3 ms·

Those people throwing tea into the harbor are destroying property for political reason and are wrong and should be considered terrorists. If they don't like th

Those people throwing tea into the harbor are destroying property for political reason and are wrong and should be considered terrorists. If they don't like the King's governors they should petition the court to appoint one that more aligns with their taxation desires.

bko 1mo ago
Well the government was illegitimate. Is that what you're contending happening here? Are you trying to overthrow the police department or municipal government? How do you feel about Jan 6?
- none2585 1mo ago
  I think the extrajudicial use of these types of surveillance is an illegitimate use of power and thus fine to be destroyed.
  - bko 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - none2585 1mo ago
      Of course you can, just you likely won't get any sympathy in the large number of cases where the public or government doesn't agree with you (police, abortion clinics). In this case looks like the people agree with destroying these things. Violence is increasingly the only path forward in America.
    - unclad5968 1mo ago
      Well you can do whatever you want but those are hardly equivalent to destroying a camera.
    - Gormo 1mo ago
      The comment you're responding to didn't formulate the argument as "I am against [X], therefore I am justified in destroying property used to do [X]", but is rather closer "[X] is itself illegal and therefore I am justified in potentially destroying property in order to stop imminent lawbreaking". You can argue the point as to whether this particular "[X]" actually does constitute illegal activity that a citizen is justified in responding to with force, but I don't think it's valid to mischaracterize the argument as the response being justified solely by personal opposition.
      - bko 1mo ago
        If someone thinks abortion is illegal because it's against right to life. So bombing abortion clinics is justified. Is that how this works? Nonsense obviously
        deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
        Gormo 1mo ago
        > If someone thinks abortion is illegal because it's against right to life. So bombing abortion clinics is justified. Is that how this works? No, that's definitely not how it works, and your example clearly doesn't compare to what we're talking about. First, "right to life" is not a law that's being objectively violated, just a moral principle that certain people feel emotionally compelled to defend. This puts your example squarely on the "act to assert personal feelings" side of the divide, definitely not "act to stop imminent lawbreaking". Second, while essentially all jurisdictions absolutely do allow citizens to intervene and use force to stop imminent lawbreaking, the rules around that usually require proportionality, and require that one's own actions merely be targeted at stopping the illegal activity, and not use disproportionate force beyond that. So even in a situation where abortion was illegal, bombing an abortion clinic would be a grossly excessive action that goes far beyond merely stopping the illegal activity. By comparison, disabling or blocking cameras that have been set up to commit illegal espionage is a clearly proportionate response, narrowly targeted at the illegal activity, and not causing damage beyond that.
- digitalPhonix 1mo ago
  Wait, how was it illegitimate? That's not an argument that I've heard.
- CodeMage 1mo ago
  > Well the government was illegitimate. Is that what you're contending happening here? When the jury of your peers decides that you should not be punished for something despite the law stating otherwise, it is a powerful statement. There's a reason why the judicial system is set up to allow this. > Are you trying to overthrow the police department or municipal government? The people in the US are not there yet. But you might want to recall JFK's words: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Take a look at what's happening in the US, think about it for a while, and then come back and tell everyone whether you think the people are being properly represented by their government and served by their public servants. > How do you feel about Jan 6? I feel that Jan 6 is one of the watershed moments that led us to where we are now. The fact that those responsible weren't punished was a clear signal that the rule of law was being abandoned. You're behaving like the relationship between the government and the people is symmetrical. It's not. When the government stops obeying its own laws, people take notice.
hershey890 1mo ago
Terrorism requires people to be in terror. Is putting the flock cameras up or taking them down causing more terror?
- lokar 1mo ago
  Or more narrowly, terrorism is the use or threat of violence to influence a political outcome. Clearly not the case here
  - exe34 1mo ago
    The political outcome is that Peter Thiel wants to have full control of all security apparatus around the world. Fighting Flock is 100% a political fight.
- bko 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tstenner 1mo ago
    Unless you're an [ex-partner and/or woman seeking an out of state abortion](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/13/flock-safety-police-abuse-surveillance-cameras https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/13/flock-saf...). So it's like deflating a police car's tires while the occupant is getting ready to stalk his ex-girlfriend.
  - swiftcoder 1mo ago
    > It's like cutting the brakes of police cars or deflating their tires These two things are decidedly not on the same level. Cutting someone's brakes is an attempt to kill the driver. Deflating tires is just plain old property damage.
  - Gormo 1mo ago
    From what I'm seeing online, it looks like Houston started installing Flock cameras in 2022. How were they investigating kidnapping cases before that? I'd be astonished if decades of methodology and infrastructure for investigating crime have all completely evaporated in the wake of a new and experimental tool -- one that's neither fully demonstrated its reliability as an investigation tool nor that it does not itself create a threat to public safety. It's a bit polemical to blame their failure to apprehend their suspect on the lack of an tool that shouldn't have been necessary to apprehend the suspect in the first place, don't you think?
Terr_ 1mo ago
Also, only knaves and fools would be concerned with The Crown's modest regulations for reporting "meta data" on all guilds and meeting-houses. "Using Metadata to find Paul Revere": https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/ https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metad...

