I mean it's the cameras' job to keep track of criminals, right? So it's not my job anymore to give a shit about where they went or what they looked like, surely.
Everyone. Everyone except the cops were hanging out with me all night. Actually, I think the police should investigate themselves. They love doing that.
Gait recognition is not as good as they say it is...
They use it to say two videos are of the same person, but if you think "expert testimony" gives actual opinions and not just what will get lawyers to pay them again...
I know it's a joke, but I'm hijacking youry comment because it's a great example sentence on why you should never, ever talk to the police outside of an active emergency when you need their help.
You didn't do anything, but your words self-incriminated you as someone who took part in the destruction of the cameras.
Hmm, never thought of it that way. Yes, if someone were incredibly stupid or malicious, that would certainly come off that way. So I can see why a cop might see it like that.
Exactly. And when they testify at trial that you admitted to being with the offender at the time of the crime, it's not just the cop's opinion you have to worry anout. Your defense of "I was lying to get the real culprit off the hook" also wouldn't help you much at that point. Best case you're looking at an obstruction conviction.
Even more interestingly - this scenario doesn't require the officer to be corrupt.
Nice. Octacore 1.8GHz A53 from Qalcomm. OK, 2GB RAM is a bit lean, but at least they use a documented SoM. So those cameras could actually be a worthwhile organ donor.
If you see someone vandalizing / stealing private surveillance cameras in public areas : No You Didn't.
While I get them in public transit it's still a slippery slope, and could be manually triggered by a (physically protected) driver in needed situation. Then there's the whole everyone with a phone camera uploading them to Google / Apple (and consequently three letter agencies as well) which is the granddaddy of privacy destruction.
At some point, when this all shakes out as the terrible idea many have already suggested, we need to require third party consent for visual recording (like for audio in some jurisdictions) and was once required for profitable publication. If that ends up with a lot more landscapes and art photography online, I'll consider it a win.
Oh yeah man Police departments all over the country will love that rule about always obtaining consent to record.
"We can brutalize people even harder now??"
I do hate the Flock shit and everything else you mentioned though. Idk what the answer is other than sane legislation that is for the people so of course that will not ever happen here.
Seems pretty reasonable, with extraordinary powers comes extraordinary oversight. Everything gets destroyed as a matter of course unless legal proceedings ensue within a proscribed time frame, unless third party approval is given. Do you disagree? Do you have a better option? I'm just scratching around, appreciate the input.
I don't know that I really have a better option, but I do have some parameters that I would really like to see.
My position is that there should be no expectation of privacy when you're in public but there are obviously issues with that. I think there should be a distinction between private photography and recordings and official ones though. Someone taking a video of their kids playing in the park shouldn't need to get consent from every person in the park who may end up getting recorded. Even private security cameras such as doorbell cameras should be okay even if the recording includes public areas near the home like the street or sidewalk.
Posting said recordings online is another matter. Say I take a video of my dog playing in the park and post it on youtube because I think it's cute. Now let's say that the video includes other people in the background. I think that should be fine if the people just happen to be there in the background. On the other hand, if I post the video with the intent of pointing out the people in the background and mocking them, that is a whole other issue. I think that should fall afoul of some sort of revenge-porn like law. People should have a right to the direct use of their image in a public venue but not an absolute right that would make it illegal to post their image or even their voice as an incidental background feature.
Having said all that, I do not approve of the use of cameras by government or law enforcement unless it is part of an existing investigation and a warrant has been obtained or as part of standard (and universal) use of body-cams. Police, and the government in general, should not have networks of surveillance cameras monitoring everyone all the time. Neither should police be able to access private or business security cameras without valid probable cause or a warrant. Recordings made by members of the public for their own entertainment, news reporting (whether they are a paid reporter or not), or security purposes should be considered completely separately from government or police recordings.
I have no idea if this idea could be effectively legislated, but in my perfect world, this is how it would be.
