4 ms·

How many homeowners install mystery-meat Chinese cameras on their houses that feed the data God knows where? Should their homes be vandalized too for their lack

How many homeowners install mystery-meat Chinese cameras on their houses that feed the data God knows where? Should their homes be vandalized too for their lack of concern for the community?

dirasieb 8mo ago
[flagged]
- estearum 8mo ago
  Sometimes I envy the simplicity of the mental worlds some people apparently occupy
mmanfrin 8mo ago
Far cry difference between that and the mass dragnet and centralized surveillance of entire communities at tap for agencies/police/fed.
noah_buddy 8mo ago
Beyond any discussion of “vigilante” / “criminal” destruction of cameras, there’s a clear difference between giving domestic corporations (who act hand in glove with your local government) access to cameras on your property vs. giving foreign corporations (working hand in glove with an adversary government) access to cameras on your property. It really comes down to whether you consider an individual’s right to privacy more important than your state’s security. Neither is really a perfect options in this case, but having the Flock camera means some part of your property is under the panopticon of local law enforcement that could arrest you (loss of privacy). Going with chinese tech, you are probably more private in regards to your own government, but you’re probably having some negative effect on state security based on the marginal benefit of CCP surveillance/ potential malware in your network. The dichotomy is false. People could have cameras which report to no one, but that’s less useful for all governments involved.
- dirasieb 8mo ago
  ok so let's just put aside chinese companies! ring is an american company, should people's ring cameras be vandalized because ring might share their data with the american government?
  - toomuchtodo 8mo ago
    I have not vandalized any Ring cameras, but I have paid to replace those installed by friends and family and have those replaced shredded as part of an electronics recycling waste stream. "Think globally, act locally" sort of thing.
    - dirasieb 8mo ago
      i don't think the people destroying flock cameras are open to the idea of going through the legal process to replace them with alternatives that have better privacy, something (maybe the fact that they currently are vandalizing them) tells me that they are just interested in vandalizing them
      - toomuchtodo 8mo ago
        Flock cameras are different, they take advantage of laws that have not kept pace with technology while being colocated and operated in public spaces, to where you are forced to live in a corporate surveillance state for Flock Group's enterprise value and potential shareholder returns. And so, destruction of the devices is all that is left available to them (if their jurisdiction opts to not remove them, as many have done [1]). Somewhat silly to blame humans who want privacy (arguably a human right [2]) just so the CEO of Flock can get wealthy (and YC can get liquidity) at IPO, no? The human is doing what you would expect the human to do when faced with limited options in an operating environment that is not favorable to them. Crime has been trending down for some time [3], Flock cameras are a business driven on fear like Shotspotter, where the results are questionable at best and you're selling to the unsophisticated. [1] https://www.npr.org/2026/02/17/nx-s1-5612825/flock-contracts-canceled-immigration-survillance-concerns https://www.npr.org/2026/02/17/nx-s1-5612825/flock-contracts... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy [3] https://time.com/7357500/crime-homicide-rate-violent-property-decline-trump-covid-19/ https://time.com/7357500/crime-homicide-rate-violent-propert... | https://archive.today/vMACL https://archive.today/vMACL
xienze 8mo ago
> Should their homes be vandalized too for their lack of concern for the community? If enough people can be convinced that those cameras are somehow helping Trump, you’ll find a lot of people in here and Reddit saying “yes”, I’ll imagine. Before this we had people vandalizing Teslas because of Elon.
dec0dedab0de 8mo ago
yes.
bee_rider 8mo ago
Rather, a community could pass a law to prevent persistent filming of public locations—why not, right?
- fc417fc802 8mo ago
  Well, not in the US since filming in public is (at least AFAIK) constitutionally protected. It's weird though, somehow two party consent for audio recording (even in public) seems to be accepted by the courts. Although it's entirely possible that I have a misunderstanding.
  - bee_rider 8mo ago
    It is actually kind of hard to look this up: I get lots of search results about the right to record police being protected constitutionally. And the lack of an inherent right to privacy, when in public. But, this doesn’t seem to preclude a locality from creating a law that disallows recording of public locations, right? You may not have a constitutional right to safe air, but as far as I know states can pass their own environmental regulations… (All US specific)
jacquesm 8mo ago
As long as they're not pointed at the street that should be fine. If they are pointed at the street then, depending on where you live, that may not be acceptable.
lm28469 8mo ago
I'll personally send my DNA and weekly blood work straight to Xi Jinping address and pay for postage myself before letting my own government spy my every moves. Thés risks of anything bad happening are much lower

