II don’t condone property damage, but you won’t hear me complaining about taking non-violent actions that benefit everyone…just be aware that those things are definitely GPS tracked and send pings to the main hub to signal that they’re still working, so other cameras definitely point at the spots where flock cameras are supposed to be once they stop sending those pings
Yes, but now things are different and the media push a false narrative about what you actually want.
Being an environmentalist that sets fire to tesla charging stations? Well I guess you don’t actually care about pollution if you want all the plastic to be burning
responding with violence when someone doesn’t understand you’re one person but call yourself a “they” and “them”? that doesn’t help with being accepted, that’s only going to make people hate you
But everyone who understands what flock cameras are all about will be in favor of people cutting them down. There was that ethical hacker who revealed to the world that he was able to get into them with no password or credentials of any kind and he found out that flock cameras zoom in on people’s phone screens and kids’ faces. Flock cameras are a genuine threat to people’s safety just imagine what a criminal hacker could do with them or what those people might’ve done already? You could stalk people and figure out when their kids will be home alone
Those are poor examples of property damage to affect change. Why would an environmentalist destroy an electric vehicle station? And someone responding with violence to being mis-label is just an asshole, violence or property damage is only effective if directed at those that can affect change.
Now someone who cuts the charging cord at a Tesla station in protest to Elon’s hold on our collective information (DOGE), or someone slashing the tires of a vehicle belonging to ICE, now we’re talking.
I don’t think property damage is or should be the answer to just any societal ill, but I absolutely support it when they’ve taken away other reasonable forms of redress. Flock fits that bill, as does ICE, etc.
I agree with you on your final point, specifically about Flock. Which is why I would never say that property damage isn’t he answer.
When the wealthy have destroyed the social contract, it’s not just a bad idea to tell people how important it is to stick to the social contract, but it also puts people in danger to encourage them to do so.
Instead, it’s important to first look out for your own safety. It’s reasonable to consider that you want to avoid doing things that would put you in danger(like solo acts that might get you arrested), but it’s literally everyone for themself. The social contract is gone. If you see an opportunity to do something like that, it’s going to come down to your own decision about whether it’s worth it.
I’m not going to advocate that you do something like that, but I’m certainly not going to tell you not to do it.
those things are definitely GPS tracked and send pings to the main hub to signal that they’re still working
Whatever you do, don’t put them in a faraday bag to prevent them from doing this. It’d certainly be terrible if some were to do that and avoided being caught…
II don’t condone property damage, but you won’t hear me complaining about taking non-violent actions that benefit everyone…just be aware that those things are definitely GPS tracked and send pings to the main hub to signal that they’re still working, so other cameras definitely point at the spots where flock cameras are supposed to be once they stop sending those pings
Honest question, why not?
Legal liability reasons.
Because any other kind of property damage doesn’t help anyone’s case
On the contrary, it’s the only thing that ever has.
Would you have been advocating against the Boston Tea Party in 1773?
Mascarading as Native Americans to deflect blame when you’re caught in a tax protest.
You’ll notice the only people who still hagiographize the Tea Party today are right wing Chuds and reactionary libertarians.
Yes, but now things are different and the media push a false narrative about what you actually want.
Being an environmentalist that sets fire to tesla charging stations? Well I guess you don’t actually care about pollution if you want all the plastic to be burning
responding with violence when someone doesn’t understand you’re one person but call yourself a “they” and “them”? that doesn’t help with being accepted, that’s only going to make people hate you
But everyone who understands what flock cameras are all about will be in favor of people cutting them down. There was that ethical hacker who revealed to the world that he was able to get into them with no password or credentials of any kind and he found out that flock cameras zoom in on people’s phone screens and kids’ faces. Flock cameras are a genuine threat to people’s safety just imagine what a criminal hacker could do with them or what those people might’ve done already? You could stalk people and figure out when their kids will be home alone
Those are poor examples of property damage to affect change. Why would an environmentalist destroy an electric vehicle station? And someone responding with violence to being mis-label is just an asshole, violence or property damage is only effective if directed at those that can affect change.
Now someone who cuts the charging cord at a Tesla station in protest to Elon’s hold on our collective information (DOGE), or someone slashing the tires of a vehicle belonging to ICE, now we’re talking.
I don’t think property damage is or should be the answer to just any societal ill, but I absolutely support it when they’ve taken away other reasonable forms of redress. Flock fits that bill, as does ICE, etc.
I agree with you on your final point, specifically about Flock. Which is why I would never say that property damage isn’t he answer.
Here, let me burn down your house.
That’s why - foundational civics.
They’ve broken the social contract. How does Flock surveillance fit into your definition of foundational civics?
Exactly.
When the wealthy have destroyed the social contract, it’s not just a bad idea to tell people how important it is to stick to the social contract, but it also puts people in danger to encourage them to do so.
Instead, it’s important to first look out for your own safety. It’s reasonable to consider that you want to avoid doing things that would put you in danger(like solo acts that might get you arrested), but it’s literally everyone for themself. The social contract is gone. If you see an opportunity to do something like that, it’s going to come down to your own decision about whether it’s worth it.
I’m not going to advocate that you do something like that, but I’m certainly not going to tell you not to do it.
Whatever you do, don’t put them in a faraday bag to prevent them from doing this. It’d certainly be terrible if some were to do that and avoided being caught…