I get it, and I'm a bit cavalier myself about just taking a photo, and that's historically been fine for personal use. The problem comes when companies aggregate that privilege. One of the interesting possibilities now available is simply removing all (non focused / designated) background humans from a photo, and it can be done on device these days. The tech could actually be used to preserve privacy, but where's the profit?
The mechanisms to stop mass surveillance by governments are in place, warrants and so forth, but they are now able to simply buy it from private concerns which makes it OK legally apparently (until challenged). Perhaps there needs to be an expectation of significant consequences for flaunting ethics before legal precedents have been set, things change fast, but decency is still recognizable.
Journalists should also have a pass, poor bastards have been used hard in the last few decades. I'd suggest making it a formal, protected profession like doctors or psychologists, with strict ethical guidelines, like it almost was once. Allow whistleblowers and others with information for the public good temporary protection under the same guidelines.
All in all, it makes little difference to simply post online, but I do appreciate the chance to test my ideas and formulate something coherent from the inchoate rage I feel at the unchecked abuses I see daily. Thanks for your input, here's hoping you, I, and others get the chance to put these ideas to use.
In Germany (most of Europe I think), it's illegal to film people without their consent. Private citizens that is, you can always film the cops of course.
That would get expensive. Get a roll of heavy duty foil and a roll of metal tape (the kind for duct work). Wrap them in a bag made of doubled up heavy duty foil.
It generally does. But even if some signal escapes (like if you had to hurry and do this so it wasn’t perfectly sealed), it wouldn’t be that great a signal so communication would definitely be compromised.
Another unreasonably expensive approach would be to paint it into a faraday cage. Maybe it can work to block visuals and comms, and don’t even have to remove the device.
@Cocodapuf@lemmy.world Listen to the above comment!
This is not amateur hour. Radio waves are not analogous to just DDOS'ing over the Internet. The consequences and effects play out in the physical world.
You cannot scream into the void without the source being heard.
Say, I'm writing a story. A work of fiction. Sci-fi, really. Here's a hypothetical sort of idea that I'm work shopping currently and might as well share:
Edit:
The protagonist needs to deal with some surveillance appliances, that use cellular network to communicate, and needs to jam them.
He goes around, and buys many small solar panels. He wires them to radios that work with Lora/Reticulum/And the Internet. He places them around the local town parks and such, near the surveillance appliances, months before he needs to disrupt them, slowly, unseen.
Still working on the climax, when he triggers them remotely and they do some cool stuff tho.
Your character would get caught. Mainly because electronics boards are absolutely covered in parts made from all over the world. Each one of those parts is batch numbered, if not labeled with a serial number. If your main character wasn't caught from being the only person with a purchase history that matches the equipment used, they would certainly be caught using forensic analysis of the identifying marks on the devices.
Your character's best bet is to realize that the point of sabotage is not to destroy a resource, (complete destruction is a bonus), but to make the opponent either realize that they would need to commit more effort to protect that resource than it is worth, or get your opponent to commit that effort, wasting their time and resources.
Real life example : Ukraine blew up part of a useful bridge in Crimea with a truck bomb. The bridge has been restored to working order, but now Russia has to check every single truck that goes over the bridge very thoroughly. They've limited the maximum size of the trucks as well. The total flow of material over that bridge had been choked, and Russia is doing all the work to choke out their own asset, and they will need to continue to do this for the rest of the conflict, or the bridge will get blown up again.
So, back to your fictional character... He doesn't need to devise a sophisticated attack to destroy all the cameras, he just needs to be part of an ongoing uncoordinated campaign of random attacks. Either the camera owners step up hardening their devices, which increases the cost and decreases the number they can deploy, and their usefulness, or, the government entities that use the cameras will need to deploy more police presence to protect the cameras, invalidating the benefit of having the cameras anyway.
You are absolutely correct in all you said! And you also made several assumptions about the character actions; some considered already and some most illuminating! Thank you for improving my fiction!
Though the goal of the character isn't at all the destruction of a resource. It is the simple and timely denial of access of the story's antagonist to their tooling, at a time when they expected it to be working. Like during a bean counting competition at the country fair!
