a man was charged with three felonies after he cut down a 3D-printed "decoy" Flock camera, which was set up by police.

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 72 points 1 week ago

They just need the news stories to impart doubt. Doesn't matter if they aren't convicted.

Shit, they don't even really need to do it. They just need the news to say they are.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Using force against individual cameras is not going to be succesful in the long run. It's like punching Nazis in the street... sure, it looks and feels good, but you're not hurting the people who benefit from having them around. They are laughing all the way to the bank.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I know it's not the 'correct' fight to have, but I think it's good to use the fact that anti-flock action is in the social media zeitgeist and keep supporting people; it is laying groundwork for civil disobedience we need.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago

    it’s good to use the fact that anti-flock action is in the social media zeitgeist

    It is in the social media zeitgeist - that's why piggy is capitalising on it with the above tactic. It's an escalation on their side, and it's a good one because they can make the small group of people willing to make physical attacks on their surveillance infrastructure even smaller through indimidation at little cost. The question is... does the other side have something of their own to play the escalation game?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago* (3 children)

    What other options do we have?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 week ago

    As a 3D printing enthusiast, I forever wish tangled filament and nozzle clogs to befall upon the cops who make these decoys.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Couldn't they just "swoop in" on any camera? It's not like the decoy looks so much more inviting to destroy.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago

    Time to stock up on black mannequins. Two can play at this game.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago

    Those charges will not stick

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    If they’re fake, how do they know if/when people are tampering with them?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    It's a trap, they're watching them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    So they can charge them with vandalising a fake piece made of plastic?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    It's still a real physical object being intentionally broken by someone that doesn't own it.

    Keep on mind, I'm absolutely NOT defending it, I'm just explaining the logic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    I understand, but the value of the destroyed ‘object’ is ridiculous so the penalty has to be minimal.

    Edit:

    Oh, and what if the ‘culprit’ just covers the fake camera?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments