• Murse@slrpnk.net
    37·
    1 day ago

    The likelihood that you’re going to get caught anyway, this might be a better situation for an “act like you belong” approach.

    Hi-vis vest, hard hat, a ladder, couple safety cones, and some tools. Just waltz right up and run a half-inch drill bit through the lens. Pack up and move on to the next one.

  • rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish
    6·
    1 day ago

    Severe damage off a 1 watt green laser isn’t assured. It’ll do something, but likely not fully incapacitate it. You see guys screwing with strong lasers cooking camera sensors all over Youtube.

    Better off with spray paint or tape or just stealing the camera.

  • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
    744·
    2 days ago

    I mean, fuck flock. But really, truly, do not do this.

    I don’t give a damn about the Flock cameras. Set them on fire or steal them and sell them for scrap for all I care. But a laser powerful enough to quickly fry a camera sensor is going to be an extreme danger to human eyes. These type of lasers can be acquired fairly easily, but you don’t want to be using them in public outdoor spaces. At these power levels, even reflections of laser light can be damaging to human eyes. And when you shine laser light on a solar panel or camera lens, some is going to be scattered in random directions. Sure, you can make sure to wear laser safety goggles while doing this. But random bystanders won’t have that luxury.

    • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
      91·
      1 day ago

      So very much this.
      These things should not be available to buy for the general public, or anyone without safety training and equipment.
      Remember: Don’t stare into laser with remaining eye.

      Edit: It is true that there are lasers that can damage camera sensors and not eyes, but they are infrared outside of the visual spectrum, and absorbed by the water content of the human eye. BUT STILL DO NOT USE LASERS OUTSIDE OF CONTROLED ENVIRONMENTS

    • stray@pawb.social
      9·
      2 days ago

      Apparently they can also set dark objects on fire and melt plastic, which has a lot of potential for unintended consequences.

      • AxExRx@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 day ago

        Hmm that seems like maybe rhe safer approach then- instead of damaging the sensors, melt a hole in the casing and let h20 damage do the rest? (Or just keep going until you’ve cooked the circuit board?)

        • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
          1·
          22 hours ago

          There is simply no safe way to use a laser to destroy these things. Human eyes are more delicate than any electronic component. If the laser is powerful enough to destroy any component in the camera, random reflections will be a risk for any other person that happens to be in the area. All surfaces are both reflective and absorptive to some degree. All surfaces will reflect some of the laser light. Unless you’re pointing one of these high-powered lasers directly at an empty sky, there’s simply no way to use one of these lasers safely in public. Maybe if you were on some giant deserted ranch out in a rural area it would be fine. But forget about using one of these outdoors in any urban area.

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.worldEnglish
    100·
    2 days ago

    If you hit an airplane they will try very hard to track you down. If you hit too many cameras they will probably try to find you, too. They will use your purchase history, social media post history, and location, for instance. So, best to buy the laser somewhere far from where you use it, AND pay cash if you can.

    Not that I recommend this, but if you want to try, be smart about it. And, be careful.

    • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
      17·
      2 days ago

      That’s the problem with this really. You gotta be really careful you’re not caught on camera beforehand, and they have a lot of cameras. So unless you can just walk out of the woods near one and disappear the same way, you’re likely gonna have a bad time.

      • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
        16·
        2 days ago

        A camera is a camera no matter the brand. Take a walk around your neighborhood and imagine the cone of sight each one has, eventually you’ll see one that doesn’t have another watching. From there it’s just a game of mine sweeper.

        • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
          11·
          1 day ago

          You also have to be able to fry the camera without it being able to record you before you’re successful. Can you burn out the sensor from an angle of attack that still has you out of view? Maybe, maybe not. And how will you know for sure?

          • piecat@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 day ago

            I would think probably not. Light paths are typically reciprocal, ignoring scattering or dispersion.

            In other words, if photons from your body aren’t hitting the camera sensor, how are photons from the laser going to hit the camera?

            Unless you have an insane laser that shouldn’t be used outdoors, I doubt there will be damage from an indirect hit.

            • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 day ago

              This was my thought as well and if so, it’s virtually impossible to fry the camera holding a laser without being recorded doing it. And even a poor quality pic of you might be good enough to match to a pic of you getting out of your vehicle, and that good enough for a plate match from another camera. This is a high-risk endeavor.