Obviously it was local drug addicts. They were just desperate for a fix and learned about the high value of all the parts in those cameras. Perhaps I was talking too loudly the other day about the resale value of all the expensive electronics in those Flock cameras.
Golly gee, I sure hope more junkies don't find out how much money they could make. It would be a tragedy if junkies all over started stealing those Flock cameras.
This is a really disgusting comment. Forgive me if I'm misinterepting, but the idea that people who bear the terrible brunt of the violence of state and capital should sacrifice themselves for you, who are privileged enough to be on this forum represents so much that is wrong about our society. If anything the pawns are the people who's only move is to post online.
OMG I just saw some white dude running down the road in a maga hat and striped boxers with like 2 dozen flock cameras on cut-off poles slung over his shoulder... straight up interstate toward Vancouver. If you hurry, I'm sure you can catch him!
FWIW almost no one likes these cameras. It very well could have been a MAGA. I'd imagine certain flavors of MAGAt could very easily be pushed against these installations. Don't hate, manipulate!
Should set them back up at the edge of the sheriff's front yard pointed at the front of his house feeding a video stream to publicly available website, see how he likes having that BS watching him all the time.
Well its obvious. Since humans and cameras are vastly different and we don't want this filthy illegal aliens to threaten the security of our poor helpless american cititzenship. To protect the general public of these filthy criminals violating the privacy of our proud fellow Americans, local citizen protection groups have formed, that are hunting these criminal down to make our towns safe again and we are expecting ICE to join on the fight against this injustice
127 Comments
JoMiran@lemmy.ml · 127 pts · 24d
I have never and I will never see someone cutting down a Flock camera.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world · 69 pts · 24d
I mean it's the cameras' job to keep track of criminals, right? So it's not my job anymore to give a shit about where they went or what they looked like, surely.
EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 24d
Growing up watching Batman and Spiderman be told to leave it to the professionals, I think it might be my job to not interfere by knowing anything.
My memory has been shot for ten years anyways.
fartographer@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 23d
I mean, who am I gonna trust? Some person on the Internet saying that I didn't see anything, or my lying eyes?
chocrates@piefed.world · 6 pts · 24d
It's never our job to assist the police. If they talk to you the only response is "am I being detained"
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 23d
If you see someone
stealing baby fooddismantling the tools of oppression, no you didn't.CubitOom@infosec.pub · 111 pts · 24d
I think flock is stealing their own cameras so they can reset them and charge to replace them. There is a clear incentive.
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 10 pts · 24d
This is a conspiracy I can get behind.
criscodisco@lemmy.world · 62 pts · 24d
We haven’t seen Mitch McConnell in months.
I’m just saying…
huquad@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 23d
His alibi is full of holes
svc@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz · 59 pts · 24d
CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone · 57 pts · 24d
But I thought Flock prevented theft?????
aeronmelon@lemmy.world · 38 pts · 24d
They were with me the whole night.
frongt@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 24d
The cameras?
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 24d
Everyone. Everyone except the cops were hanging out with me all night. Actually, I think the police should investigate themselves. They love doing that.
Natanael@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 23d
No, Flock the company. All of it.
Garbagio@lemmy.zip · 29 pts · 24d
I didn't see shit, I don't know shit, I plead the 5th, get out of my doorway
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 14 pts · 24d
I am Spartacus.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 24d
No; I am Spartacus!
CileTheSane@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 23d
Spartacus and I were playing Mario Kart all night.
badgermurphy@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 24d
SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml · 27 pts · 24d
Don't they have it on CAMERA???
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 24d
If you don't have a cellphone but ya got a sheisty...
There's not really anyway to ID the person in the video.
SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 24d
They'd recognize my LIMP. I have a (documented) broken bone in my foot.
(For a short time I can limp on the wrong foot so THEY have PROOF that it wasn't me)
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 24d
Gait recognition is not as good as they say it is...
They use it to say two videos are of the same person, but if you think "expert testimony" gives actual opinions and not just what will get lawyers to pay them again...
