5 ms·
Maybe this will be viewed as too anti-social, but has anyone considered doing laser based attacks on these? Lasers seem to be able to damage camera sensors fair
by shittyadmin 8y ago
Maybe this will be viewed as too anti-social, but has anyone considered doing laser based attacks on these? Lasers seem to be able to damage camera sensors fairly easily and permanently and as they operate in the visible light range should be hard to block. Could make a system like this prohibitively expensive to operate.
- unstatusthequo 8y agoUntil they arrest and fine you for damaging government property... The way to fight this is with votes or in courts, which may not be effective in short term but doesn’t land you in jail.
- pugworthy 8y agoNeither votes nor courts enabled this - governments just did it, and will just do things like this without asking (nor sometimes checking). The challenge in a way is how can we ever vote for or fight against (in court) things we don't even know exist sometimes?
- rrix2 8y agoPresent legislation for public surveillance accountability (or vote for people who will) like Seattle did https://www.seattle.gov/tech/initiatives/privacy/surveillance-technologies/about-surveillance-ordinance https://www.seattle.gov/tech/initiatives/privacy/surveillanc...
- lvs 8y agoCourts and legislatures could stop it or regulate its use. The heart of the legal question is what aspects of domestic surveillance might be seen to violate 4th amendment protections. Thus far, "the right of people to be secure in their persons" has not been interpreted by courts in a manner that would constrain or limit surveillance in public places or the use of catch-all checkpoints. That could change with the right test cases, particularly if harms can be established.
- ams6110 8y agoI think the test cases would hinge upon the difference between a specific individual not having an expectation of privacy in public, versus the public in general. It's always been possible to follow an individual around and keep him under surveillance. It's never been possible to keep everybody under surveillance all at the same time.
- bilbo0s 8y agoTo be fair, the people of San Diego voted their government in. So in my view, they got what they deserved. I'm not sitting on a high horse or anything. I mean hey, I'm from Wisconsin. We're literally the nation's corruption measuring stick. But we voted our politicians in, so we deserve what's happening to us. I'm just holding San Diego to the same standard. If you hadn't voted them in, this wouldn't be happening to you. Best advice I can give you? Vote in some new guys who will pass new measures to get rid of the cameras.
- mindslight 8y agoThe idea that people deserve what politicians do to them because voting has occurred is a smug easy answer, but it's ultimately just baseless victim blaming.
- ams6110 8y agoExactly right. Keep electing the same people, same party, who always campaign on issues that they never actually solve, while they solidify and expand their power.
- bilbo0s 8y ago>who always campaign on issues that they never actually solve, while they solidify and expand their power... Pretty much describes every party though, that's the issue. Wisconsin got screwed over by conservatives, SD got screwed over by liberals. Just have to try to find an honest politician. (Of course, that in and of itself is at once a quixotic and sisyphean task.)
- djeikyb 8y ago1. the folks who did this weren’t unanimously voted in by san diego residents 2. the folks who did this did it secretly, without consent deserves? i’d rather push for what ought to be than justify the current mess.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- zzzcpan 8y agoThey will always find what to arrest you for if you threaten their power.
- lamarpye 8y agoJussie Smollett would be an excellent spokesman for this issue. A cautionary tale about Government overreach.
- ssss11 8y agoThat’s a nice sentiment but in reality your vote doesn’t count because every politician and government puts these measures in at the first opportunity. You may think governments work for the people but that’s just theory.
- mindslight 8y agoThis could work great mounted to a drone, to operate without being tracked by the remaining surveillance cameras. The problem is that the stakes are quite high, and a gradually creeping occupation doesn't lend itself to a flashpoint of popular opinion saying enough is enough. This might be a great nonmurder application for an assassination-market style thing though.
- anticensor 8y agoYou could begin in dense districts to have a more pronounced reaction.
- killjoywashere 8y agoSo, you don't do that... You start in the burbs. Out on the periphery. "Huh ... camera 20179 doesn't work. Put in a trouble ticket." Trouble ticket goes to the bottom of the stack. Too far away for anyone to bother driving too. Eventually they see a pile of these at the bottom of the stack. If you're lucky, they decide to take a pass on option years for the project because they massively under-budgeted the maintenance side of the contract.
- booleandilemma 8y agoThat just sounds like it’ll encourage criminals to operate in the burbs because there’s less surveillance. What’s so bad about cameras in public spaces anyway? Speaking as someone who had his phone stolen in a public space, I regret that there weren’t cameras around so they could’ve caught the guy.
- kgwxd 8y agoEven with super HD video evidence, the police aren't going to spend thousands of dollars tracking down who stole your worthless phone unless you're someone of influence. And, if the footage is theirs, they're not even going to bother releasing it so you can get some kind of social justice, because that cost them time and money too.
- godelski 8y agoWouldn't spray paint be a lot easier?
- shittyadmin 8y agoIt would, but I'm guessing they have a very cheap, ~$1 lens filter or glass sheet on those things. Permanently damaging the camera sensor isn't so cheap or easy to replace. And as many lasers operate in the visible light spectrum you can't block it without worsening the image quality substantially.