this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
135 points (97.2% liked)

Privacy

6169 readers
276 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
otter@lemmy.ca
shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
135
Police Are Putting Up Fake 3D-Printed Flock Cameras and Swooping In to Arrest People Who Vandalize Them (futurism.com)
submitted 1 month ago by XLE@piefed.social to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

a man was charged with three felonies after he cut down a 3D-printed "decoy" Flock camera, which was set up by police.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.cafe 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If they’re fake, how do they know if/when people are tampering with them?

[–] Gumus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's a trap, they're watching them.

[–] Amberskin@europe.pub 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So they can charge them with vandalising a fake piece made of plastic?

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's still a real physical object being intentionally broken by someone that doesn't own it.

Keep on mind, I'm absolutely NOT defending it, I'm just explaining the logic.

[–] Amberskin@europe.pub 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I understand, but the value of the destroyed ‘object’ is ridiculous so the penalty has to be minimal.

Edit:

Oh, and what if the ‘culprit’ just covers the fake camera?

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I'm guessing they are trying to work the "intent" angle. The person believed it was a real camera and intended to damage it. It's the same way they can charge people over fake drugs.