Then you don't understand how any of this works.
egrets@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 24d
why are you shouting
NaibofTabr@infosec.pub · 26 pts · 24d
Can you "steal" something paid for with public funds?
frongt@lemmy.zip · 18 pts · 24d
I mean yeah obviously
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 24d
Must've been a bear. Lot of bears in Winona.
ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one · 3 pts · 24d
Maybe it was the wind?
ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 21 pts · 23d
Whoever they are, they were with me the entire night.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 23d
I know it's a joke, but I'm hijacking youry comment because it's a great example sentence on why you should never, ever talk to the police outside of an active emergency when you need their help.
You didn't do anything, but your words self-incriminated you as someone who took part in the destruction of the cameras.
ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 23d
Hmm, never thought of it that way. Yes, if someone were incredibly stupid or malicious, that would certainly come off that way. So I can see why a cop might see it like that.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 23d
Exactly. And when they testify at trial that you admitted to being with the offender at the time of the crime, it's not just the cop's opinion you have to worry anout. Your defense of "I was lying to get the real culprit off the hook" also wouldn't help you much at that point. Best case you're looking at an obstruction conviction.
Even more interestingly - this scenario doesn't require the officer to be corrupt.
Never talk to cops.
jim_v@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 24d
https://www.facebook.com/winonamnpolicedept
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 12 pts · 24d
Ah so each camera costs about $3000 huh? I wonder how much people will buy it for on the streets ...
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 24d
While they cost that much, they are worth probably way less.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 24d
Basically worth the cost if a RaspberryPi with camera and a couple 18650 batteries.
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 24d
Funny enough - raspberry pi prices have jumped up dramatically! So win win!
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 24d
Well if there actually was an RPi in those boxes, they would make even more interesting targets.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 24d
If someone can change the boot loader it would be funny to reverse engineer these things, mod them, add mesh networking, and put them back up.
0x0@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 24d
It's a similar SoM.
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
Nice. Octacore 1.8GHz A53 from Qalcomm. OK, 2GB RAM is a bit lean, but at least they use a documented SoM. So those cameras could actually be a worthwhile organ donor.
And the battery pack looks beefy, too!
W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 23d
AbidanYre@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 24d
How much ram they got?
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 24d
Minimal. I'd be surprised if it's more than 1gb and it's definitely soldered to a main board, not a discrete module.
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 24d
With the challenges of ram these days, an enterprising person may figure out how to make it work for the consumer market.
W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 23d
Enough
betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 24d
Hacksaw Hero takes down another post!
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net · 19 pts · 24d
If you see someone vandalizing / stealing private surveillance cameras in public areas : No You Didn't.
While I get them in public transit it's still a slippery slope, and could be manually triggered by a (physically protected) driver in needed situation. Then there's the whole everyone with a phone camera uploading them to Google / Apple (and consequently three letter agencies as well) which is the granddaddy of privacy destruction.
At some point, when this all shakes out as the terrible idea many have already suggested, we need to require third party consent for visual recording (like for audio in some jurisdictions) and was once required for profitable publication. If that ends up with a lot more landscapes and art photography online, I'll consider it a win.
DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 24d
Oh yeah man Police departments all over the country will love that rule about always obtaining consent to record.
"We can brutalize people even harder now??"
I do hate the Flock shit and everything else you mentioned though. Idk what the answer is other than sane legislation that is for the people so of course that will not ever happen here.
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 24d
Yeah, good point. An exception here would be good, also not requiring consent to film police (and other actors for state violence) should be baked in.
Manjushri@piefed.social · 2 pts · 24d
This gets complicated because you also need to build in an exception for anyone interacting with the police or in the background of the shot.
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 23d
Seems pretty reasonable, with extraordinary powers comes extraordinary oversight. Everything gets destroyed as a matter of course unless legal proceedings ensue within a proscribed time frame, unless third party approval is given. Do you disagree? Do you have a better option? I'm just scratching around, appreciate the input.
