this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
223 points (98.7% liked)

Privacy

6079 readers
20 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Imagine all that effort put into catching someone smashing a stupid camera, it could've been used on a pedophile or something.

You've been warned, they're high on the lookout for Flock vandals now.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hayduke@lemmy.world 101 points 2 weeks ago

Give that man a fake sentence.

[–] h0tbeef@lemmy.zip 76 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

How can they charge him with destroying computer equipment if the camera was fake?

Bullshit charge

Does he have a bail fund?

[–] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 72 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Meyer faces charges of grand theft, criminal mischief causing at least $1,000 in damage and damaging computer or electronic equipment.

Furthermore, nothing was stolen, so charging him with both grand theft and criminal mischief seems like a duplication of charges. Also, a fake camera is surely not worth over $1,000.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 45 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Its a "throw the scary book" level of charges that look good on a press release.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 20 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

And also trying to pressure him into a plea deal by offering to drop some of these bogus charges if he pleads guilty to one or two real charges. (They really don't want this one going up in front of a jury trial.)

[–] StumblingWasabi@lemmy.today 7 points 2 weeks ago

Its not like one of the most unified sentiments right now for everyone is a shared hatred of flock cameras

[–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 weeks ago

It was a fake camera, but it was made of gold for some reason 🤷‍♂️

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago

It's Florida the facts are how they decide they are

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 33 points 2 weeks ago

If the police didn't pay for it then who is the crime against?

[–] GasMaskedLunatic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you point a fake gun at a police officer they put a real bullet in you. As far as I'm concerned, when the police point a fake camera at you, you take them at their word and assume malicious intent. This was not a crime. Awful but lawful.

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago

Oh no, this absolutely was a crime and absolutely illegal.

Unlawful, but a moral, responsible and respectable action. One which any reasonable and sane person would likely do the same.

[–] Smaile@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

this is atrocious, the police aren't concerned with criminals, theyre concerned with control, dead ass hope the worst for the boys in blue over their now. they do not serve the people or the state in my eyes anymore, they're Gestapo.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 19 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Imagine all that effort put into catching someone smashing a stupid camera, it could’ve been used on a pedophile or something.

Now I'm just imagining them putting out a fake child as a pedo sting.

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Catch a Predator is a real thing

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

*was a real thing.

They stopped doing it after one of the people they caught committed suicide.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago

Call me when they get these on the show.

[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 weeks ago

That’s what they do though

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DickFiasco@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There's no way this guy is guilty. I was playing checkers with him at my house when the alleged crime occurred.

[–] StumblingWasabi@lemmy.today 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I remember it clearly, at this particular time I was also playing rock paper scissors with him.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

Officers he can't possibly be guilty because that was the same time he was snorting cocaine out of my navel.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Meyer faces charges of grand theft, criminal mischief causing at least $1,000 in damage and damaging computer or electronic equipment. His total bond was set at $7,500.

I'm sorry but which is it? Did he destroy a fake camera or did he destroy some real equipment worth money? You can't have it both ways you fucking pigs.

[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 5 points 1 week ago

They can and do.

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is he wearing another jacket over his school uniform jacket? That would be a dress code violation in most schools.

[–] Odo@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

IIRC he's wearing the uniform jacket inside out because he thought they were boring. (As to why the lining is that crazy looking, I have to assume the answer is "it was the 90s".)

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

People reading this article and replying with smug gotchas are simply not getting fascism as a concept.

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

I think someone needs to develop a portable, focusable beam-EMP device. So, you know, those soft, vulnerable electronics inside certain devices can be disabled remotely, invisibly, without such the need for inelegant tools such as angle-grinders and box-cutters.

I'd also say re-used Bluray/DVD lasers to burn out the camera CCD, but that would need to be done very carefully, only angling from above, to avoid risk to aircraft and definitely care to avoid any people nearby.

(I wonder if Flock cameras have some sort of laser-filtering on their lenses?)

Do Flock Camera towers use aluminum in any critical, ground-accessible parts? I hear mercury does nasty things to aluminum. But it's also toxic so would need to be handled carefully.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Not sure if EMP is practical, but a small drone with a laser requires much less power and wouldn't do the camera's sensor any good. A drone with a can of spray paint could also cause problems. So I hope no one does either of these.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 11 points 2 weeks ago

With all the cameras being re-patriated by good citizens, I'm sure a number of them already made their way to skilled hackers, tinkerers.

And given how amateurish Flock was with their most recent PR event (a reporter tried to attend, got rejected almost last minute, Flock even went behind his back to cancel his hotel booking, so our guy went full out and with a metric fuckton of RF equipment, monitored the event's signals. WiFi, Bluetooth, wireless mics (which they often left on and just broadcasting out into the wild), I have a feeling that the whole Flock ecosystem is riddled with security issues.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's some incredibly dumb stupid kill switch built into the firmware that can be triggered by something as simple as an ESP32.

[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

What about a drone with a can of thermite

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 5 points 2 weeks ago

Drone with a water balloon full of paint. Aim for the solar panel.

Block the panel, the batteries don't charge, the camera doesn't work.