bko 1mo ago

Well the government was illegitimate. Is that what you're contending happening here? Are you trying to overthrow the police department or municipal government? How do you feel about Jan 6?

none2585 1mo ago
I think the extrajudicial use of these types of surveillance is an illegitimate use of power and thus fine to be destroyed.
- bko 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - none2585 1mo ago
    Of course you can, just you likely won't get any sympathy in the large number of cases where the public or government doesn't agree with you (police, abortion clinics). In this case looks like the people agree with destroying these things. Violence is increasingly the only path forward in America.
  - unclad5968 1mo ago
    Well you can do whatever you want but those are hardly equivalent to destroying a camera.
  - Gormo 1mo ago
    The comment you're responding to didn't formulate the argument as "I am against [X], therefore I am justified in destroying property used to do [X]", but is rather closer "[X] is itself illegal and therefore I am justified in potentially destroying property in order to stop imminent lawbreaking". You can argue the point as to whether this particular "[X]" actually does constitute illegal activity that a citizen is justified in responding to with force, but I don't think it's valid to mischaracterize the argument as the response being justified solely by personal opposition.
    - bko 1mo ago
      If someone thinks abortion is illegal because it's against right to life. So bombing abortion clinics is justified. Is that how this works? Nonsense obviously
      - deleted 1mo ago
        [deleted]
      - Gormo 1mo ago
        > If someone thinks abortion is illegal because it's against right to life. So bombing abortion clinics is justified. Is that how this works? No, that's definitely not how it works, and your example clearly doesn't compare to what we're talking about. First, "right to life" is not a law that's being objectively violated, just a moral principle that certain people feel emotionally compelled to defend. This puts your example squarely on the "act to assert personal feelings" side of the divide, definitely not "act to stop imminent lawbreaking". Second, while essentially all jurisdictions absolutely do allow citizens to intervene and use force to stop imminent lawbreaking, the rules around that usually require proportionality, and require that one's own actions merely be targeted at stopping the illegal activity, and not use disproportionate force beyond that. So even in a situation where abortion was illegal, bombing an abortion clinic would be a grossly excessive action that goes far beyond merely stopping the illegal activity. By comparison, disabling or blocking cameras that have been set up to commit illegal espionage is a clearly proportionate response, narrowly targeted at the illegal activity, and not causing damage beyond that.
digitalPhonix 1mo ago
Wait, how was it illegitimate? That's not an argument that I've heard.
CodeMage 1mo ago
> Well the government was illegitimate. Is that what you're contending happening here? When the jury of your peers decides that you should not be punished for something despite the law stating otherwise, it is a powerful statement. There's a reason why the judicial system is set up to allow this. > Are you trying to overthrow the police department or municipal government? The people in the US are not there yet. But you might want to recall JFK's words: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Take a look at what's happening in the US, think about it for a while, and then come back and tell everyone whether you think the people are being properly represented by their government and served by their public servants. > How do you feel about Jan 6? I feel that Jan 6 is one of the watershed moments that led us to where we are now. The fact that those responsible weren't punished was a clear signal that the rule of law was being abandoned. You're behaving like the relationship between the government and the people is symmetrical. It's not. When the government stops obeying its own laws, people take notice.

hershey890 1mo ago

Terrorism requires people to be in terror. Is putting the flock cameras up or taking them down causing more terror?

lokar 1mo ago
Or more narrowly, terrorism is the use or threat of violence to influence a political outcome. Clearly not the case here
- exe34 1mo ago
  The political outcome is that Peter Thiel wants to have full control of all security apparatus around the world. Fighting Flock is 100% a political fight.
bko 1mo ago
[flagged]
- tstenner 1mo ago
  Unless you're an [ex-partner and/or woman seeking an out of state abortion](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/13/flock-safety-police-abuse-surveillance-cameras https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/13/flock-saf...). So it's like deflating a police car's tires while the occupant is getting ready to stalk his ex-girlfriend.
- swiftcoder 1mo ago
  > It's like cutting the brakes of police cars or deflating their tires These two things are decidedly not on the same level. Cutting someone's brakes is an attempt to kill the driver. Deflating tires is just plain old property damage.
- Gormo 1mo ago
  From what I'm seeing online, it looks like Houston started installing Flock cameras in 2022. How were they investigating kidnapping cases before that? I'd be astonished if decades of methodology and infrastructure for investigating crime have all completely evaporated in the wake of a new and experimental tool -- one that's neither fully demonstrated its reliability as an investigation tool nor that it does not itself create a threat to public safety. It's a bit polemical to blame their failure to apprehend their suspect on the lack of an tool that shouldn't have been necessary to apprehend the suspect in the first place, don't you think?

Terr_ 1mo ago

Also, only knaves and fools would be concerned with The Crown's modest regulations for reporting "meta data" on all guilds and meeting-houses. "Using Metadata to find Paul Revere": https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/ https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metad...