Manjushri@piefed.social · 1 pts · 23d
I don't know that I really have a better option, but I do have some parameters that I would really like to see.
My position is that there should be no expectation of privacy when you're in public but there are obviously issues with that. I think there should be a distinction between private photography and recordings and official ones though. Someone taking a video of their kids playing in the park shouldn't need to get consent from every person in the park who may end up getting recorded. Even private security cameras such as doorbell cameras should be okay even if the recording includes public areas near the home like the street or sidewalk.
Posting said recordings online is another matter. Say I take a video of my dog playing in the park and post it on youtube because I think it's cute. Now let's say that the video includes other people in the background. I think that should be fine if the people just happen to be there in the background. On the other hand, if I post the video with the intent of pointing out the people in the background and mocking them, that is a whole other issue. I think that should fall afoul of some sort of revenge-porn like law. People should have a right to the direct use of their image in a public venue but not an absolute right that would make it illegal to post their image or even their voice as an incidental background feature.
Having said all that, I do not approve of the use of cameras by government or law enforcement unless it is part of an existing investigation and a warrant has been obtained or as part of standard (and universal) use of body-cams. Police, and the government in general, should not have networks of surveillance cameras monitoring everyone all the time. Neither should police be able to access private or business security cameras without valid probable cause or a warrant. Recordings made by members of the public for their own entertainment, news reporting (whether they are a paid reporter or not), or security purposes should be considered completely separately from government or police recordings.
I have no idea if this idea could be effectively legislated, but in my perfect world, this is how it would be.
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 23d
I get it, and I'm a bit cavalier myself about just taking a photo, and that's historically been fine for personal use. The problem comes when companies aggregate that privilege. One of the interesting possibilities now available is simply removing all (non focused / designated) background humans from a photo, and it can be done on device these days. The tech could actually be used to preserve privacy, but where's the profit?
The mechanisms to stop mass surveillance by governments are in place, warrants and so forth, but they are now able to simply buy it from private concerns which makes it OK legally apparently (until challenged). Perhaps there needs to be an expectation of significant consequences for flaunting ethics before legal precedents have been set, things change fast, but decency is still recognizable.
Journalists should also have a pass, poor bastards have been used hard in the last few decades. I'd suggest making it a formal, protected profession like doctors or psychologists, with strict ethical guidelines, like it almost was once. Allow whistleblowers and others with information for the public good temporary protection under the same guidelines.
All in all, it makes little difference to simply post online, but I do appreciate the chance to test my ideas and formulate something coherent from the inchoate rage I feel at the unchecked abuses I see daily. Thanks for your input, here's hoping you, I, and others get the chance to put these ideas to use.
ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 23d
In Germany (most of Europe I think), it's illegal to film people without their consent. Private citizens that is, you can always film the cops of course.
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 24d
Quick question, how are these flock cameras generally connected to the Web?
Is it via Wi-Fi, perhaps 4g radio?
What frequencies would one need to jam (completely theoretically) to know that the camera wasn't able to send back video of a person cutting it down.
0x0@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 24d
Benn Jordan has a few videos on them.
partofthevoice@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 24d
Get a faraday box instead. Better would be a bag, actually… you can slip it over the top, pull some draw strings to tighten up the bottom.
Do they make bags that work like faraday boxes?
Edit: found something close: https://a.co/d/0gUGuVMM
Edit2: this one looks like you can tie off the bottom better: https://a.co/d/0htiAqX6
anon_8675309@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 24d
That would get expensive. Get a roll of heavy duty foil and a roll of metal tape (the kind for duct work). Wrap them in a bag made of doubled up heavy duty foil.
partofthevoice@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 24d
Good idea. Dont forget to put your phone in it and give it a call, to see if it’s really blocking signals.
anon_8675309@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 24d
It generally does. But even if some signal escapes (like if you had to hurry and do this so it wasn’t perfectly sealed), it wouldn’t be that great a signal so communication would definitely be compromised.
partofthevoice@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 24d
Good call.
