Edit 2: The below sentence does not contain an “as” between “might” and “well”. I’m wondering if people are seeing one there and are thinking I’m saying something that I’m not, because that word completely changes the meaning of the sentence.
He has fallen into the trap of making constitutional decisions for himself and others rather than going through the proper channels and so they might well throw the book at him.
Yes, I know “the proper channels” will do their very best to ignore, deny or obfuscate as long as they can in order to avoid the question of constitutionality (or legality) of such systems, and that’s why he did it, but he might have had a slightly better defence if he’d at least tried to sue or challenge Flock’s existence and use by less destructive means before doing this.
Edit: Based on the number of downvotes, it seems like a lot of people know something I don’t. The only comment that suggests anything at all though, provides exactly the same amount of evidence that I have for my point of view than they do for theirs.
I would have thought that the article would have mentioned it, because that would make for an interesting part to the story. It does not seem to do so.
The government is the enemy of the people. They are installing devices that violate the rights of citizens. All legal action against them for flock cameras has resulted in no change, regardless of whether or not this person tried to go through those same channels. That leaves the people to defend our rights by whatever means are necessary to do so, including but not limited to disabling those cameras permanently.
If I see a person kidnapping a child, I can use force to stop them. I could call the cops and hope they arrive and stop the crime from happening, but for the safety of the kidnappee and the general public, doing it myself may result in the best outcome at the risk of my own safety. Disabling flock cameras is like stopping a kidnapper.
Maybe I should have said breaking the blackmailer’s windows or messing up their car. The blackmailer here is the city. “The city” is effectively alive, in that the people running it are.
I’m not trying to discredit him. I’m just suggesting there are things that might need to be tried first before going nuts and destroying property, and in absence of evidence that he’d already done that, I assumed he hadn’t, because people really like going to the destroy phase straight away.
Except that burning down the black mailer’s house doesn’t stop the blackmailer. If the blackmailer were a computer, not a living creature, then it would be more like destroying the computer, but still a little different just due to the scale. Flock cameras violate everyone’s rights where a blackmailing computer, in theory, is affecting one person.
Further, the legal channels to silence a blackmailer have a history of success, probably because it’s not the government doing the blackmailing, so they aren’t trying to defend themselves. Compared to flock cameras where the government has a vested interest in keeping the running, so they will block and ignore legal challenges against them.
This is cornering people leaving the only option as destruction as other methods have failed. It’s acceptable to go outside the bounds of the law to correct injustice, especially on a scale as big as this. I believe that to be true about anything, not just this. Luigi is an example. He allegedly took action because the system failed. He solved one problem and temporarily created positive change at his own expense. Had he been able to burn down the company and destroy their process instead of allegedly killing a man, that would be better, but that wasn’t an option, so he allegedly did what he thought was necessary, and there’s a reason he’s got such significant support.
Destroying the cameras doesn’t stop the city / corporate espionage either, it’s only a bump in the road to them.
You have to at least try doing it by the book. And then you put bags over the cameras or stick things over the lenses. Outright destruction only gives them a ton of ammunition to “prove” that the cameras are needed. Blocking its view is still ammo, but it’s not as much.
Hard disagree on the bags thing. Again, proper channel have been followed by other parties multiple times to no avail. The government is profiting off of flock cameras, so they will not change. That leaves one option, and that’s destruction. Putting a bag over allows someone to just remove the bag. If enough cameras are smashed and have to be replaced infinitely, then maybe they’ll get the hint or the cost will exceed the value. It has to be effort and cost for them to fix or replace them, otherwise it’s a minor inconvenience.
Destruction is the only viable path to freedom. Trying to get it done legally in a flawed system who’s bias is pro flock cameras is not an option as has been proven.
Sure it can give them ammo, but the alternative is not giving them an excuse to which they’ll continue unabated. At least this way they have to work for it.
