top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 72 points 3 months ago (3 children)

A. That's what insurance is for.

B. Nice of them to publish the locations they consider most valuable to Flock.

C. Expect heightened surveillance and tracking chips on and replacement cameras.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 3 months ago*

    D. They do not fucking cost 3k. They do not cost more than 40 bucks for flock. They're cheap and extremely destructible. The city pays 3k, you pay 3k, you pay more than that with your freedom and privacy.

    If your city is so intent on fucking that up, bankrupt them. Make them pay the 3k per unit as many times as you can. Use the deflock map, they're always pointing toward the road(s), go behind and cut them down. Or use a long distance spray paint nozzle, high powered laser, weaponized meth head or whatever.

    Who cares what they cost, they will cost you your life if you wait long enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Its kind of amusing how big media companies spent 3 decades ingraining everyone into gang concepts like "snitches get stiches" but then cry for public help when their dystopian camera network gets taken out.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago

    Oh no... how horrible... I really hope this doesn't continue

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Welp we just riding on debt and brutality.... fuck it... 🎢who fucking cares not me🎢

    Missiles worth $40 million a shot rack up America's Iran war costs

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    Oh no! Anyway…

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Don't sufficiently powerful lasers permanently damage cameras like that?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago

    A watched a YouTube a while back that it was debunked. Consumer grade lasers cannot do it. Unless you're willing to shell hundreds of bucks and shoot it from a battery pack, it might be easier to accidentally take one down with a hand saw.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    This makes the company money and costs the taxpayer.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    I'll sell them back to Flock (or a rival ALPR company) after taking them for half that. But not before putting a virus on it capable of infecting their whole network if they ever use it again.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago
    9 comments in c/acab view that post
    [–] 16 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    If you see someone taking down a Flock camera, no, you didn't.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago*

    Oh, in this case where they have an online form, I'd say you did see them. Everyone did, in fact, you saw it at on <random day between 29th and 1st>, and they were wearing , were , with a and about !

    In fact, everyone should go and fill out the form right now. Don't forget to use a VPN.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago*

    This is great news, it actually means that catching someone who did this isn't as easy as I expected. Like, it took them three days to notice that some of the cameras are missing, plus they have not caught them for another three and had to go public with this embarrassment, so they are probably getting desperate.

    Haha, get fucked.

    Also, it might be a good idea to flood the online tipping form with random-but-plausible tips, like about the size/weight/color of clothes of the assailant, so anyone snitching will get burried. Don't forget to use a vpn, if you can get one as close as possible.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I mean, yes, but it also occurs to me that Flock is making bank from this campaign.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    In the short term.

    If we can drive the cost of replacing them above the 'value they bring' (at least as perceived by local officials) they're not going to want to replace them.

    Big bill, with little return. Why keep paying.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago
    [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    This alone has increased my hope for humanity by like 40%

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Yeah I thought about that. If flock cameras kept getting destroyed then someone will pay to replace it and the person paying for it won't be happy about it

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I had always assumed they had a GPS chip in them. This makes it sound like that might not be the case. How interesting.

  • source
  • 6 comments in c/ACAB@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Lol a 3 day window they didn't notice?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    We've got one near me that someone has wrapped a bag around with a cardboard sign saying "FLOCK Sees You." That's been like that for probably more than a month now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    This seems suspiciously cheap.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Watches someone cut down Flock cameras

    I saw nothing! -- Sgt. Schultz

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Easy stop putting them up

  • source