Comment by mullingitover

The goal here by activists isn't to directly physically disarm every camera. Like with any act of protest, it's at least as much about the optics and influence of public opinion. Visibly destroying the units is more cathartic and spreads the message of displeasure better. Ultimately what needs to change is public perception and policy.

Why would I fly an expensive drone close to a camera, fumble about for a minute trying to get it painted like a renaissance artist, when I can get a paintball gun for much less?

You want to fly a multi-hundred dollar device loaded with radios that constantly broadcasts out a unique ID and possibly your FAA ID and use it for crime?

Or even better yet, get arrested halfway to trying to dip your drone into paint on a sidewalk?

Just throw a rock at the stupid thing.

>All it takes is a tiny drone with a stick attached, and at the end of that stick is a tiny sponge soaked with tempera paint.

This must be the most hi-tech solution to a low tech problem I've seen this week ;)

Somewhat related, I'm pretty sure there was a guy in China who did exactly this as protest against their surveillance. Seems effective.

I wouldn’t suggest doing that, it will result in more regulation restricting drones. I joined before few workshops that included the government too, and there were discussions about requiring a whole license every time you modify the drone, not limited to the airframe, but the flight purpose and payload. So you can imagine in the future, modding or repurposing your drone could be a “federal crime” if you don’t go and re-license the drone every time you change the payload.

> A handful of enterprising activists could blind all the flock cameras in a region in a day or two, and without destroying them, which makes it less of an overtly criminal act

No, that would likely end in a RICO or terrorism case if it continued. Just because the cameras aren't destroyed doesn't mean CorpGov won't want to teach a lesson.

Why wouldn’t you advocate it? A much easier way of doing this is using paintballs with the appropriate paint.

That would be detectable by the FAA and they would send the FBI after you, unless you used a junk toy drone but that would not cover much distance between charges.

In Minecraft it’s well known that lasers of even moderate power can ruin camera sensors. Only in Minecraft though.

Because destroying them sends a different message. People want them gone, not merely disabled. They're not joking or messing around with drones and tempera about it. Using a firearm to wreck the camera lens before tearing the whole thing down would be nice though.

You can put a garbage bag over them if you don’t want to sawzall the pole and dispose of the hardware.

Shooting them with a paintball gun might be a lot simpler and has the same effect. Just needs paint that's a bit harder to remove

The should disable them all in an area and pile them on a platter in a public space. Like a CiCi's takeover.

Silly string is fast, cheap, easy, and fun when it freezes onto the camera in colder environments.

Maybe some spray foam?

Goring them is about sending a message.

> soaked with tempera paint Or even etching liquid, then you need to replace the lens.

“All it takes is a tiny drone”

Alright you buy one for me and I’ll consider it

The point of civil disobedience is to get arrested. That's what calls attention to the injustice of the thing being protested against.

>All it takes is a tiny drone with a stick attached, and at the end of that stick is a tiny sponge soaked with tempera paint. Drone goes 'boop' on the camera lens, and the entire system is disabled until an expensive technician drives out with a ladder and cleans the lens at non-trivial expense

Americans don’t care enough

Too busy enjoying S&P500 near 7,000 and US$84,000/year median household income

> All it takes is a tiny drone with a stick attached, and at the end of that stick is a tiny sponge soaked with tempera paint

I (EDIT: hate) Flock Safety cameras. If someone did this in my town, I’d want them arrested.

They’re muddying the moral clarity of the anti-Flock messaging, the ultimate goal in any protest. And if they’re willing to damage that property, I’m not convinced they understand why they shouldn’t damage other property. (More confidently, I’m not convinced others believe they can tell the difference.)

Flock Safety messages on security. Undermining that pitch is helpful. Underwriting it with random acts of performative chaos plays into their appeal.

> flock is very vulnerable to this very simple attack

We live in a free society, i.e. one with significant individual autonomy. We’re all always very vulnerable. That’s the social contract. (The fact that folks actually contemplating violent attacks tend to be idiots helps, too.)