If you see someone knock over a surveillance camera from our fascist government. No you didn't.
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
498 points (99.0% liked)
Privacy
10303 readers
1254 users here now
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules:
- Be civil
- No spam posting
- Keep posts on-topic
- No trolling
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Who knew wind could be so powerful!
Dude, wear gloves.
Change clothing. Use different devices to bring down the cameras. Winch, sawzall, whatever. Pawn shops and yard sales can have suitable tools. Don’t give them a well defined pattern.
Very clearly force majeure.
Look like ulez cameras in the UK... Nothing to do with flock
Whilst the ULEZ and other low emission zones are a good thing (because of the air pollution benefits), the cameras that enforce them are a privacy nightmare.
In the UK, everything is a privacy nightmare.
The only thing on our side is the sheer incompetence of the police.
This is informative and unfortunate - because anyone in the video is less likely to be prosecuted
Yeah, this feels more like a right wing bro thing than anything to do with privacy 🤮
I would highly recommend not committing a felony on camera
Prison sucks
I hear you but also fuck these things to hell.
Then show up to your local city council.
Showing up to city council and voting in local elections are both more effective
Flock cameras are simple to replace but to do so the city will spend tax dollars.
That's incredibly naive. We've seen politicians around the world doing shady shit to subvert public processes. Plus people are generally too stupid to understand why privacy matters.
https://www.denverpost.com/2025/10/22/denver-flock-contract-extension-council/
Someones gotta do it
How are you unable to understand the comment you replied to? They said nothing about not cutting down the cameras, they said it's a bad idea to film it. And no one needs to film it, all that does is collect possible evidence if they get caught.
There are so many comments in this thread that are so fucking weird, it's like you're all kids who have comprehension disabilities.
Balloon filled with red paint and yeet it on the lense like they owe you money, it would be much more effective and quicker tbh.
How is this "more effective"?
Really, painting the camera isn't enough, it could be cleaned and put back into service the same day. It should be smashed.
Labour is expensive though and AI ain't gonna do that shit. Cha-ching!
It's even more expensive for them to have to put up a whole new one. Why are you people coming up with less effective and destructive ways to handle it? It's like you secretly want the cameras to be there, it's extremely weird.
These cameras do much more than just record video (if it's a flock anyway). They also track every RFID, WiFi, and Bluetooth device afaik
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why would destruction of property be a felony?
Because the US police and justice system exist to protect capital
You drive on the left in the US?
And by capital, you mean slaves.
Because it harms your local elected official who got bribed to put them up back pocket
Thank you, Mr. Wind, for your service.
Gotta watch out for those wind gusts
From comment in the source they are not flock and at least officially intended for tracking who is going through the low pollution zones and which of them have vehicles that don't qualify to be there.
Some decades ago or so in bc/canada we had aircare and it went something along the lines of you brought your car in to be tested for emissions and cars that were too shit were just deemed not road worthy but some fuckass politicians managed to get rid of it easily with high support from drivers who hate any minor personal inconveniences. I'd happily go in for the testing if it was still a thing. Car manufacturers don't even have to try to make a safe product and every city just smells like car exhaust.
and at least officially intended for tracking
That's the lie they sell you. Doorbell cameras aren't officially intended for tracking people, either, but here we are.
From comment in the source they are not flock and at least officially intended for tracking who is going through the low pollution zones and which of them have vehicles that don't qualify to be there.
There's a much simpler and less intrusive way to accomplish that: just put up bollards to exclude all automobiles and only allow bicyclesa and pedestrians.
There are a lot of assumptions in this thread so I am going to make another one and assume that these are ULEZ cameras around London.
There was a controversial expansion of the low emissions zone to cover the whole metropolitan area a couple of years ago. After that, groups, mainly from the hard-right factions decided that they wanted to cut them down. This isn't a privacy move as they weren't targeting any of the many other existing cameras that are set up for things like vehicle tax and insurance, but more of a "I want to drive what I want no matter how polluting" type thing. There are also overlaps with the 15-minute city and anti-net-zero gang.
Although it sounds nice to have the whole city be demotorised, I don't think that is quite feasible yet. If you are wanting to be privacy-conscious, using a car is not the way forward.
load more comments
(8 replies)
so windy!
Weather's been crazy lately!!
I wonder how much copper is inside one of these.
After the wind knocks it down, It's basically a piñata for scrappers
This guys sounds exactly like one of my colleagues in London. Imma see if it's him!
view more: next ›