You can argue that this shouldn't be about politics, but how many years of living under an authoritarian government do you need?
Everything is about politics now.
Last I looked it up, $2500 per year per camera in the surveillance area.
To be clear, I do not support Flock cameras.
[0]: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/san-fran...
I suppose "blocking the view of surveillance cameras" is probably illegal though.
I cannot stand it that disingenous and ignorant people pretend this isn't the case, you can all go to hell.
Moronic generalisation.
dyauspitr•56m ago
vkou•53m ago
trollbridge•50m ago
ethin•49m ago
vkou•49m ago
In that bit, an unarmed man was murdered, the killers scatter like roaches, the federal police is covering for them, while actively preventing the state from giving the guilty a fair trial and a swift sentencing and imprisonment.
(What they did is a state crime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and also a federal crime that carries the death penalty.)
parineum•44m ago
Interesting.
vkou•41m ago
As anyone else, though, they constitutionally deserve a fair trial where the onus is on the state to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, before they can be sentenced. My assessment of their guilt has little bearing on the state's ability to do that.
Proving that guilt would be trivial if the federal government weren't actively complicit, by preventing such a trial from taking place. There's no need to cover for it, it's behavior is unconscionable and treasonous.
throwaway173738•49m ago
nielsbot•47m ago
Dig1t•44m ago
cwillu•44m ago
mc32•26m ago
anematode•44m ago
If done obliquely enough... e.g., just making a tracker and having the ability for people to report broken cameras, you're probably fine in theory. In practice, this is a litigious society, so you'd want to build this anonymously.
Zak•27m ago
It does not gamify or otherwise encourage damaging them, which would be legally risky.
indy•19m ago