They just need the news stories to impart doubt. Doesn't matter if they aren't convicted.
Shit, they don't even really need to do it. They just need the news to say they are.
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
136 points (97.2% liked)
Privacy
6280 readers
7 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!
- Be civil and no prejudice
- Don't promote big-tech software
- No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
- No reposting of news that was already posted
- No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
- No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)
Related communities:
Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !drm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Using force against individual cameras is not going to be succesful in the long run. It's like punching Nazis in the street... sure, it looks and feels good, but you're not hurting the people who benefit from having them around. They are laughing all the way to the bank.
I know it's not the 'correct' fight to have, but I think it's good to use the fact that anti-flock action is in the social media zeitgeist and keep supporting people; it is laying groundwork for civil disobedience we need.
it’s good to use the fact that anti-flock action is in the social media zeitgeist
It is in the social media zeitgeist - that's why piggy is capitalising on it with the above tactic. It's an escalation on their side, and it's a good one because they can make the small group of people willing to make physical attacks on their surveillance infrastructure even smaller through indimidation at little cost. The question is... does the other side have something of their own to play the escalation game?
What other options do we have?
Luigi did nothing wrong.
He got caught and sat in solitary until he confessed under duress. That part isnt recommended
Find better pressure points.
Against the people who benefit?
Peaceful national shutdown for long enough to force Senators to act.
As a 3D printing enthusiast, I forever wish tangled filament and nozzle clogs to befall upon the cops who make these decoys.
Couldn't they just "swoop in" on any camera? It's not like the decoy looks so much more inviting to destroy.
They put these near convenient places, like donut shops
Time to stock up on black mannequins. Two can play at this game.
Those charges will not stick
If they’re fake, how do they know if/when people are tampering with them?
It's a trap, they're watching them.
So they can charge them with vandalising a fake piece made of plastic?
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.
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?
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.