Comment by idle_zealot

4 days ago

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.

10 comments

idle_zealot

Reply
lazide  3 days ago

There has been a pattern in the UK of destroying speed cameras for the same reasons - including in some cases throwing an old car tire around the pole and setting it on fire.

Seems to be getting more popular [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/antiulez-campaigners-v...].

  • lozf  3 days ago

    Those are not "speed" cameras, they're to enforce daily payment (or fines) for driving in "Ultra Low Emissions Zone" areas in non-compliant vehicles. The area covers all 32 London Boroughs, around 1,500 km² (580 square miles), - affecting approximately 9 Million people.

andrewflnr  4 days ago

If it's about sending a message, I think using a drone to defeat mass surveillance is quite evocative.

  • themafia  4 days ago

    Yes. It will invoke the state to pass even more draconian laws surrounding useful technology.

    You want to evoke the people and not the state.

mullingitover  4 days ago

Sure, but por que no los dos.

One or two cameras getting bashed is basically a fart in the wind for flock, and I'd argue that it doesn't actually move the needle in any direction as far as public opinion goes. Those who dislike them don't need further convincing, those who support them are not going to have their opinion changed by property destruction (it might make them support surveillance more, in fact).

But hey, it's provocative I guess.

On the other hand flock losing their entire fleet is an existential problem for them, and for all the customers they're charging for the use of that fleet. Their BoD will want answers about why the officers of the company are harming shareholders with the way they're operating the business. Cities that have contracts with them may have grounds to terminate them, etc etc.