4 ms·

Some guy I once met in a bar told me that he liked to mix a 1:1 solution of elmer's glue and water, put it into a spray bottle, set the nozzle to "stream", then

Some guy I once met in a bar told me that he liked to mix a 1:1 solution of elmer's glue and water, put it into a spray bottle, set the nozzle to "stream", then squirt it all over the lens of a traffic camera near his house which he found offensive. His logic was that this made more sense than destroying the camera, because he could do it over and over and over: the company operating it would have to send someone out to clean the lens off each time, which would probably cost them more money than the camera was worth.

throwaway173738 1y ago
This is the best way to handle it because if the company presses charges they just look ridiculous.
- dpoloncsak 1y ago
  Honestly, feels like the company is within their right to press charges here? Dude is disabling the equipment that they use to turn revenue, no? Don't agree with the company, but I don't find a suit here ridiculous. If my job put up cameras, and my form of protest was to deface and disable them, I'd get fired. This isn't a job, it's government, but it's similar in my head. The people with the authority to do something did it.
  - array_key_first 1y ago
    I don't think this counts as property damage or vandalism because nothing is damaged or vandalized. Part of putting shit in public is that it now has to interact with the public. If you want your stuff pristine, I would think you should not put it in public. Maybe the law disagrees with me here, and it probably does because this country bends over backwards for companies, but that's how I see it.
    - LexiMax 1y ago
      This is America. If you interfere with the business model of a large company, they'll eventually figure out something to criminally charge you with. Felony contempt of business model, and all that.
    - dpoloncsak 1y ago
      >I don't think this counts as property damage or vandalism because nothing is damaged or vandalized. Isn't this a form of graffiti?
      - array_key_first 1y ago
        I don't know, maybe? What's the cut off point for how long it takes to remove something? Removing paint takes a long time. Removing glue doesn't take a long time. Removing a sticky note takes almost no time. If I leave a sticky note on your car, is that graffiti? Is glue graffiti?
    - lacker 1y ago
      Obviously it's property damage. How would you like it if someone covered the windshield of your car with glue?
      - array_key_first 1y ago
        I wouldn't like it but that definitely doesn't make it property damage. Because my property isn't damaged.
jesterson 1y ago
Not only this does good to society in the obvious way, but also creates jobs as someone needs to clean those. Kudos to the guy, who single-handedly doing what almost all politicians miserably fail at.
- belorn 1y ago
  Is it good for society to disable traffic cameras? Here in Sweden, traffic camera is used exclusively to reduce traffic speed on roads where the maximum speed is too fast for installing traffic bumps, with an expected effect of reducing traffic speed by around 20-30%. They are generally only installed on 60-90km/h roads, around road maintenance/construction sites, and in tunnels. They active when the radar detects speeds of 5km above the maximum. (The reduction in speed happens regardless if the camera is functional or not, since it is primarily a psychological effect). Sweden also have traffic monitors that monitor highways around cities, border exists and tunnels, and also license plate readers for toll roads and bridges (also often used for parking). Those two generally have a much higher privacy cost than traffic cameras.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Reducing speed by 20-30% at scale results in a very large loss of man-years of lives in the form of sitting in a car. Reduced earning capacity, lost time with their families, waking up earlier and risks to health associated with reduced sleep, less theoretical throughput of roadways, reduced money for education/food/childcare when they accidently go too fast for a moment and are fined, lack of discretion in issuing tickets for bona fide emergencies, people suddenly slowing down before camera causing accidents, etc. The obvious win in places like the US is that being pulled over is one of the most dangerous thing that ever happens to the common person, as they are exposed to a psychopath with a gun who is trained that the most important thing is to optimize every interaction to maximize his chance of 'making it home to his family' and if a policeman shoots everything that moves (up to and including, falling acorns) because he 'fears for his life' he will largely get away with it. So it is a nice alternative to that.
    - 1y ago
lacker 1y ago
It makes sense to me that criminals, like this guy you met in a bar, are opposed to Flock cameras.

throwaway173738 1y ago

This is the best way to handle it because if the company presses charges they just look ridiculous.

dpoloncsak 1y ago
Honestly, feels like the company is within their right to press charges here? Dude is disabling the equipment that they use to turn revenue, no? Don't agree with the company, but I don't find a suit here ridiculous. If my job put up cameras, and my form of protest was to deface and disable them, I'd get fired. This isn't a job, it's government, but it's similar in my head. The people with the authority to do something did it.
- array_key_first 1y ago
  I don't think this counts as property damage or vandalism because nothing is damaged or vandalized. Part of putting shit in public is that it now has to interact with the public. If you want your stuff pristine, I would think you should not put it in public. Maybe the law disagrees with me here, and it probably does because this country bends over backwards for companies, but that's how I see it.
  - LexiMax 1y ago
    This is America. If you interfere with the business model of a large company, they'll eventually figure out something to criminally charge you with. Felony contempt of business model, and all that.
  - dpoloncsak 1y ago
    >I don't think this counts as property damage or vandalism because nothing is damaged or vandalized. Isn't this a form of graffiti?
    - array_key_first 1y ago
      I don't know, maybe? What's the cut off point for how long it takes to remove something? Removing paint takes a long time. Removing glue doesn't take a long time. Removing a sticky note takes almost no time. If I leave a sticky note on your car, is that graffiti? Is glue graffiti?
  - lacker 1y ago
    Obviously it's property damage. How would you like it if someone covered the windshield of your car with glue?
    - array_key_first 1y ago
      I wouldn't like it but that definitely doesn't make it property damage. Because my property isn't damaged.

jesterson 1y ago

Not only this does good to society in the obvious way, but also creates jobs as someone needs to clean those. Kudos to the guy, who single-handedly doing what almost all politicians miserably fail at.

belorn 1y ago
Is it good for society to disable traffic cameras? Here in Sweden, traffic camera is used exclusively to reduce traffic speed on roads where the maximum speed is too fast for installing traffic bumps, with an expected effect of reducing traffic speed by around 20-30%. They are generally only installed on 60-90km/h roads, around road maintenance/construction sites, and in tunnels. They active when the radar detects speeds of 5km above the maximum. (The reduction in speed happens regardless if the camera is functional or not, since it is primarily a psychological effect). Sweden also have traffic monitors that monitor highways around cities, border exists and tunnels, and also license plate readers for toll roads and bridges (also often used for parking). Those two generally have a much higher privacy cost than traffic cameras.
- mothballed 1y ago
  Reducing speed by 20-30% at scale results in a very large loss of man-years of lives in the form of sitting in a car. Reduced earning capacity, lost time with their families, waking up earlier and risks to health associated with reduced sleep, less theoretical throughput of roadways, reduced money for education/food/childcare when they accidently go too fast for a moment and are fined, lack of discretion in issuing tickets for bona fide emergencies, people suddenly slowing down before camera causing accidents, etc. The obvious win in places like the US is that being pulled over is one of the most dangerous thing that ever happens to the common person, as they are exposed to a psychopath with a gun who is trained that the most important thing is to optimize every interaction to maximize his chance of 'making it home to his family' and if a policeman shoots everything that moves (up to and including, falling acorns) because he 'fears for his life' he will largely get away with it. So it is a nice alternative to that.
  - 1y ago

lacker 1y ago

It makes sense to me that criminals, like this guy you met in a bar, are opposed to Flock cameras.