all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 40 points 2 months ago

Meanwhile, no doubt the town meeting last weeks was full of people complaining about flock cameras:

https://www.wesh.com/article/oviedo-closer-look-flock-cameras-amid-privacy-concerns/73456375

People do not want mass surveillance. They do not want data centers. If you do not listen to your citizens, they will take action.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago

    counts of criminal mischief causing more than $1,000 in damage, grand theft involving property valued between $750 and $5,000, and damaging or taking a computer, electronic device, or related equipment.

    It's a 3d printed decoy, meaning it was worth like $10, tops. Good luck having those charges stick, assholes.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago

    "Vandalizing art" because this bullshit felony charge they're trying to hit him with is nonsensical so they come up with another nonsensical charge. Dude just removed a piece of 3D printed trash that the city already acknowledged was placed unauthorized. He should send them an invoice for the removal.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    Someone should install a flock cam pointing towards the arresting officers backyard

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    Did the cops have the right permits from the city to install their personally-produced "art" on city property? No? Charge the fuckers!

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    A police spokesperson told the outlet that an officer printed the decoy at home using a personal 3D printer, so it did not cost the city any money.

    Okay... So what is he being charged with? Destruction of property or destruction of government property? Because those are very different charges.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    Defund the slave patrol.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Felony. People have murdered and gotten less of a sentence...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    Trying to set an example.

    I hope Floridaman steps up.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago
    [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    surely this is entrapment? creating a crime that wouldn't have existed otherwise

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

    It's not. Despite what we may feel, police putting a desirable item out like a bait car or "flock camera" is not convincing anyone to commit a crime they wouldn't otherwise. At least according to settled US law. NAL, not legal advice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 40 comments in c/nottheonion@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 83 points 2 months ago (19 children)

    That's surprisingly clever for a group of donut eaters.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 111 points 2 months ago (16 children)

    It really isn't clever. It was privately printed and installed without government approval. So the only reason this is being charged as a felony at all is corruption.

    Someone destroyed illegally installed private property that is worth maybe a few dollars. That is barely even a crime and certainly not a felony.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] -31 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    It’s the price that makes it a felony. $1000 of equipment. Has nothing to do with anything being government or not. You steal $1k from someone it’s a felony, just for the amount.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 2 months ago (14 children)

    Yes, and it being a 3d printed decoy means it is worth almost nothing. Its a broken bit of plastic that is probably worth less than $5.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (12 children)

    While i agree, the judge might say the person destroying it did not think it had that value and still had the intend to destroy something expensive. Not a lawyer, but i have this feeling the judge won't really be neutral.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Evan Meyer, 24, faces counts of criminal mischief causing more than $1,000 in damage, grand theft involving property valued between $750 and $5,000, and damaging or taking a computer, electronic device, or related equipment.

    It wasn't $1,000 in damage, it wasn't property valued at $750 - $5,000, and it wasn't a computer, electronic device, or related equipment. So if the judge does anything other than throw out the charges it is corruption. Those charges shouldn't have even been brought.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Intention to commit a crime, even if you don't actually commit the crime but attempt to do so, as it happens, is also a crime.

    In this case, the individual attempted (and failed) to destroy Flock camera. He'll be charged with felony attempted destruction of property and probably a handful of other bullshit charges to scare him in to pleading out of trial.

    In this case the prosecutor really doesn't want to go to trial. If he gets a lawyer he'll most certainly get out of any jail time and might do community service. If he takes the lawyer they give him, he's fucked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Okay but how can you prove he intended to destroy a camara worth over 750 dollars?

    This entire situation is so goddamn stupid.

    Any good lawyer should be able to get this thrown out. Good lawyers cost money, though, and the police know that. That's the real rub here. They are just trying to fuck over poor people who are angry about being spied on.

    Fuck them all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Right, a good attorney could do that. A shitty public defender is going to advise him to plea out.

    To be clear, the American Justice system does not operate in the best interests of it's victims. It's a machine, in most states, designed to lock up every single person it can.

    You don't have to prove that he intended to destroy a flock camera with absolute certainty. You only need to convince a jury of 12 random assholes that he did. Beyond a reasonable doubt, generally means, a doubt with some reason. Not beyond all shadow of a doubt.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    So if I think a TV is worth 300 and its actually 2k, I'm only on the hook for 300?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    This is not how the law works.

    Intent to destroy something expensive while not destroying anything expensive doesn't mean you get charged for the hypothetical expenses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Wrote this earlier to another reply to my comment, but i did not mean to say how a judge would rule if he did what was right; i meant to say what a judge might say in the current political climate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 74 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    If everything is a felony then what’s the point

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Felony depends on state.

    Most are $1k, so is Florida.

    And from this story I've learned that it only costs $800 for a Flock camera.