If you think that flock cameras should exist, then we are just never going to be on the same page, because their monitoring and the ability to search a person’s location without warrant is illegal, and that’s what’s happening. It’s established that going through “the proper channels” is not an option. They will not remove them because have a corrupt government that is the enemy of the people. Given the above, what options are left? A bag over the camera is nothing, but the consequences are likely the same as if it were destroyed. That means if someone is willing to put themselves at risk, then the best option is destruction. If enough people got on board, there’s nothing the government could do. There’s way more of us than there are of them.
Sometimes legality and the right thing don’t align, and this is one of those times.
I never said the cameras should exist. And if there’s already been a class action lawsuit (or whatever the equivalent is for getting cameras taken down in this man’s jurisdiction) please direct me to it.
The last town I heard of that got rid of their Flock cameras did so because people started putting in Freedom of Information requests for them. The authorities didn’t like the idea of the public having access to that information at all, and they knew it wouldn’t stand up in court because the usual excuses wouldn’t work. (Namely “think of the children” and “national security”.)
The only way to win is to make them take their own cameras down and rethink their ideas otherwise they’ll just keep on replacing the broken ones, charging the public for the privilege and locking up the offenders.
And finally, if there truly was no other option, which I’m yet to be convinced of, he shouldn’t have acted alone.
There are a handful of easily searchable lawsuits against flock cameras. I only say it that way because linking those is a pain on mobile and there’s enough examples that it’s easily searchable. Not trying to be defensive or deflecting.
I’ll concede that “the only option” was not good phrasing. However I still believe that it’s inline with going through proper channels. Even if the law comes through and bans flock, throughout that entire process, they are still recording. My belief is that this is a positive action and this person that risk his freedom is something of a hero.
I see your point of view and understand what you mean, but I just don’t agree with it. Sometimes anarchy is the answer, although I agree that it would be best done en masse rather than individually.
Edit 2: The below sentence does not contain an “as” between “might” and “well”. I’m wondering if people are seeing one there and are thinking I’m saying something that I’m not, because that word completely changes the meaning of the sentence.
He has fallen into the trap of making constitutional decisions for himself and others rather than going through the proper channels and so they might well throw the book at him.
Yes, I know “the proper channels” will do their very best to ignore, deny or obfuscate as long as they can in order to avoid the question of constitutionality (or legality) of such systems, and that’s why he did it, but he might have had a slightly better defence if he’d at least tried to sue or challenge Flock’s existence and use by less destructive means before doing this.
Edit: Based on the number of downvotes, it seems like a lot of people know something I don’t. The only comment that suggests anything at all though, provides exactly the same amount of evidence that I have for my point of view than they do for theirs.
Do you know for sure he did not attempt any of the “right” ways you’re suggesting?
I would have thought that the article would have mentioned it, because that would make for an interesting part to the story. It does not seem to do so.
If only there were any journalists left in the world, you might be able to make that assumption.
The government is the enemy of the people. They are installing devices that violate the rights of citizens. All legal action against them for flock cameras has resulted in no change, regardless of whether or not this person tried to go through those same channels. That leaves the people to defend our rights by whatever means are necessary to do so, including but not limited to disabling those cameras permanently.
If I see a person kidnapping a child, I can use force to stop them. I could call the cops and hope they arrive and stop the crime from happening, but for the safety of the kidnappee and the general public, doing it myself may result in the best outcome at the risk of my own safety. Disabling flock cameras is like stopping a kidnapper.
Disagree. This is more like firebombing a blackmailer’s house.
No it fucking isn’t.
The camera isn’t alive.
Taking it apart isn’t going to cause a fire to spread.
This man is a hero. Stop trying to discredit him.
If he did it.
This man is an alleged hero ;)
Did I say the blackmailer was home?
Maybe I should have said breaking the blackmailer’s windows or messing up their car. The blackmailer here is the city. “The city” is effectively alive, in that the people running it are.
I’m not trying to discredit him. I’m just suggesting there are things that might need to be tried first before going nuts and destroying property, and in absence of evidence that he’d already done that, I assumed he hadn’t, because people really like going to the destroy phase straight away.
No you’re right. Fires only spread when someone is in the house. My bad.
