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Editorial guidelines#Use of tone|guidelines]]. If it does, please mention what they are. [[User:Beef|Beef]] ([[User talk:Beef|talk]]) 13:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} sorry for delay! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

==note for someone who can modify the localsettings.php file to jump at==

Although it has 'bot' flag, NewUserMessage still shows up in recent changes. I did a bit of digging and found out that all you need to fix it is a line in the localsettings.php file. Setting <code>$wgNewUserSuppressRC</code> to <code>true</code> should do the trick.

Also, just found before posting that to substitute the template (something I suggested earlier), putting any text in page <code>[[MediaWiki:Newusermessage-substitute]]‎</code> should do the trick (which will keep the message the same as when it was posted even when the template itself is updated, like doing it manually instead of via a template). [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

:This would be something that needs to be passed on to our tech folks. I'll let them know this exists - [[User:Atsumari|Atsumari]] ([[User talk:Atsumari|talk]]) 07:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

==Possible solution for hiding IPs?==

IPs have been shown for editing since the start of wikis, but it isn’t private for the IP users, and also Wikipedia is changing that now with temporary accounts. They will instead put it behind a random username, of sorts, that looks kinda like this: ~2025-8371-275. This is also viewable by the ‘temporary account IP viewer’ right or if users are CheckUsers (which I’m pretty sure isn't on the Wiki right now). This is also coming VERY soon, in 4 or so days on the English Wikipedia I think, so it can be implemented quickly. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 06:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

:Ok nice, if this comes out via mediawiki, hopefully we can just get it patched into the wiki [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

==Strangeness - Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Rules==

@[[User:Mr Pollo|Mr Pollo]] @[[User:Keith|Keith]]On the [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Rules]] if I click on the discussion tab it takes me to [[Consumer Rights Wiki talk:Code of conduct]]. The content looks similar to the rules, but it is a talk page for a non-existent article.
Looking at the history, it looks like something that needs to be fixed by an admin who knows what was going on and which one is the real rules.
Since neither one looks like a talk page, thought better to mention it here. Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 05:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} Hey I can delete articles too! [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::Wait nevermind, I only deleted the redirect. I’m not sure what the code of conduct is about? I’ll move it out of talk namespace anyway. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Note for mods: Page now located at [[Project:Code of conduct]] [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 16:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Thanks! [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you, but this still leaves a confusing situation, where the (now orphaned) [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Code of conduct]] looks like an official policy, but it says different things than [[Consumer Rights Wiki:Rules]].
::::Please either:
::::#put a disclaimer box on it saying readers should ignore it (it is a draft).
::::#Move it to a namespace that makes it obvious that it isn't official (e.g. part of somebodies user page).
::::#If it isn't needed anymore, delete it (or blank the contents if want to keep the history).
::::#Protect it so only moderators can see it.
::::#Do something else to make it clear to the casual reader what its status is, and where to find the official version.
::::Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

==Who made the CRW logo?==

just curious lol [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 20:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

==Appeal deletion - Amazon fraudulent product page==

The article [[Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review]] has a deletion request that says "old aigen article that has not seen any use."

The article
#Has several paragraphs of meaningful content (not a stub).
#Has several references
#Is about an issue that I have heard of and seems noteworthy (Fraud against consumers by one of the largest retailers in the US).

What exactly are the criteria that this article violates that it should be deleted?
*The "seen any use" seems to indicate that there is some criterion on how much people read an article, which this one hasn't met. What is the use benchmark articles have to pass? How can we see how much use an article gets?
*AI generated - how is this determined? I have skimmed the article, it doesn't seem overly painful to read. (It isn't Kippling or Hemmingway, but it isn't bureaucrateese either.)

I am appealing the deletion of this article, since it meets all the inclusion criteria of which I am aware.
If there are policies that it violates, which are not spelled out in the rules, please spell them out.
Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:The "has not seen any use" bit is something I usually add to articles if it hasn't been edited, but there is no guideline on it. AIgen is shown to me partly because loads of info was suddenly added. I do have to admit though that it doesn't make much sense and if nothing happens to it in a year or 2 maybe it'll get deleted then? I'll remove the deletionreq. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

==What does the AI/LLM template mean?==

(Note, this question was prompted by [[ Amazon allows fraudulent product page after manual review]] and other articles.)
I feel generally uncomfortable with the LLM tag, because I can't figure out what it means. (I have seen it added to various articles, for no readily apparent reason.) All I can figure so far is that it seems like a particularly insulting way of saying that the tagger doesn't like somebodies writing style. (I strongly object to the overuse of LLMs, saying one writes like one is dehumanizing in the extreme.)

If adding that tag is based on a particular tool, then it would help to have the tool called out so one could experiment and learn how to appease the tool.

There are readability and grammar assistance tools (not recent AI garbage, but reliable old-style programs, like Grammatic), perhaps a link to such tools might be useful to add to the template?