    So in the vast amount of states, if you only break/take the camera, it shouldn't be a felony:

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/felony-theft-amount-by-state

    Destroying property is usually about the same limits state by state.

    Obviously you want to research specific state/local laws, you know, because knowing is the half the battle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 months ago

    The mayor of the town was not happy about this sting operation. There had already been debates in City Council about removing them, and the mayor doesn't seem to be a supporter.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Entrapment sounds like typical Florida pig style.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    That's what I was thinking. Isn't this a classic case of entrapment? I guess it doesn't matter since it's Florida.

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

    Legally no, it's not entrapment. Still if the cops hadn't placed the bait, there would be no crime. They know where the line is, and ride it.

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

    I should add that given the details it's not entrapment. At the same time though, there are thousands of flock cameras, and somehow the cops knew this particular spot for a fake one would lure someone in? There's no telling if they instigated it in some way not mentioned. And the charges they filed are very likely to fall apart anyway, because it wasn't a flock camera, it was a cheap decoy, and felonies are based on actual value, not imaginary. It also may not have been authorized to be installed. So the defendant could legally have been removing vandalism from a pole.

    This is why you can't really adjudicate from a news story, there's a million unknowns, and often weird technical details to laws that aren't well known to the public. Top that off with most news information coming from defense lawyers giving an intentionally biased account of events, because the police don't just call the press most of the time. And when they do, it's usually to give their own damning version of events.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Guys, please use drones to disable these things

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

    That's been on my mind a bit. It's not a foolproof way to do this though, as you'd likely need to:

    1. Do a ukrainian style one way mission. The materials used in it could be led back to you through purchases, fingerprints, or DNA.
    2. Be nearby the drone and control it as it flies in. You could be seen nearby though, and your controller's signals could be located.
    3. Use an FPV drone to see from the drone's perspective. Though this also has the risk of your controller's signals being located.
    4. Use a fully autonomous drone that is configured to meet you at a safe location after the mission. This is by far the hardest version to do, and you'd need to do a lot of research + trial and error to ensure edge cases don't get you caught. What if the drone fails to complete the mission? What if it physically gets captured? What if it is followed?

    I think it would definitely be possible to do something like this in theory, but in practice it would be incredibly difficult to do more the once or at scale, and not get caught.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    There were some conservation groups doing research on fully autonomous drones that could fly around the Amazon in remote regions to study the wildlife.

    I imagine they learned how to nest in trees during high sun to recharge.

    I imagine this research is mostly already done. The only thing we need to do is teach it to identify camera lenses.

    And occasionally refill its tank with black paint (or, better, cache a hotswappable tank somewhere in a forest and then send an encrypted signal with the coordinates)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    cool. guess instead of cutting them down, we'll just start strapping explosives on them instead.

  • source
  • 15 comments in c/Illegalism@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    [–] 8 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    This feels like a good opportunity to remind folks:

    If you use a matte black paint over the lens, it's far less likely to be noticed, and could go unnoticed indefinitely. If you visibly destroy, vandalize, or remove it, it gets noticed a lot sooner, making it a lot easier to connect you to the act. You also face lower penalties if caught if all you did was deface/obstruct the lens.

    Also, practice your cardio, wear shoes with good traction that fit well, and always have an escape route planned

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Pam. Use pam. Cooking spray. Fogs the lens and won't rinse off. The hardware isn't destroyed, but the device is useless until someone goes out and cleans it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    But doesn’t the oil just run down over days? It’s oil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    Could holding up a magnet against it also destroy the cam?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    This just means that we need to keep cutting them down until the real ones are found.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I know this is the "illegalism" community and all, but maybe there could be legal ways to throw a sabot in the gears. The kind of thing that even if you did it in full sight of a cop where they'd set up a raid, the cops couldn't actually do anything about it but harass you.

    (Or make up spurious reasons to arrest you, but you could livestream the process to mitigate that. Not that there aren't other ways they could make your life terrible.)

    I thought maybe something like the Flock Sock. But I've seen various articles indicate that even it would likely result in a criminal mischief charge.

    Maybe a mirror that's removed from the camera itself and reflects sunlight into the camera, producing glare too severe for the camera to be useful. I'm no expert, but maybe just the fact that nothing is really touching the camera or damaging the camera would make a difference to its legality. Or maybe they'd claim that the extra sunlight on the CCD would damage it and still charge you with something.

    Surely at least signs like these wouldn't result in any charges that would actually stick if it went to court. Those signs seem like they're intended to put on your own property. But maybe putting them on public property (where I think probably most flock cameras are -- at intersections and such) wouldn't be illegal in all circumstances.

    I dunno. I'm only brainstorming, really.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    🎶 Gotta sock 'em all!

  • source