Download this free 3D print file designed by SquidInk. Boost MePrivacy is a public right. If you believe in keeping eyes off your everyday moves and appreciate low cost, zerodamage counter tools, throw a Boost my way!The Flock SockSometimes a camera just needs a sock. The Flock Sock is a slip on cover designed to help protect a Flock camera from the harmful radiation of the sun. Your city spent their very own hard earned tax dollars scattering these cameras everywhere to keep you safe, all it cost you was a little privacy. The very least you can do is help protect these valuable civil servants from getting a bad sunburn.FeaturesRapidly deployable: Slides over the top in seconds using any standard 1 inch (25.4mm) pole or broomstick. Gravity will do the rest.Safe deployment: No need to risk your life on a ladder, the structural integrity of your car at high velocity, or the dangers of a chainsaw. Just need a broomstick.100% non-permanent: No glue, no screws, and zero structural changes. Because it pops off instantly with absolutely no damage caused and costs exactly $0 to revert, it conveniently avoids some of the troublesome labels that Uncle Sam might stick to you. It's just a removable accessory.Subtle Profile: Look at the subtle off-black coloring. The tastefull thickness of it. Oh, my God, it even hides Flocks watermark.Rear Cutout: The back of the Flock Sock is designed to easily fit over any Flock camera with being obstructed by its mounting bracket or connection cable.Print profile includesFlock Sock (cover)Flock Sock Socket (pole/broom adapter)Print RecommendationsABS/ASABest choice for outdoor use. Excellent heat and UV resistancePETGWorks well but prolonged summer heat may cause the cover to soften or deformPLAIdeal if you prefer your Flock Sock to develop a long term relationship with the summer heat.PSA: Flock has 3 different common models deployed. I am working on a profile for each of them and will upload when theyre complete
Sometimes a camera just needs a sock.
The Flock Sock is a slip on cover designed to help protect a Flock camera from the harmful radiation of the sun. Your city spent their very own hard earned tax dollars scattering these cameras everywhere to keep you safe, all it cost you was a little privacy. The very least you can do is help protect these valuable civil servants from getting a bad sunburn.
It’s run by Bambu Labs, a Chinese state-subsidised company that’s notorious for nudging users globally to let Internet-connected 3D printers map their home LANs and upload that info, plus name, address & other billing details, plus all their 3D models, to Chinese “cloud” servers where the CCP can siphon off any models useful for advancing Chinese industry.
They’re also notorious for letting Makerworld users rip off each others’ designs in flagrant violation of the design licenses. Look on Reddit or 3D printing forums and you’ll see tons of people complaining about this.
Bambu Labs also recently egregiously violated the AGPL by threatening a lawsuit against Pavel Jarczak, a hobbyist who found a perfectly legal workaround to reduce BL control over people’s printers. This was a big deal: the Software Freedom Conservancy, Louis Rossmann, and Gamers Nexus all pledged action.
Bambu Labs and Makerworld stand for dictatorship, authoritarianism, and kleptocracy.
If you support FOSS, user rights, and democracy, you really ought to boycott them.
Damn, I didn’t know all that. I only knew Bambu sucks, and I don’t use Makerworld at all anyway because they don’t let you download projects without making an account, and a lot of them require payment. Also, fuck bgcode format.
Literally if I can’t find it on either printables or thingiverse, then I either design it myself or I don’t print it
Spoken like a plagiarism-happy AI tech bro, repackaging other people’s effort for profit.
In the context of IP, “theft” is an idiomatic way to say “infringement”. It’s bizarre of you to suggest it doesn’t exist: infringement law is quite well settled in most parts of the world.
IP doesn’t refer to “ideas”. It refers to creative works. If you’ve ever spent effortful hours/weeks/years:
composing music
recording music
writing a novel, textbook, poem, teaching plan, essay, or a scientific paper
painting a portrait
etc
then you’ll know why the difference between “an idea” and a creative work is sometimes called “sweat of the brow”.
