I'm not going to suggest anyone break the law since I don't think it's worth risking jail time for this, and I'm certainly too much of a coward to do it myself, but it's also hard for me to condemn this.

ICE sort of feels like a militia with infinite funding and basically no oversight. This was already kind of true even before the latest presidential administration, but it has been ramped up to 11 in the last 1.5 years. I don't love the idea of a president effectively having his own "secret police" and people fighting back does seem kind of appropriate to me.

For a deeper dive on just how that funding is meant to circumvent constitutional protections that normally exist around law enforcement, I recommend watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkgNnbTrsgw

> ICE sort of feels like a militia with infinite funding and basically no oversight.

ICE is a proto-gestapo for what it's worth - including having a way to report unwanted ethnicities. They answer to the sovereign and are not accountable to the law of the people.

It is against the law, but I would wager it is morally coherent to smash them.

It's more coherent with moralities that put a relatively low value on property rights and rule of law.

On both points, sure, trivially, if I do not value property or the rule of law, I will not care about destroying it. But obviously we're talking about the moral value of the implications more than the direct value of the camera. Do keep up.

On the second point specifically, that's actually much more interesting! If one values the rule of law, then you would actually want your laws to be morally aligned! Otherwise, the conflict of the law with morality _devalues_ the rule of law. Valuing rule of law does not imply only some sort of legalistic value of laws unto themselves, but of the value of a society with good laws, enforced well. This incentivizes analysis and evolution _of the law_ and, to some degree, forcing conflict to bring about those changes.

Well yes, not everyone plays make-believe all the time.

That make believe game is civilization. It's nice to have.

From TFA:

> Reddit threads show near-universal support.

If your barometer for actual support is Reddit sentiment, I've got news for you...

> If your barometer for actual support is Reddit sentiment, I've got news for you...

I'll write to President Sanders about this issue straight away!

9 out if 10 paid astroturfers and bot accounts agree with me!

Trying to imagine who would be paying for bots to support killing flock cameras. Who would profit from that? Seems more likely to go the other way.

Russia greatly benefits from political instability and turmoil in America and encouraging stuff like this is their modus operandi. I say this as somebody who very much dislikes the idea of Flock.

Just curious, but what's the basis for this claim? I've heard it a lot. But I feel like this in itself is a political statement more than one rooted in sound facts.

Flock?

If flock is paying people to support destroying flock cameras, sign me up!

Well, semi-plausible, a wave of "violence" against their cameras would surely excuse installing even more cameras to prevent said "violence".

Never underestimate 5D chess mastery of big money and big agendas.

reddit has been running a reverse eugenics program for over a decade. at this point, 9 out of 10 are genuine retards.

Hacker News, on the other hand, is populated exclusively by the most elite and intelligent anonymous forum posters on the English-speaking internet.

it could've been, if dang and whoever else runs this place had the balls to summarily ban politics here. since they do not, tacitly allowing the shills and the activists to do their thing, this place is rapidly moving in the same direction, with terminally online 999999 karma users playing the same role as reddit mods in suppressing dissent - I strongly suspect it takes only two or three of them to get a comment [flagged].

Many things in tech have social and therefore political consequences

political discussion is worthless when only one side is allowed to participate.

“This thing thats easy to measure agrees with me.”

Shows lack of critical thinking and rigor.

I'd love to see smashing flock cameras so normalized it actually mattered.

Good.

Flock cameras appeal to weak communist attitudes, where there is a desire for a "good" authoritarian government that tracks everyone... for "their own good".

I suspect you have no idea what the word communist actually means.

*fascist

those groups have a lot in common, when you look at historical implementation.

Both create an unaccountable set of elites who control the populace.

Fascism is a plugin host and communism is but one of its plugins.