How many homeowners install mystery-meat Chinese cameras on their houses that feed the data God knows where? Should their homes be vandalized too for their lack of concern for the community?

dirasieb 8mo ago

[flagged]

estearum 8mo ago
Sometimes I envy the simplicity of the mental worlds some people apparently occupy

mmanfrin 8mo ago

Far cry difference between that and the mass dragnet and centralized surveillance of entire communities at tap for agencies/police/fed.

noah_buddy 8mo ago

Beyond any discussion of “vigilante” / “criminal” destruction of cameras, there’s a clear difference between giving domestic corporations (who act hand in glove with your local government) access to cameras on your property vs. giving foreign corporations (working hand in glove with an adversary government) access to cameras on your property. It really comes down to whether you consider an individual’s right to privacy more important than your state’s security. Neither is really a perfect options in this case, but having the Flock camera means some part of your property is under the panopticon of local law enforcement that could arrest you (loss of privacy). Going with chinese tech, you are probably more private in regards to your own government, but you’re probably having some negative effect on state security based on the marginal benefit of CCP surveillance/ potential malware in your network. The dichotomy is false. People could have cameras which report to no one, but that’s less useful for all governments involved.

dirasieb 8mo ago
ok so let's just put aside chinese companies! ring is an american company, should people's ring cameras be vandalized because ring might share their data with the american government?
- toomuchtodo 8mo ago
  I have not vandalized any Ring cameras, but I have paid to replace those installed by friends and family and have those replaced shredded as part of an electronics recycling waste stream. "Think globally, act locally" sort of thing.
  - dirasieb 8mo ago
    i don't think the people destroying flock cameras are open to the idea of going through the legal process to replace them with alternatives that have better privacy, something (maybe the fact that they currently are vandalizing them) tells me that they are just interested in vandalizing them
    - toomuchtodo 8mo ago
      Flock cameras are different, they take advantage of laws that have not kept pace with technology while being colocated and operated in public spaces, to where you are forced to live in a corporate surveillance state for Flock Group's enterprise value and potential shareholder returns. And so, destruction of the devices is all that is left available to them (if their jurisdiction opts to not remove them, as many have done [1]). Somewhat silly to blame humans who want privacy (arguably a human right [2]) just so the CEO of Flock can get wealthy (and YC can get liquidity) at IPO, no? The human is doing what you would expect the human to do when faced with limited options in an operating environment that is not favorable to them. Crime has been trending down for some time [3], Flock cameras are a business driven on fear like Shotspotter, where the results are questionable at best and you're selling to the unsophisticated. [1] https://www.npr.org/2026/02/17/nx-s1-5612825/flock-contracts-canceled-immigration-survillance-concerns https://www.npr.org/2026/02/17/nx-s1-5612825/flock-contracts... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy [3] https://time.com/7357500/crime-homicide-rate-violent-property-decline-trump-covid-19/ https://time.com/7357500/crime-homicide-rate-violent-propert... | https://archive.today/vMACL https://archive.today/vMACL

xienze 8mo ago

> Should their homes be vandalized too for their lack of concern for the community? If enough people can be convinced that those cameras are somehow helping Trump, you’ll find a lot of people in here and Reddit saying “yes”, I’ll imagine. Before this we had people vandalizing Teslas because of Elon.

dec0dedab0de 8mo ago

yes.

bee_rider 8mo ago

Rather, a community could pass a law to prevent persistent filming of public locations—why not, right?

fc417fc802 8mo ago
Well, not in the US since filming in public is (at least AFAIK) constitutionally protected. It's weird though, somehow two party consent for audio recording (even in public) seems to be accepted by the courts. Although it's entirely possible that I have a misunderstanding.
- bee_rider 8mo ago
  It is actually kind of hard to look this up: I get lots of search results about the right to record police being protected constitutionally. And the lack of an inherent right to privacy, when in public. But, this doesn’t seem to preclude a locality from creating a law that disallows recording of public locations, right? You may not have a constitutional right to safe air, but as far as I know states can pass their own environmental regulations… (All US specific)

jacquesm 8mo ago

As long as they're not pointed at the street that should be fine. If they are pointed at the street then, depending on where you live, that may not be acceptable.

lm28469 8mo ago

I'll personally send my DNA and weekly blood work straight to Xi Jinping address and pay for postage myself before letting my own government spy my every moves. Thés risks of anything bad happening are much lower