alt Hacker NewsI would never advocate criminal behavior, but I don't understand how these these things aren't destroyed en masse by, like... everyone.
Replies
Many of them have been.
Every time they're discussed, I think of that scene of Homer bashing a weather station in the 70s[1]
IANAL, but if you are to take action it might be most prudent to do so non-destructively.
Putting a bag over the camera/solar panel or taking it down and returning the lost/abandoned property would leave it disabled just as well.
The added damage of outright destroying it would make no real difference to the company (might even just make them more money) but would make it easier to characterize the action as criminally motivated rather than an act of conscience in the public interest.
Yeah, I don’t advocate criminal behavior either but I don’t understand how these troublesome priests aren’t rid of by, like…everyone.
It's fundamentally a security camera, for many people. People buy them to see what's going on, record crimes for reporting, and to feel safer. I think there's significant overlap in people who want to feel safer and people being ok with the police being able to look through their cameras, since being able to record events, for the police, was part of the motivation for the purchase of a security camera. My frail elderly grandpa, who has seen his neighborhood go to shit with the reduced police funding, would definitely see this as a "nice feature".