a man was charged with three felonies after he cut down a 3D-printed “decoy” Flock camera, which was set up by police.
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.
Time to stock up on black mannequins. Two can play at this game.
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.
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.
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?
What other options do we have?
Luigi did nothing wrong.
He got caught and sat in solitary until he confessed under duress. That part isnt recommended
Against the people who benefit?
Peaceful national shutdown for long enough to force Senators to act.
Find better pressure points.
If they’re fake, how do they know if/when people are tampering with them?
It’s a trap, they’re watching them.
So they can charge them with vandalising a fake piece made of plastic?
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.
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?
I’m guessing they are trying to work the “intent” angle. The person believed it was a real camera and intended to damage it. It’s the same way they can charge people over fake drugs.
As a 3D printing enthusiast, I forever wish tangled filament and nozzle clogs to befall upon the cops who make these decoys.
Couldn’t they just “swoop in” on any camera? It’s not like the decoy looks so much more inviting to destroy.
They put these near convenient places, like donut shops
Those charges will not stick