It might help if the adder of the AI/LLM template were required to add specifics about what they find problematic. (Are there inaccuracies, is it use of particular words, is it cliched or verbose, ...) Thanks. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:the SloppyAI tag is basically just if its fully/mostly AI generated, not based on tools and just at the adder's discretion. It's my least favorite template though, and I should probably rework the wording and add an issue part like the one in the Incomplete notice. I'll keep your ideas in mind if/when I do it. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 14:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:The AI notice is primarily for quality troll - whether it means the references haven't been vetted, or the content hasn't been vetted, or even if the content itself is too "AI-sounding" that it can deter readers. It's a great notice to have because it means the content is still relevant but may require editing to be up to quality standards. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

CursorAI adds rate limits to unlimited plans

2025-11-06T16:10:49Z

Beanie Bo:

{{Incomplete}}

Cursor AI silently changed their ''"unlimited"'' Pro plan to severely rate-limited without notice, locking users out after 3-7 requests & forcing them to upgrade to regain functionality.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Developer Reports Cursor AI Plan Change and Lockouts |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

==Background==
Cursor AI, a developer-focused AI code assistant, marketed its $20/month Pro plan with "Unlimited Agent Requests,"<ref>{{Cite web |title=Cursor Pricing Page Archive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250222054643/https://www.cursor.com/en/pricing |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref> targeting professional developers who depend on advanced models like [[Anthropic]] Claude 4 Sonnet for coding workflows. The service was sold as a premium development tool that provides reliable access to frontier AI models for professional software development.

After introducing an Unlimited Pro plan, a hidden Pro+ upgrade, and higher-priced Ultra Plan in mid-June 2025<ref>{{Cite web |title=Clarifying June 16 Pro Changes |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/clarifying-june-16-pro-changes/111740 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>, shortly after Cursor quietly changed the Pro plan description from ''"Unlimited Agent Requests" to "Unlimited Agent Requests *Usage Limits Apply for some models"'' and again early July to ''"Extended limits on agent"'' without clarifying actual limits or notifying existing customers. The company implemented a system based on "$20+ of model inference" allowance but provided no tools for users to track consumption against this limit.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Cursor Community Discussion: No Usage Tracking |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/18 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
[[File:Initial Unlimited Pricing.png|thumb|200x200px]]

==Service Degradation and Consumer Exploitation==
===Silent Plan Changes===
Days after June 16, 2025, launch, Cursor quietly walked back ''"Unlimited Agent Requests"''

*Added on asterisks to the unlimited messaging ''"Unlimited Agent Requests *Usage Limits Apply for some models"''

On June 16, 2025, Cursor AI pushed through large changes to their Pro Plan terms without properly notifying customers:<ref>{{Cite web |title=Clarifying June 16 Pro Changes |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/clarifying-june-16-pro-changes/111740 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

*Changed "Unlimited Agent Requests" to "Extended limits on agent" on pricing page
*Implemented usage limits based on vague ''"$20+ of model inference"'' allowance
*Introduced harsh rate limiting with reset periods described only as ''"5-24 hours"''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Cursor Documentation on Rate Limits |url=https://docs.cursor.com/rate-limits |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>[[File:Updated Unlimited Pricing.png|thumb|200x200px]][[File:July 03, 2025, Updated Pricing.png|thumb|223x223px]]
*Removed transparency features that would allow users to track usage against limits<ref>{{Cite web |title=User Complaints About Lack of Usage Dashboard |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/20 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

===User Impact===
Users began experiencing unexpected rate limiting with minimal usage:

*Users reported being rate limited after few requests to Claude 4 Sonnet
*Rate limits lasted 5-24 hours despite documentation claiming ''"every few hours"'' reset periods<ref>{{Cite web |title=User Report: 26 Hour Rate Limit |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/45 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*No advance warning when approaching limits or specific indication of when the limits would reset
*Dashboard showed usage events but no dollar consumption tracking against monthly allowance
*Sudden transitions from ''"included in Pro"'' usage to expensive pay-as-you-go billing without warning.

===Suppression of Customer Complaints===
The company suppressed customer complaints:

*AI moderation system repeatedly hid customer complaint threads from public view<ref>{{Cite web |title=Reports of Forum Shadowbans |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/48 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Professional, well-documented complaints became unsearchable on the forum<ref>{{Cite web |title=Forum Thread Hidden By Moderation |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/48 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Staff dismissed documented evidence as ''"conspiracy theories"''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Dismissal of Complaints |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/60 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Multiple threads documenting the issues were shadow-banned or made invisible to new users

==Cursor's response==
===Initial denial & suppression===
Cursor AI's initial responses were inadequate & dismissive:

*Customer support provided canned responses that ignored specific questions about timing & usage numbers<ref>{{Cite web |title=Template Support Responses |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/62 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Staff members dismissed user concerns as ''"conspiracy theories"'' despite documented evidence<ref>{{Cite web |title=Staff Responses to Rate Limit Complaints |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/43 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*AI moderation system continued hiding customer complaint threads<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ongoing Forum Suppression |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/37 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

===Official Damage Control Response===
On July 5, 2025, facing overwhelming cross-platform pressure, Cursor AI published a blog post acknowledging the issues:

*Admitted that ''"unlimited usage"'' was misleading and only applied to inferior Auto mode, not direct model access<ref>{{Cite web |title=Cursor Clarifies Misleading Unlimited Claims |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/clarifying-june-16-pro-changes/111740 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Clarified that Pro plan includes approximately 225 Sonnet 4 requests per month (down from previously advertised unlimited)
*Offered full refunds for unexpected charges between June 16 and July 4, 2025
*Updated documentation to provide more specific limit information, though still vague on reset timing

===Continued Problems===
Even after the official response, fundamental issues remained unresolved:

*Users continued experiencing rate limiting after just 3 prompts despite documentation claiming 225 requests/month
*Reset timing described vaguely as ''"5-24 hours"'' with no guarantees (''"best-effort basis"'')
*No real-time usage tracking implementation to help users manage consumption
*[[File:Forum screenshot.jpg|thumb|Forum user doing math to demonstrate how cursor is 29x worse than claude]]Value proposition remained significantly worse than competitors (29:1 ratio disadvantage)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Comparison with Competitors |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/64 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
===Cross-Platform Documentation===
The consumer backlash spread to multiple platforms:

*A detailed 51-page forum thread documented user experiences with screenshots, usage data, and technical analysis<ref>{{Cite web |title=Pro Plan Rate Limit Transparency Issues - Cursor Forum |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*[[File:X post on cursorai.jpg|thumb|twitter post from disgruntled customer of cursorai]]Hundreds of complaints across Twitter/X from developers worldwide experiencing identical issues<ref>{{Cite web |title=Developer Complaints on Twitter |url=https://x.com/0ni_x4/status/1940885976127283342 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Community-maintained archives created due to forum censorship and thread hiding<ref>{{Cite web |title=Archive of Hidden Threads |url=https://archive.is/QDnSS |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Reddit discussions confirming the same problems across the user base<ref>{{Cite web |title=Reddit User Reports on Cursor Rate Limits |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/cursor/comments/1lqvl21/cursor_12_and_claude_4_sonnet_rate_limit_is_this/ |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

===User Actions===
Affected consumers took direct action:

*Mass cancellations of annual subscriptions with refund requests<ref>{{Cite web |title=User Reports Cancellations |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/83 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Migration to transparent alternatives like Claude Code Pro '''(which offered 29x better value)'''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Discussion on Switching to Competitors |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/85 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Organized documentation efforts to preserve evidence of service changes<ref>{{Cite web |title=User Documentation Efforts |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/87 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Cross-platform pressure campaign that ultimately forced the company's official response<ref>{{Cite web |title=Pressure Leading to Official Response |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/clarifying-june-16-pro-changes/111740 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Users sharing workarounds like reverting to "legacy pricing" where available<ref>{{Cite web |title=Users Reverting to Legacy Pricing |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/90 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

===Consumer Impact===
CursorAI's actions seriously disrupted pro developer's workflows:

*Developers experienced sudden 26-hour lockouts during critical project work
*Users forced to switch to inferior Auto mode or stop their dev work completely
*Anxiety around usage due to unpredictable enforcement & billing<ref>{{Cite web |title=User Anxiety Over Enforcement |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/95 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Loss of confidence in service reliability for professional development work
*Financial pressure to upgrade to $60+ plans to regain previously advertised functionality

===Community Sentiment===
Documented consumer sentiment included:

*Accusations of '''"rug-pull"''' & bait-and-switch tactic.
*Comparisons to "snake oil salesmen" and predatory business practices<ref>{{Cite web |title=Snake Oil Comparisons |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/83 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Calls for transparency in billing and usage tracking
*Demands for honest marketing that doesn't rely on technical loopholes
*Recognition that the incident represented broader anti-consumer trends in AI services

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Cursor]]
[[Category:Artificial intelligence]]

CursorAI "unlimited" plan rug pull

2025-11-06T16:10:13Z

Beanie Bo: Beanie Bo moved page CursorAI "unlimited" plan rug pull to CursorAI adds rate limits to unlimited plans: specificity

#REDIRECT [[CursorAI adds rate limits to unlimited plans]]

CursorAI adds rate limits to unlimited plans

2025-11-06T16:10:12Z

Beanie Bo: Beanie Bo moved page CursorAI "unlimited" plan rug pull to CursorAI adds rate limits to unlimited plans: specificity

Cursor AI silently changed their ''"unlimited"'' Pro plan to severely rate-limited without notice, locking users out after 3-7 requests & forcing them to upgrade to regain functionality.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Developer Reports Cursor AI Plan Change and Lockouts |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

==Background==
Cursor AI, a developer-focused AI code assistant, marketed its $20/month Pro plan with "Unlimited Agent Requests,"<ref>{{Cite web |title=Cursor Pricing Page Archive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250222054643/https://www.cursor.com/en/pricing |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref> targeting professional developers who depend on advanced models like [[Anthropic]] Claude 4 Sonnet for coding workflows. The service was sold as a premium development tool that provides reliable access to frontier AI models for professional software development.