[–] nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What about a satellite with an array of nuclear weapons? Thermite is such overkill, and risks harming the surroundings.

[–] FartMaster69@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Good idea, if we blot out the sun with nuclear winter they can’t recharge.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why not just build a star-destroyer drone and aim it at the sun? Then Flock can't just wait it out and rebuild.

[–] nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That's a good point, but what if some remnant of humanity survives and rebuilds on another planet, and one of the survivors remembers having seen a flock camera? We should destroy all matter in the universe. Or find some way to accelerate heat death?

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

For the latter, could I suggest building a very large fridge and putting the universe inside it? We can attach it to a drone if that helps.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Most EMPs only cause momentary disruption, usually causing the device to reboot. To cause permanent damage, you need a massive amount of power in that EMP device. (Also, the strength of the EMP falls off very quickly with distance, so if you want it to work at any significant range, then you'll need exponentially more power.)

And by a lot of power, I mean this thing is going to at least be backpack-sized. It will probably end up being too big and too heavy for one person to easily carry.

Unless maybe you want to get really fancy with some chemically generated EMP? But that's going to be a lot harder to make directional, and it will probably be a one time use device.

(Also, if you get caught, this strategy may earn you some extra-spicy federal charges.)


I’d also say re-used Bluray/DVD lasers to burn out the camera CCD

Sources I've been able to find put a bluray laser diode's power at about 0.0126W.

To maybe cause damage to camera sensors, you're going to need at least 1W, more likely 3-5W before you start seeing any real damage. To cause damage to a camera CCD at distance, you're going to need hundreds of watts and you'll need to focus the beam far better than most high-power lasers do.

Again, a device capable of disabling cameras at range will be large. Lasers with that kind of power are at least the size of a large suitcase, and that's without adding in the necessary batteries and power supply.

And it would be highly irresponsible to go shining such a high-powered laser in an uncontrolled public setting. Stray reflections could easily cause permanent eye damage to yourself and/or innocent bystanders.

(And even when a camera is damaged by lasers, it tends to result in only a few dead pixels. The camera's image might still remain usable unless you blast it very thoroughly.)


If you want a technological means to disable Flock cameras, I'd recommend trying to hack them instead. Every single one of them has a wireless connection that could -- at least in theory -- be used to hijack control of the device and shut it down. Though that will only disable it until someone turns it back on.

For an actual, practical way to disable them at a distance, you're going to want projectiles.

  • Paintball to the lens

  • Pellet gun to the lens (hoping a cracked lens will make the camera's image unusable)

  • Shotgun loaded with birdshot (birdshot is generally safe to shoot at an upward angle because it won't have enough energy to harm anyone when it comes back down)

  • Just throw rocks and bricks at it

With the latter two, I'd actually recommend aiming at the solar panel rather than the camera itself. These cameras are known to track phones and other devices, and damaging/blocking the camera lens won't stop that. But damaging the solar panel will stop that -- once the batteries run out, all of the camera's functions will shut down.

And on that note -- if you're going camera hunting, of course leave your phone at home! Preferably, leave it playing a long youtube playlist. The youtube play history combined with the phone's location history could give you a convincing alibi.

[–] Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Great info. I only vaguely recall seeing some youtube videos or something showing that DVD or Bluray lasers could damage CCDs, but it was almost certainly in a desktop-lab situation, at a range of only a few meters. Inverse-square law strikes again!

Solar panels.. yes, target the power source not the electronics themselves (then again, why not both?)

Small kamikaze drones launched from a safely out-of-view location? Now we're getting into full insurrection territory.

No matter what the method, they're going to get legislation classifying it as 'terrorism' I am sure.

[–] trebach@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Drones have a registration number attached to it so that would need to be removed. They're also FAA regulated so they'll slap some felony charges on there.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

These cameras are known to track phones and other devices, and damaging/blocking the camera lens won't stop that. But damaging the solar panel will stop that

Or double-tap with the shotgun. Or triple tap to hit the control box as well

[–] SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Complicated methods don't scale well and tend to amp up the punishment you'll get if caught. They also make it easy to develop a profile of you.

A slingshot can be easily hidden/disposed, is stealthy when used, and dirt cheap.

Don't do this off of your Roblox server. And don't do it if you don't know where the person who'd be stopping you is. Alibi should be established before hand.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 weeks ago

I'd also say re-used Bluray/DVD lasers to burn out the camera CCD, but that would need to be done very carefully, only angling from above, to avoid risk to aircraft and definitely care to avoid any people nearby.

Just look behind it and don't point it at aircraft. If you can't see them they're either not there or behind clouds that will block a laser beam.

[–] orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

I bought a high powered green laser for this.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

Fake flock heal hero.

[–] neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago
[–] D06M4@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago

Give them time. They'll probably say they found CSAM on him at some point. Of course it won't be true.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

What a goddamn hero. Where is the gofundme?

[–] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Couldn't even use a real flock camera to catch the guy

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nobodysreadingthis@quokk.au 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Why would the pedophiles go after their own? Of course they protect the camera.

load more comments
view more: next ›