News 6 Orlando reports that police in Oviedo, Florida, have charged a man with three felonies for destroying a Flock surveillance camera, even though the camera was...
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 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.
that’s what is alluring about anti-flock action, it feels like a problem that can be solved.