After introducing an Unlimited Pro plan, a hidden Pro+ upgrade, and higher-priced Ultra Plan in mid-June 2025<ref>{{Cite web |title=Clarifying June 16 Pro Changes |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/clarifying-june-16-pro-changes/111740 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>, shortly after Cursor quietly changed the Pro plan description from ''"Unlimited Agent Requests" to "Unlimited Agent Requests *Usage Limits Apply for some models"'' and again early July to ''"Extended limits on agent"'' without clarifying actual limits or notifying existing customers. The company implemented a system based on "$20+ of model inference" allowance but provided no tools for users to track consumption against this limit.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Cursor Community Discussion: No Usage Tracking |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/18 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
[[File:Initial Unlimited Pricing.png|thumb|200x200px]]

==Service Degradation and Consumer Exploitation==
===Silent Plan Changes===
Days after June 16, 2025, launch, Cursor quietly walked back ''"Unlimited Agent Requests"''

*Added on asterisks to the unlimited messaging ''"Unlimited Agent Requests *Usage Limits Apply for some models"''

On June 16, 2025, Cursor AI pushed through large changes to their Pro Plan terms without properly notifying customers:<ref>{{Cite web |title=Clarifying June 16 Pro Changes |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/clarifying-june-16-pro-changes/111740 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

*Changed "Unlimited Agent Requests" to "Extended limits on agent" on pricing page
*Implemented usage limits based on vague ''"$20+ of model inference"'' allowance
*Introduced harsh rate limiting with reset periods described only as ''"5-24 hours"''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Cursor Documentation on Rate Limits |url=https://docs.cursor.com/rate-limits |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>[[File:Updated Unlimited Pricing.png|thumb|200x200px]][[File:July 03, 2025, Updated Pricing.png|thumb|223x223px]]
*Removed transparency features that would allow users to track usage against limits<ref>{{Cite web |title=User Complaints About Lack of Usage Dashboard |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/20 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

===User Impact===
Users began experiencing unexpected rate limiting with minimal usage:

*Users reported being rate limited after few requests to Claude 4 Sonnet
*Rate limits lasted 5-24 hours despite documentation claiming ''"every few hours"'' reset periods<ref>{{Cite web |title=User Report: 26 Hour Rate Limit |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/45 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*No advance warning when approaching limits or specific indication of when the limits would reset
*Dashboard showed usage events but no dollar consumption tracking against monthly allowance
*Sudden transitions from ''"included in Pro"'' usage to expensive pay-as-you-go billing without warning.

===Suppression of Customer Complaints===
The company suppressed customer complaints:

*AI moderation system repeatedly hid customer complaint threads from public view<ref>{{Cite web |title=Reports of Forum Shadowbans |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/48 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Professional, well-documented complaints became unsearchable on the forum<ref>{{Cite web |title=Forum Thread Hidden By Moderation |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/48 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Staff dismissed documented evidence as ''"conspiracy theories"''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Dismissal of Complaints |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/60 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Multiple threads documenting the issues were shadow-banned or made invisible to new users

==Cursor's response==
===Initial denial & suppression===
Cursor AI's initial responses were inadequate & dismissive:

*Customer support provided canned responses that ignored specific questions about timing & usage numbers<ref>{{Cite web |title=Template Support Responses |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/62 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Staff members dismissed user concerns as ''"conspiracy theories"'' despite documented evidence<ref>{{Cite web |title=Staff Responses to Rate Limit Complaints |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/43 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*AI moderation system continued hiding customer complaint threads<ref>{{Cite web |title=Ongoing Forum Suppression |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/37 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

===Official Damage Control Response===
On July 5, 2025, facing overwhelming cross-platform pressure, Cursor AI published a blog post acknowledging the issues:

*Admitted that ''"unlimited usage"'' was misleading and only applied to inferior Auto mode, not direct model access<ref>{{Cite web |title=Cursor Clarifies Misleading Unlimited Claims |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/clarifying-june-16-pro-changes/111740 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Clarified that Pro plan includes approximately 225 Sonnet 4 requests per month (down from previously advertised unlimited)
*Offered full refunds for unexpected charges between June 16 and July 4, 2025
*Updated documentation to provide more specific limit information, though still vague on reset timing

===Continued Problems===
Even after the official response, fundamental issues remained unresolved:

*Users continued experiencing rate limiting after just 3 prompts despite documentation claiming 225 requests/month
*Reset timing described vaguely as ''"5-24 hours"'' with no guarantees (''"best-effort basis"'')
*No real-time usage tracking implementation to help users manage consumption
*[[File:Forum screenshot.jpg|thumb|Forum user doing math to demonstrate how cursor is 29x worse than claude]]Value proposition remained significantly worse than competitors (29:1 ratio disadvantage)<ref>{{Cite web |title=Comparison with Competitors |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/64 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
===Cross-Platform Documentation===
The consumer backlash spread to multiple platforms:

*A detailed 51-page forum thread documented user experiences with screenshots, usage data, and technical analysis<ref>{{Cite web |title=Pro Plan Rate Limit Transparency Issues - Cursor Forum |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*[[File:X post on cursorai.jpg|thumb|twitter post from disgruntled customer of cursorai]]Hundreds of complaints across Twitter/X from developers worldwide experiencing identical issues<ref>{{Cite web |title=Developer Complaints on Twitter |url=https://x.com/0ni_x4/status/1940885976127283342 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Community-maintained archives created due to forum censorship and thread hiding<ref>{{Cite web |title=Archive of Hidden Threads |url=https://archive.is/QDnSS |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Reddit discussions confirming the same problems across the user base<ref>{{Cite web |title=Reddit User Reports on Cursor Rate Limits |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/cursor/comments/1lqvl21/cursor_12_and_claude_4_sonnet_rate_limit_is_this/ |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

===User Actions===
Affected consumers took direct action:

*Mass cancellations of annual subscriptions with refund requests<ref>{{Cite web |title=User Reports Cancellations |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/83 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Migration to transparent alternatives like Claude Code Pro '''(which offered 29x better value)'''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Discussion on Switching to Competitors |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/85 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Organized documentation efforts to preserve evidence of service changes<ref>{{Cite web |title=User Documentation Efforts |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/87 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Cross-platform pressure campaign that ultimately forced the company's official response<ref>{{Cite web |title=Pressure Leading to Official Response |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/clarifying-june-16-pro-changes/111740 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Users sharing workarounds like reverting to "legacy pricing" where available<ref>{{Cite web |title=Users Reverting to Legacy Pricing |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/90 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>

===Consumer Impact===
CursorAI's actions seriously disrupted pro developer's workflows:

*Developers experienced sudden 26-hour lockouts during critical project work
*Users forced to switch to inferior Auto mode or stop their dev work completely
*Anxiety around usage due to unpredictable enforcement & billing<ref>{{Cite web |title=User Anxiety Over Enforcement |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/95 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Loss of confidence in service reliability for professional development work
*Financial pressure to upgrade to $60+ plans to regain previously advertised functionality

===Community Sentiment===
Documented consumer sentiment included:

*Accusations of '''"rug-pull"''' & bait-and-switch tactic.
*Comparisons to "snake oil salesmen" and predatory business practices<ref>{{Cite web |title=Snake Oil Comparisons |url=https://forum.cursor.com/t/pro-plan-rate-limit-transparency-issues-need-specific-usage-details/113028/83 |access-date=2025-07-05}}</ref>
*Calls for transparency in billing and usage tracking
*Demands for honest marketing that doesn't rely on technical loopholes
*Recognition that the incident represented broader anti-consumer trends in AI services

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Cursor]]
[[Category:Artificial intelligence]]

Talk:List of discontinued online-only video games

2025-11-06T16:07:01Z

Beanie Bo: /* Question */ Reply

==Question==

Does the ouya belong on here? What about other companies? [[User:D1Googlehater|D1Googlehater]] ([[User talk:D1Googlehater|talk]]) 00:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, any studio can be put on. The ones listed are just examples and a few of the most popular [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Yahoo! mandatory use of AI on all consumer services and content

2025-11-06T16:04:42Z

Beanie Bo: /* No actual opt-out */ Reply

==No actual opt-out==

When Yahoo! implemented this change to the Terms of Service, the only provision to decline was to close the customer account. However, it was not possible to have done so before the data was already shared due to the date of implementation versus notification of the change. [[User:Lightningpgtt|Lightningpgtt]] ([[User talk:Lightningpgtt|talk]]) 00:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

:Why not write this on the article itself? [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 14:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
::The user probably misunderstood how talk pages work and/or thought this wasn't a special space. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Added to main article page. [[User:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|AnotherConsumerRightsPerson]] ([[User talk:AnotherConsumerRightsPerson|talk]]) 17:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I see it often where users add incident details in the Save page comment, but leave the page completely empty with only placeholders. I don't know why that happens, and I usually assume some AI trickery, though it happens a lot. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 16:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:PEAK (video game)

2025-11-06T15:56:22Z

Beanie Bo: /* Relevance */ new section

== Relevance ==

If there is a whole page already outlining the change in terms, why do we need an article for one specific game (which has no content other than the terms update)? [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 15:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

PEAK (video game)

2025-11-06T15:55:45Z

Beanie Bo:

{{Irrelevant}}

Peak is a cooperative climbing video game developed and published by Aggro Crab and Landfall for Windows on 16 June 2025. {{ProductCargo
|Company=Landfall Games AB
|ProductLine=PEAK (game)
|ReleaseYear=2025
|InProduction=Yes
|ArticleType=Product
|Category=Video Games
|Website=https://landfall.se/peak
}}
==Consumer-impact summary==
{{Ph-C-CIS}}

==Incidents==
{{Ph-C-Inc}}
This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents related to this product. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].