Copyleft is a way of using the copyright on the program. It doesn’t mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make copyleft impossible. The “left” in “copyleft” is not a reference to the verb “to leave”—only to the direction which is the mirror image of “right.”
Public domain, OTOH, which is what you seem to be promoting, is a gift to AI tech bros, who want to behave as the middlemen described in the same article:
[IP] in the public domain, uncopyrighted … allows people to share [it], if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert [it] into proprietary [IP]. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the [latter] do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.
Ideally we’d eliminate copyright law and replace it with copyleft law
Fair enough, but it would still regulate what people can legally do with creative works. So, it would still be IP law - which a few comments ago you implied couldn’t/shouldn’t exist.
How ironic that it’s hosted at Makerworld, which is effectively a CCP platform for widespread surveillance and IP theft.
And a platform that requires login to download.
source:
It’s run by Bambu Labs, a Chinese state-subsidised company that’s notorious for nudging users globally to let Internet-connected 3D printers map their home LANs and upload that info, plus name, address & other billing details, plus all their 3D models, to Chinese “cloud” servers where the CCP can siphon off any models useful for advancing Chinese industry.
They’re also notorious for letting Makerworld users rip off each others’ designs in flagrant violation of the design licenses. Look on Reddit or 3D printing forums and you’ll see tons of people complaining about this.
Bambu Labs also recently egregiously violated the AGPL by threatening a lawsuit against Pavel Jarczak, a hobbyist who found a perfectly legal workaround to reduce BL control over people’s printers. This was a big deal: the Software Freedom Conservancy, Louis Rossmann, and Gamers Nexus all pledged action.
Bambu Labs and Makerworld stand for dictatorship, authoritarianism, and kleptocracy.
If you support FOSS, user rights, and democracy, you really ought to boycott them.
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2026/may/18/bambu-studio-3d-printer-agpl-violation-response/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLLVn6XT7v0
Damn, I didn’t know all that. I only knew Bambu sucks, and I don’t use Makerworld at all anyway because they don’t let you download projects without making an account, and a lot of them require payment. Also, fuck bgcode format.
Literally if I can’t find it on either printables or thingiverse, then I either design it myself or I don’t print it
So no source at all for most of your claims. Thanks
thats definitely not what just happened there
I see no source for the claims you initially made. You made other claims then backed those.
You can’t “steal” IP. Ideas aren’t ownable.
Spoken like a plagiarism-happy AI tech bro, repackaging other people’s effort for profit.
In the context of IP, “theft” is an idiomatic way to say “infringement”. It’s bizarre of you to suggest it doesn’t exist: infringement law is quite well settled in most parts of the world.
IP doesn’t refer to “ideas”. It refers to creative works. If you’ve ever spent effortful hours/weeks/years:
then you’ll know why the difference between “an idea” and a creative work is sometimes called “sweat of the brow”.
No, spoken like someone who has copyleft all my work, both hardware and software.
Fuck AI. And fuck copyright laws.
AI bros want to steal other people’s work and then copyright the output, and still sue others.
I’m saying you can’t steal other people’s ideas a and nobody should have the right to copyright anything. We are not the same.
You seem to be confusing copyleft with public domain.
They are not the same.
Copyleft licenses entirely rely on copyright law. In the words of the people who invented copyleft:
Public domain, OTOH, which is what you seem to be promoting, is a gift to AI tech bros, who want to behave as the middlemen described in the same article:
I’m not confusing it. I’m aware if it.
We built what we have within the framework of laws made for the purposes of capitalistic domination.
Ideally we’d eliminate copyright law and replace it with copyleft law. As of now, no copyleft laws exist
Fair enough, but it would still regulate what people can legally do with creative works. So, it would still be IP law - which a few comments ago you implied couldn’t/shouldn’t exist.
Every fucking corpo website is a platform for widespread surveillance. Best you can do is use a VPN and noscript.
That part is based. Intellectual property, like most property, is theft.
Apropos then that it’s also deeply infected with “AI” designs that are shite to print (if they do), and with no sign they’re not allowing it. 🤔