this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026

368 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

86333 readers

3007 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

368

Detective: Suffolk man accused of damaging Flock cameras said they’re ‘unconstitutional’ (www.wavy.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by Some_Emo_Chick@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 49 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 132 points 2 weeks ago

We love to see civil disobediance

[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 107 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

if I was on this guy's jury I would flat out refuse to convict him on any charge for this.

Shouldn't be legal to setup systems outdoors for mass surveillance. Cameras outside to inhibit vandalism is one thing, but this is warantless wiretapping equivalent.

[–] SpacePanda@mander.xyz 37 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree, you could show me a video of his mom watching him on camera saying its him doing this and I would say theres no proof, its ai lol

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yes. His Mom looked shifty. Not enough evidence to convict.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Careful where you say this, otherwise they'll make sure you're never in a position to even consider doing that.

[–] willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago

Definitely you'd never say this during a jury selection process.

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 74 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Good for him, but always a little worried when someone does something I approve of. What are they, crazy?

[–] Manjushri@piefed.social 69 points 2 weeks ago

This sounds like a job for Jury Nullification man!

[–] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip 43 points 2 weeks ago

This is direct action if I ever saw it.

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io 42 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Ya' know he's only been accused. Could be it wasn't him. Could be he was innocent. Could be those Flock cameras, with all the enshittification going on, just fall apart on their own. What with climate change we're getting some pretty high winds these days, after all.

[–] pinball_wizard@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 weeks ago

Could be those Flock cameras, with all the enshittification going on, just fall apart on their own.

I heard that too.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 weeks ago

Could be that I support what he did, and would nullify the shit out of it if I were on the jury.

[–] Fishnoodle@lemmy.world 40 points 2 weeks ago

His taxes paid for them. He can do what he wants with them

[–] RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone 39 points 2 weeks ago

They are unconstitutional.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Accused? But the CEO himself said on TV people should destroy them if they like. I'm not making that up.

[–] Prior_Industry@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

He gets to sell a replacement sk.why not 🤷‍♀️

[–] CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

He also said that people who oppose them are "terrorists" in another interview.

[–] kazerniel@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

lol I was surprised that the UK has those too, then opened the article, and apparently there's a Suffolk in the USA 🙃

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The three main naming schemes from left to right are: Spanish Catholic/Myth about gold -> Native Tribes names as interpreted by the French/someone related to cattles last name -> European towns/religous sect.

With spattering of what someone saw when they named (Oaksville, Pleasentview, spring view, Littlerock, etc)

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

The Pacific Northwest also has a bunch of places where we actually kept the names the locals gave them. And one major city we named after a chief we got along great with.

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

You say that, if we put you on the spot to name a thousand roads and a hundred towns, you would run out too, let alone with endless need for names. They use a lot of native names, a good share of states are native words.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

UK has its own police state cameras they don't need to import them from the usa!

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

The UK and US are on the same oligarchs for the most part though. Palantir has been active in the UK for like almost two decades now for instance as I recall. The EU is the one with different contractors for this stuff, the US and UK are best fascist friends.

[–] TheJesusaurus@piefed.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There's literally a ______ in the USA for every single UK placename, probably multiple.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Not all. :(

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ok, that is a really fun Wikipedia link! I'm reading in bed and nearly woke up my partner by laughing.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

My favorite part is that it's not just a funny name because it used to mean something else and now sounds funny to modern ears, it's literally meant "shit town" from the beginning.

[–] k0e3@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 weeks ago

People should destroy these cameras in a group while wearing gloves with extra fingers, shirts with illegible words, doing all sorts of random shit in the background so whatever video evidence they present, you can just say, "nah that's clearly AI slop."

[–] felixthecat@fedia.io 14 points 2 weeks ago

From the article:

"Cameras consist of three parts. An $800 camera, $500 pole and $350 solar panel.

....Sovern told him solar panels from the equipment were being used for camping.

Sovern is an engineer and mechanic in the U.S. Air Force according to his defense attorney Cole Roberts."

Sounds like the flock solar panels and batteries can be used for powering other things if you know what you're doing.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

I didn't see nothin'.

[–] mecen@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 weeks ago

"Sovern is an engineer and mechanic in the U.S. Air Force according to his defense attorney Cole Roberts. "

[+] palordrolap@fedia.io -30 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Edit 2: The below sentence does not contain an "as" between "might" and "well". I'm wondering if people are seeing one there and are thinking I'm saying something that I'm not, because that word completely changes the meaning of the sentence.

He has fallen into the trap of making constitutional decisions for himself and others rather than going through the proper channels and so they might well throw the book at him.

Yes, I know "the proper channels" will do their very best to ignore, deny or obfuscate as long as they can in order to avoid the question of constitutionality (or legality) of such systems, and that's why he did it, but he might have had a slightly better defence if he'd at least tried to sue or challenge Flock's existence and use by less destructive means before doing this.