===[[PEAK "Roots" Update|"Roots" Update]]===
On 5 November 2025, an update was rolled out on Steam that required users who wanted to continue playing the game to agree to an extensive EULA. The EULA contains many clauses that are detrimental to users and may not be legal in certain jurisdictions (such as the UK and EU). Specific clauses of concern include:

*Unilateral Right to Disable or Terminate Access Without Notice or Refund
*No Refunds for Fees Paid in Advance
*Mandatory Updates and Loss of Access for Non-Compliance
*Broad Disclaimer of Warranties and Liability
*Unilateral Modification of the EULA
*Arbitration and Class Action Waiver
*One-Year Limitation on Claims
*Broad Indemnification Requirements
*Governing Law and Jurisdiction

===Example incident two (''date'')===
...

==See also==
{{Ph-C-SA}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Talk:MyFitnessPal regressive upgrade

2025-11-06T15:52:09Z

Beanie Bo: Beanie Bo moved page Talk:MyFitnesspal regressive upgrade to Talk:MyFitnessPal regressive upgrade: P

==To what extent is this anti-consumer, vs just being a skill issue from the company?==

There's a good level of detail here (and i've removed the stub notice as such) but having read through it I'm left wondering to what extent this is an anti-consumer issue as opposed to a simple case of a product update being bad. it doesn't sound like they are refusing refunds, or otherwise doing anything beyond pushing a bad update (and moving free features to paid is also not really anti-consumer on account of free users not having paid anything in the first place).

I suppose the strongest case for this article's relevance is that subscribers had something they bought made worse by the company after they bought it (although presumably the users would actually be expecting the service to change, just only in ways they liked) but this is weakened on account of it being a subscription rather than a purchase. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 18:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Keith,
:I haven't finished it yet - I suffer from quite severe health conditions so I have to work on it iteratively.
:Yes I agree the first pass it's not obvious what the consumer abuse is. It leans too far into "I didn't like the update"
:I will be working on that to fix it - the issue is squarely that they rug pulled critical features that paid long term subscribers depend on, without which their workflow becomes not just hard, actually completely impossible.. so they are stuck sitting on their thumbs, unable to use the product while the dev team says "please wait"
:So a paid service has suddenly become completely unusable - due to removed required features, and an interface that is so sluggish that it is literally not usable.. like its not slow.. it's unusable - and then the support team just gaslights, and refuses refunds.
:You can see my own report for that:
:https://mdbin.pages.dev/2hkttm [[User:Jmorgannz|Jmorgannz]] ([[User talk:Jmorgannz|talk]]) 22:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
:Being weakened on account of it being a subscription - this is annual for many.
:This is part of the core issue. They have retracted core functionality and then people have actually prepaid for up to 12 months, and are being refused refunds. [[User:Jmorgannz|Jmorgannz]] ([[User talk:Jmorgannz|talk]]) 22:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
:I have updated the article to forefront the core consumer rights breaches. [[User:Jmorgannz|Jmorgannz]] ([[User talk:Jmorgannz|talk]]) 00:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

MyFitnessPal regressive upgrade

2025-11-06T15:52:08Z

Beanie Bo: Beanie Bo moved page MyFitnesspal regressive upgrade to MyFitnessPal regressive upgrade: P

{{IncidentCargo
|StartDate=2025-10-03
|EndDate=2025
|Status=Active
|ArticleType=Service
|Description=MyFitnessPal forced an unannounced update on it's paid subscribers that retracted functionality and is unusable due to performance issues.
}}
In October 2025, MyFitnessPal began rolling out a mandatory update for its mobile application, marketed as the "brand new Today tab."<ref name="help-article-intro">{{cite web |title=Introducing the brand new Today tab! |url=https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/39985611667341-Introducing-the-brand-new-Today-tab |website=MyFitnessPal Help |date=2025-10-03 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref> The update was met with widespread criticism from users, who reported that the new version was slow, difficult to use, and missing core functionality. The company also used the update to move a previously free feature behind its Premium subscription tier.<ref name="forum-announcement-test">{{cite web |title=Exciting News: A New Food Diary is Coming Soon! |url=https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10945729/exciting-news-a-new-food-diary-is-coming-soon |website=MyFitnessPal Community |date=2025-08-27 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref>

==Background==
MyFitnessPal is a popular application for tracking diet and exercise. For years, paying subscribers used a stable version of the app with a consistent feature set. Many users integrated the app into their daily health routines.<ref name="report"/>

On August 27, 2025, MyFitnessPal staff announced a "brand-new Food Diary page" and invited users to test the new design. User feedback on the announcement thread was overwhelmingly negative.<ref name="forum-announcement-test"/> Users criticized the inefficient design, with one commenting that it was a "terrible UI design that makes it harder to track" due to excessive scrolling.<ref name="forum-announcement-test"/> Another noted that positive features like "good visual separation between meals... have all been removed from the new layout."<ref name="forum-announcement-test"/>

During this test phase, users discovered that the macro percentage pie chart, a core free feature, had been removed. After contacting support, one user confirmed the company's intention was to "[remove] this FREE feature and will allow you to hover over the new macro bar to see the macro percentage with a PAID subscription."<ref name="forum-announcement-test"/>

Despite the feedback, MyFitnessPal staff indicated they would proceed with the changes, posting on October 3 that they would "be making changes over the next few weeks" based on feedback, just before the full rollout began.<ref name="forum-announcement-test"/>

==Incident==
Starting around October 3, 2025, MyFitnessPal began forcing the update on its user base.<ref name="help-article-intro"/> The official announcement on October 15 described the update as a "thoughtfully reorganized for a better user experience" and a response to a "long standing feature request."<ref name="forum-announcement-rollout">{{cite web |title=Introducing the Brand New _Today_ Tab! |url=https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10950333/introducing-the-brand-new-today-tab |website=MyFitnessPal Community |date=2025-10-15 |access-date=2025-11-05}</ref> The comments section for this announcement was closed, preventing public discussion.<ref name="forum-announcement-rollout"/>
The announcement, also posted to the official subreddit, stated that the update "brings a redesigned interface to help you navigate your daily health journey more seamlessly."<ref name="reddit-announcement-rollout">{{cite web |title=Introducing the Brand New "Today" Tab! |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1o7l6iz/introducing_the_brand_new_today_tab/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-15 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref>

The update removed several key features, including:<ref name="help-article-intro"/>
*Copying meals from previous days
*Intermittent Fasting tracking
*Custom Nutrient goals
*Diary Notes

To compound user frustration, the new interface for paying subscribers included a persistent advertisement to upgrade to a new "Premium+" subscription tier.<ref name="report"/> The company also moved the ability to view macronutrient percentages, a previously free feature, behind its Premium paywall.<ref name="help-article-intro"/>
Users have reported that the update is "very sluggish" and that "switching days takes seconds, adding food takes seconds, etc."<ref name="reddit-sluggish">{{cite web |title=New update very sluggish /u/lidomerk |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1oizha1/new_update_very_sluggish/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-29 |access-date=2025-11-03}}</ref>
Other users reported that the app would freeze entirely, forcing them to use the desktop website to log their food.<ref name="reddit-buggy">{{cite web |title=This app is so buggy |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1nrk6fu/this_app_is_so_buggy/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-09-27 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref>
==MyFitnessPal's Response==
MyFitnessPal's official communications framed the update as an improvement based on user feedback, despite the negative reception during the public testing period.<ref name="help-article-intro"/> The company acknowledged the removal of features but offered only vague promises for their return, stating they were "being rebuilt" or "will be available again soon."<ref name="help-article-intro"/> For the removed "Copy Meals" feature, the company suggested a cumbersome workaround that did not replicate the original functionality, a suggestion users found unhelpful.<ref name="reddit-copy-workaround-fail">{{cite web |title=New MyFitnessPal layout sucks — can’t copy meals anymore?? |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1o6ntd5/new_myfitnesspal_layout_sucks_cant_copy_meals/njojfho/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-15 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref> One user reported that the workaround did not work at all, with the app incorrectly calculating calories.<ref name="reddit-copy-workaround-broken">{{cite web |title=Introducing the Brand New "Today" Tab! |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1o7l6iz/introducing_the_brand_new_today_tab/njor2yg/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-15 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref>

===Breach of Service for Paying Customers===
The central issue for many paying customers is the removal of core functionality they had paid for, combined with the company's refusal to provide a remedy.
For these users, this was not a matter of preference; the update made the app unusable for the purpose for which they had subscribed.

====Refusal to Roll Back====
The company has been definitive that it will not roll back the change. In response to the question "Can I go back to the old design?", the official FAQ states, "The new Today interface is our path forward... We encourage you to give it some time."<ref name="help-article-intro"/> This stance is maintained despite user reports indicating that the old interface remains accessible within the app's code via a feature flag, suggesting a rollback is technically simple. Some users have even reported that unsubscribing from the paid service reverts the app to the old, functional interface.<ref name="report"/>

====Refusal to Refund====
MyFitnessPal has offered refunds to some recently subscribed users but has denied them to long-term annual subscribers, citing a policy that limits refunds to the current billing period.<ref name="premium-plus-article">{{cite web |title=Premium + |url=https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/34347930588557-Premium |website=MyFitnessPal Help |date=2025-10-30 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref> This has left many users who paid for a year of service with a product that no longer meets their needs and no recourse for a refund for the remaining subscription period. However, some users have reported successfully obtaining refunds by circumventing MyFitnessPal's support and requesting them directly through their device's app store, such as Google Play.<ref name="reddit-refund">{{cite web |title=I got a refund |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1o7qhj3/i_got_a_refund/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-16 |access-date=2025-11-03}}</ref>