Another unreasonably expensive approach would be to paint it into a faraday cage. Maybe it can work to block visuals and comms, and don’t even have to remove the device.
https://a.co/d/0aU2jhw3
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 24d
Something opaque on the solar panel until the batteries die.
Johanno@feddit.org · 3 pts · 24d
Either hardwired (probably not) or sim card 4g/5g phone network.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
Mobile broadband. I promise you, if you go around jamming cell towers, you're going to get the feds on your ass real quick.
Promethiel@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 23d
@Cocodapuf@lemmy.world Listen to the above comment!
This is not amateur hour. Radio waves are not analogous to just DDOS'ing over the Internet. The consequences and effects play out in the physical world.
You cannot scream into the void without the source being heard.
Say, I'm writing a story. A work of fiction. Sci-fi, really. Here's a hypothetical sort of idea that I'm work shopping currently and might as well share:
Edit:
The protagonist needs to deal with some surveillance appliances, that use cellular network to communicate, and needs to jam them.
He goes around, and buys many small solar panels. He wires them to radios that work with Lora/Reticulum/And the Internet. He places them around the local town parks and such, near the surveillance appliances, months before he needs to disrupt them, slowly, unseen.
Still working on the climax, when he triggers them remotely and they do some cool stuff tho.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
Your character would get caught. Mainly because electronics boards are absolutely covered in parts made from all over the world. Each one of those parts is batch numbered, if not labeled with a serial number. If your main character wasn't caught from being the only person with a purchase history that matches the equipment used, they would certainly be caught using forensic analysis of the identifying marks on the devices.
Your character's best bet is to realize that the point of sabotage is not to destroy a resource, (complete destruction is a bonus), but to make the opponent either realize that they would need to commit more effort to protect that resource than it is worth, or get your opponent to commit that effort, wasting their time and resources.
Real life example : Ukraine blew up part of a useful bridge in Crimea with a truck bomb. The bridge has been restored to working order, but now Russia has to check every single truck that goes over the bridge very thoroughly. They've limited the maximum size of the trucks as well. The total flow of material over that bridge had been choked, and Russia is doing all the work to choke out their own asset, and they will need to continue to do this for the rest of the conflict, or the bridge will get blown up again.
So, back to your fictional character... He doesn't need to devise a sophisticated attack to destroy all the cameras, he just needs to be part of an ongoing uncoordinated campaign of random attacks. Either the camera owners step up hardening their devices, which increases the cost and decreases the number they can deploy, and their usefulness, or, the government entities that use the cameras will need to deploy more police presence to protect the cameras, invalidating the benefit of having the cameras anyway.
Promethiel@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 23d
You are absolutely correct in all you said! And you also made several assumptions about the character actions; some considered already and some most illuminating! Thank you for improving my fiction!
Though the goal of the character isn't at all the destruction of a resource. It is the simple and timely denial of access of the story's antagonist to their tooling, at a time when they expected it to be working. Like during a bean counting competition at the country fair!
badgermurphy@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 24d
Manjushri@piefed.social · 18 pts · 24d
Obviously it was local drug addicts. They were just desperate for a fix and learned about the high value of all the parts in those cameras. Perhaps I was talking too loudly the other day about the resale value of all the expensive electronics in those Flock cameras.
Golly gee, I sure hope more junkies don't find out how much money they could make. It would be a tragedy if junkies all over started stealing those Flock cameras.
sculptor0725@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 24d
Junkies won't fight your revolution for you
rumba@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 23d
Every piece a part to play. You'd not ignore your pawns in chess.
sculptor0725@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 23d
This is a really disgusting comment. Forgive me if I'm misinterepting, but the idea that people who bear the terrible brunt of the violence of state and capital should sacrifice themselves for you, who are privileged enough to be on this forum represents so much that is wrong about our society. If anything the pawns are the people who's only move is to post online.
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 22d
Uhh... i think it was a joke
electric_nan@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 23d
No pawns, no kings.
badgermurphy@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 24d
Raiderkev@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 24d
Pretty sure it was Spartacus
tigermountain@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 24d
"We the people" stole your fucking flock cameras.