Edit: Based on the number of downvotes, it seems like a lot of people know something I don't. The only comment that suggests anything at all though, provides exactly the same amount of evidence that I have for my point of view than they do for theirs.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 36 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you know for sure he did not attempt any of the "right" ways you're suggesting?

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The government is the enemy of the people. They are installing devices that violate the rights of citizens. All legal action against them for flock cameras has resulted in no change, regardless of whether or not this person tried to go through those same channels. That leaves the people to defend our rights by whatever means are necessary to do so, including but not limited to disabling those cameras permanently.

If I see a person kidnapping a child, I can use force to stop them. I could call the cops and hope they arrive and stop the crime from happening, but for the safety of the kidnappee and the general public, doing it myself may result in the best outcome at the risk of my own safety. Disabling flock cameras is like stopping a kidnapper.

[+] palordrolap@fedia.io -11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Disagree. This is more like firebombing a blackmailer's house.

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

No it fucking isn’t.

The camera isn’t alive.

Taking it apart isn’t going to cause a fire to spread.

This man is a hero. Stop trying to discredit him.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This man is a hero.

If he did it.

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 weeks ago

This man is an alleged hero ;)

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Except that burning down the black mailer's house doesn't stop the blackmailer. If the blackmailer were a computer, not a living creature, then it would be more like destroying the computer, but still a little different just due to the scale. Flock cameras violate everyone's rights where a blackmailing computer, in theory, is affecting one person.

Further, the legal channels to silence a blackmailer have a history of success, probably because it's not the government doing the blackmailing, so they aren't trying to defend themselves. Compared to flock cameras where the government has a vested interest in keeping the running, so they will block and ignore legal challenges against them.

This is cornering people leaving the only option as destruction as other methods have failed. It's acceptable to go outside the bounds of the law to correct injustice, especially on a scale as big as this. I believe that to be true about anything, not just this. Luigi is an example. He allegedly took action because the system failed. He solved one problem and temporarily created positive change at his own expense. Had he been able to burn down the company and destroy their process instead of allegedly killing a man, that would be better, but that wasn't an option, so he allegedly did what he thought was necessary, and there's a reason he's got such significant support.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Destroying the cameras doesn't stop the city / corporate espionage either, it's only a bump in the road to them.

You have to at least try doing it by the book. And then you put bags over the cameras or stick things over the lenses. Outright destruction only gives them a ton of ammunition to "prove" that the cameras are needed. Blocking its view is still ammo, but it's not as much.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hard disagree on the bags thing. Again, proper channel have been followed by other parties multiple times to no avail. The government is profiting off of flock cameras, so they will not change. That leaves one option, and that's destruction. Putting a bag over allows someone to just remove the bag. If enough cameras are smashed and have to be replaced infinitely, then maybe they'll get the hint or the cost will exceed the value. It has to be effort and cost for them to fix or replace them, otherwise it's a minor inconvenience.

Destruction is the only viable path to freedom. Trying to get it done legally in a flawed system who's bias is pro flock cameras is not an option as has been proven.

Sure it can give them ammo, but the alternative is not giving them an excuse to which they'll continue unabated. At least this way they have to work for it.

If you think that flock cameras should exist, then we are just never going to be on the same page, because their monitoring and the ability to search a person's location without warrant is illegal, and that's what's happening. It's established that going through "the proper channels" is not an option. They will not remove them because have a corrupt government that is the enemy of the people. Given the above, what options are left? A bag over the camera is nothing, but the consequences are likely the same as if it were destroyed. That means if someone is willing to put themselves at risk, then the best option is destruction. If enough people got on board, there's nothing the government could do. There's way more of us than there are of them.

Sometimes legality and the right thing don't align, and this is one of those times.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I never said the cameras should exist. And if there's already been a class action lawsuit (or whatever the equivalent is for getting cameras taken down in this man's jurisdiction) please direct me to it.

The last town I heard of that got rid of their Flock cameras did so because people started putting in Freedom of Information requests for them. The authorities didn't like the idea of the public having access to that information at all, and they knew it wouldn't stand up in court because the usual excuses wouldn't work. (Namely "think of the children" and "national security".)

The only way to win is to make them take their own cameras down and rethink their ideas otherwise they'll just keep on replacing the broken ones, charging the public for the privilege and locking up the offenders.

And finally, if there truly was no other option, which I'm yet to be convinced of, he shouldn't have acted alone.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

There are a handful of easily searchable lawsuits against flock cameras. I only say it that way because linking those is a pain on mobile and there's enough examples that it's easily searchable. Not trying to be defensive or deflecting.

I'll concede that "the only option" was not good phrasing. However I still believe that it's inline with going through proper channels. Even if the law comes through and bans flock, throughout that entire process, they are still recording. My belief is that this is a positive action and this person that risk his freedom is something of a hero.

I see your point of view and understand what you mean, but I just don't agree with it. Sometimes anarchy is the answer, although I agree that it would be best done en masse rather than individually.

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

Delay, deflect, deflock.