====Misleading Communications====
Contradicting the significance of the changes, the official App Store release notes for the update (version 25.10.2) stated, "No big fixes or changes to report!" This led users to question the company's transparency regarding the disruptive rollout.<ref name="reddit-explain">{{cite web |title=Explain This |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1o8mfev/explain_this/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-17 |access-date=2025-11-03}}</ref> The company's official "Known Issues" pages for its Android and iOS apps also make no mention of the widespread complaints regarding removed features or poor usability.<ref name="known-issues-android">{{cite web |title=Known Issues: Android App |url=https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032274332-Known-Issues-Android-App |website=MyFitnessPal Help |date=2025-11-01 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref><ref name="known-issues-ios">{{cite web |title=Known Issues: iOS App |url=https://support.myfitnesspal.com/hc/en-us/articles/360032274552-Known-Issues-iOS-App |website=MyFitnessPal Help |date=2025-11-01 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref>

====Prepaid Subscribers Left with No Recourse====
The combination of the policies and choices outlined above unexpectedly left prepaid subscribers with no recourse, having already paid for a service which now did not perform the function they subscribed for, with MyFitnessPal refusing to provide an immediate technical remedy, and also refusing to refund consumers for the loss of functionality they had prepaid for.

==Consumer Response==
During the test phase, users expressed frustration that their feedback was being ignored, with one user asking, "Why go ahead with this change when you've had quite literally no positive feedback so far?"<ref name="forum-announcement-test"/> Another noted that the company had attempted a similar unpopular redesign in the past and had to revert it, asking, "Did they not read the forum from the last time they tried to change it and had to change it back because it was so bad??!!"<ref name="forum-announcement-test"/>

Following the mandatory rollout, the consumer backlash intensified on social media platforms. Many users, some of whom have used the app for several years, feel that critical functionality was removed without warning, disrupting their health management routines. The company's response has been described by some as "gaslighting," as support channels allegedly blame user devices or deflect criticism by creating support tickets that go unresolved.<ref name="report">{{cite web |title=User Report on MyFitnessPal Update | url=https://mdbin.pages.dev/2hkttm |website=MdBin |date=2025-11-03 |access-date=2025-11-03}}</ref>

Users on the company's official subreddit challenged the claim that the update was a "long standing feature request," with one asking, "Who, exactly, asked for all these changes?"<ref name="reddit-announcement-rollout"/> Another user criticized the decision to release an incomplete product: "If features that people use aren't ready for your upgrade, then the upgrade isn't ready."<ref name="reddit-announcement-rollout"/> One commenter stated, "MyFitnessPal needs to literally revert to the old build before all this new crap happened. Exactly zero people asked for any of this."<ref name="reddit-revert-build">{{cite web |title=Chronometer is… |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1oeddh7/chronometer_is/nl3ld4g/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-22 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref> The update's negative reputation was so widespread that users who had not yet received it posted screenshots of the old interface, asking if they had the "version everyone hates." Other users would confirm they were still on the old version and warn them not to update, with one commenting, "I wish I could go back."<ref name="reddit-version-hate">{{cite web |title=Is this the version everyone hates? |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1occygz/is_this_the_version_everyone_hates/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-21 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref> A user with a 13-year history with the app stated, "MFP used to be so engaging and inspiring when I started... It feels so empty and broken."<ref name="reddit-13-years">{{cite web |title=Deleted my account |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1o7oo09/deleted_my_account/njq5t47/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-16 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref> Another long-time user said, "I have used this app for 15 years and I'm seriously contemplating switching to something else."<ref name="reddit-hate-it">{{cite web |title=I hate it |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1o6q3qx/i_hate_it/njitt8b/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-14 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref> Another user with a 14-year history with the app announced they were also leaving.<ref name="reddit-14-years">{{cite web |title=Deleted my account |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1o7oo09/deleted_my_account/nk4eox2/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-18 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref>

One long-term user of 15 years noted that "simple tasks like copying and pasting" and "viewing all meals" were now problematic, and that the graph on the home screen was gone.<ref name="reddit-goodbye">{{cite web |title=Goodbye myfitness Pal |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1o7haul/goodbye_myfitness_pal/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-15 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref>

Due to the perceived decline in usability and the company's refusal to roll back the update, users began actively seeking and recommending alternative food tracking applications. One user, after receiving a refund, noted the end of their "700+ day logging streak" and recommended "Chronometer" as a free alternative.<ref name="reddit-refund"/> Another user, who had used the app for over ten years, announced they were deleting their account and moving to "LoseIt," describing the MyFitnessPal app as an "abusive partner."<ref name="reddit-deleted-account">{{cite web |title=Deleted my account |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1o7oo09/deleted_my_account/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-16 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref> Another user who switched to LoseIt commented that it had a "MUCH better interface and half the cost."<ref name="reddit-loseit-better">{{cite web |title=Left for LoseIt |url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Myfitnesspal/comments/1ok1bfd/left_for_loseit/ |website=Reddit |date=2025-10-30 |access-date=2025-11-05}}</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:MyFitnessPal]]
[[Category:Digital restrictions]]
[[Category:Feature paywall]]
[[Category:Subscription services]]
[[Category:2025 incidents]]

Talk:Linus Media Group

2025-11-06T15:45:27Z

Beanie Bo: /* Deletion req */ new section

== Deletion req ==

Not sure what the intent was here, but article lacks content relating to consumer rights. Deletion request added [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 15:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)