Also they aren’t the cities. They are flocks. And fuck them. Fascists shouldn’t get to have things.
Except that burning down the black mailer’s house doesn’t stop the blackmailer. If the blackmailer were a computer, not a living creature, then it would be more like destroying the computer, but still a little different just due to the scale. Flock cameras violate everyone’s rights where a blackmailing computer, in theory, is affecting one person.
Further, the legal channels to silence a blackmailer have a history of success, probably because it’s not the government doing the blackmailing, so they aren’t trying to defend themselves. Compared to flock cameras where the government has a vested interest in keeping the running, so they will block and ignore legal challenges against them.
This is cornering people leaving the only option as destruction as other methods have failed. It’s acceptable to go outside the bounds of the law to correct injustice, especially on a scale as big as this. I believe that to be true about anything, not just this. Luigi is an example. He allegedly took action because the system failed. He solved one problem and temporarily created positive change at his own expense. Had he been able to burn down the company and destroy their process instead of allegedly killing a man, that would be better, but that wasn’t an option, so he allegedly did what he thought was necessary, and there’s a reason he’s got such significant support.
Destroying the cameras doesn’t stop the city / corporate espionage either, it’s only a bump in the road to them.
You have to at least try doing it by the book. And then you put bags over the cameras or stick things over the lenses. Outright destruction only gives them a ton of ammunition to “prove” that the cameras are needed. Blocking its view is still ammo, but it’s not as much.
Hard disagree on the bags thing. Again, proper channel have been followed by other parties multiple times to no avail. The government is profiting off of flock cameras, so they will not change. That leaves one option, and that’s destruction. Putting a bag over allows someone to just remove the bag. If enough cameras are smashed and have to be replaced infinitely, then maybe they’ll get the hint or the cost will exceed the value. It has to be effort and cost for them to fix or replace them, otherwise it’s a minor inconvenience.
Destruction is the only viable path to freedom. Trying to get it done legally in a flawed system who’s bias is pro flock cameras is not an option as has been proven.
Sure it can give them ammo, but the alternative is not giving them an excuse to which they’ll continue unabated. At least this way they have to work for it.
If you think that flock cameras should exist, then we are just never going to be on the same page, because their monitoring and the ability to search a person’s location without warrant is illegal, and that’s what’s happening. It’s established that going through “the proper channels” is not an option. They will not remove them because have a corrupt government that is the enemy of the people. Given the above, what options are left? A bag over the camera is nothing, but the consequences are likely the same as if it were destroyed. That means if someone is willing to put themselves at risk, then the best option is destruction. If enough people got on board, there’s nothing the government could do. There’s way more of us than there are of them.
Sometimes legality and the right thing don’t align, and this is one of those times.
I never said the cameras should exist. And if there’s already been a class action lawsuit (or whatever the equivalent is for getting cameras taken down in this man’s jurisdiction) please direct me to it.
The last town I heard of that got rid of their Flock cameras did so because people started putting in Freedom of Information requests for them. The authorities didn’t like the idea of the public having access to that information at all, and they knew it wouldn’t stand up in court because the usual excuses wouldn’t work. (Namely “think of the children” and “national security”.)
The only way to win is to make them take their own cameras down and rethink their ideas otherwise they’ll just keep on replacing the broken ones, charging the public for the privilege and locking up the offenders.
And finally, if there truly was no other option, which I’m yet to be convinced of, he shouldn’t have acted alone.
There are a handful of easily searchable lawsuits against flock cameras. I only say it that way because linking those is a pain on mobile and there’s enough examples that it’s easily searchable. Not trying to be defensive or deflecting.
I’ll concede that “the only option” was not good phrasing. However I still believe that it’s inline with going through proper channels. Even if the law comes through and bans flock, throughout that entire process, they are still recording. My belief is that this is a positive action and this person that risk his freedom is something of a hero.
I see your point of view and understand what you mean, but I just don’t agree with it. Sometimes anarchy is the answer, although I agree that it would be best done en masse rather than individually.
Delay, deflect, deflock.