Janx@piefed.social · 19 pts · 24d
That's not possible. They were purchased with taxpayer funds.
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 24d
We the people reclaimed our flock cameras.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works · 9 pts · 24d
No no, that’s simply not possible - they were at my place having a succulent Chinese meal and watching movies
kingofras@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 24d
Me! I did it.
I got a few annoying alibis, one of which is thousands of km long, but that’s never stopped the American Justice System before.
wheezy@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 24d
Stay safe comrade
benderbeerman@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 23d
OMG I just saw some white dude running down the road in a maga hat and striped boxers with like 2 dozen flock cameras on cut-off poles slung over his shoulder... straight up interstate toward Vancouver. If you hurry, I'm sure you can catch him!
some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 23d
FWIW almost no one likes these cameras. It very well could have been a MAGA. I'd imagine certain flavors of MAGAt could very easily be pushed against these installations. Don't hate, manipulate!
mrmaplebar@fedia.io · 14 pts · 24d
Donald Trump did it.
mrmisses@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 24d
I saw him working with Elon Musk. Gettem
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 24d
Can confirm. Just check his mobile location data, he was there.
Snapz@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 23d
Nobody stole them... It was just god's plan for them to go away. Are you questioning god, Sir?
RonniePickering@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
Amen
PattyMcB@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 22d
Ramen
oopsgodisdeadmybad@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 23d
The Winona police can suck my balls.
BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 24d
What cameras? Y'all got a receipt?
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 23d
was a big brown beaver
RonniePickering@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 23d
Winona?
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
https://youtu.be/aYDfwUJzYQg
Mcdolan@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
Jerry was driving the getaway car.
phutatorius@lemmy.zip · 11 pts · 23d
They could track them down with Flock, if only...
Theoriginalthon@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
Maybe that what happened, whoever cut the first one saw a second one, went oh fuck, then saw a third...
Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 11 pts · 24d
The flock just migrated.
mercano@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 24d
Check the tapes.
kingofras@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 24d
I’ll check them if you release the Files first!
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 24d
Honestly, it's video taken from a public place, the files should probably be public.
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 23d
If the police can't even protect the tools they are using, what do they get paid for?
Chivera@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 23d
Have more cameras watching the other cameras
WudgieLore@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 23d
This is the way
Crackhappy@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 24d
I'm pretty sure it was Jolene.
caboose2006@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 23d
Must have been the wind
0x0@lemmy.zip · 9 pts · 24d
Most likely Winona stole them.
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 24d
Lmfao
jballs@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 24d
ROFL even
muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 24d
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 23d
They fell down.
MisterCurtis@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 24d
I'm Spartacus
meco03211@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 24d
I stole the cameras.
BurgerBaron@quokk.au · 4 pts · 24d
I don't.
cheat700000007@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 23d
If only they set up a camera to protect them
bampop@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 23d
They should call the police
flop_leash_973@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 23d
Should set them back up at the edge of the sheriff's front yard pointed at the front of his house feeding a video stream to publicly available website, see how he likes having that BS watching him all the time.
Gammelfisch@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 23d
Where is this ripoff, $3000, camera and listening device made?
cows_are_underrated@feddit.org · 3 pts · 23d
Well its obvious. Since humans and cameras are vastly different and we don't want this filthy illegal aliens to threaten the security of our poor helpless american cititzenship. To protect the general public of these filthy criminals violating the privacy of our proud fellow Americans, local citizen protection groups have formed, that are hunting these criminal down to make our towns safe again and we are expecting ICE to join on the fight against this injustice
/s (obviously)
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 3 pts · 24d
It was me. I am Spartacus!
meco03211@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 24d
I stole the cameras.
NickwithaC@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 24d
But I did not steal the deputy 🎶
0x0@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 24d
What's the reference to?
OwOarchist@pawb.social · 2 pts · 24d
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-am-spartacus
Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 24d
It was me Dio!
lemmyng@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 24d
I...am FARTICUS!