      • 1984@lemmy.today
        9·
        2 days ago

        I think its horrible that so many things are happening to us from our own government. They are supposed to be on our side but that was long ago now.

    • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
      8·
      2 days ago

      Purchase history is harder to check than you’d think. Use a giftcard on AliExpress and anyone outside of the federal level will be lost.

      • AxExRx@lemmy.world
        1·
        23 hours ago

        Theres always the straw- buyer/ owner method. Person A buys the tool, preferably with some legitimizing use for it. While Person A is alibied, Person B borrows the tool, uses it to do the deed, then returns it.

  • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
    1271·
    2 days ago

    Yall make sure you’re not visible on another camera when you try this - it’s not like they won’t be able to figure out when and where you were when you did it. FLOCKs are usually in high camera-density areas like parking lots and strip malls and such, and there’s a lot of pressure to address vandalism against the surveillance apparatus.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    1381·
    2 days ago

    I know that Xwitter is usually a reliable source, but 1000nm is outside visual range and therefore not green. Green lasers in the ~500nm range will absolutely damage a camera sensor, but you’ll need good aim and sustained illumination.

    • degenerate_neutron_matter@fedia.io
      100·
      2 days ago

      If you actually want to do this, look at the NUBM44-V2 laser diode. 7 watts of output power and around $30 on eBay. Another $50 or so for a driver, heat sink, and lens and you can burn out cameras in seconds (you can also burn out your eyes so a good set of laser goggles is essential).

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        28·
        2 days ago

        Also make sure your friends have laser goggles, and that nobody is anywhere downrange if you’re trying this. It takes way longer to blind a camera with these than it does to blind a human/animal, and it will turn minor vandalism charges into felonious assault.

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            16·
            2 days ago

            “Heave rock at bad thing” really does cut to the primal core of the species. Thog not believe how much copper is in mammoth.

        • notabot@piefed.socialEnglish
          8·
          2 days ago

          nobody is anywhere downrange

          Reflections can also blind, so make sure no-one, including you, are uprange, or siderange (to stretch a wordform to breaking point) either.

      • kayzeekayzee@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        6·
        2 days ago

        Also worth noting that in a lot of places you’ll need a license to legally own and operate a class 4 laser like that Edit: I looked into it some more. This might only be true for commercial facilities. Idk though I’m not a lawyer

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          13·
          2 days ago

          “class 4” is just the highest class, being over 500mw. Technically, the experimental lasers they use on warships are class 4 lasers.

          Most countries don’t restrict owning them, but they do restrict selling them. When you have one, it’s kinda like owning a kitchen knife, perfectly legal, but as soon as you do dumb shit with it, thats still on you.

          And class 4 lasers make it VERY easy to do dumb shit.

        • notabot@piefed.socialEnglish
          8·
          2 days ago

          I don’t think a license is going to help you if you’re found walking around with a 7 watt laser hooked up to the relevant drive circuitry. They’re still going to presume you’re up to no good, and, when they find a camera with a burned sensor, they’re going to assume it was you. I guess the moral of this is: don’t get caught.

      • unitedwithme@lemmy.today
        3·
        2 days ago

        Probably don’t even need that much, my cheap eBay laser pointer from 20 years ago damaged one of my first smart phone cameras in a couple seconds because I aimed it directly in. It was red, too, not green. Both work though.

        I didn’t want to some in my rites so I thought the camera lens would be OK. It was indeed not OK.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      2 days ago

      They ostensibly meant mW rather than “nm wavelength” based on the image, but they might not be the brightest laser in the activist’s pocket.

      Edit:

      Jason Bassler is co-founder of The Free Thought Project and has been featured in such publications as Rolling Stone, Reason, Infowars, RT, MIC and The Tom Woods Show.

      Checks out.

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      2 days ago

      535nm for most/all of my greens.

      I do have one of the old 1000mw Wicked Laser blues as well, however, which I think is 445nm.

      Oh yeah. And my engraver is 100 watts of infrared (1084nm?), not milliwatts, although the range is probably a bit crap for this sort of thing and it’s not exactly concealable. You’d also want to pack rather a long extension cord.

    • OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      Also, you’ll want one with a fair bit of power to it if it’s going to do any permanent damage.

      A typical ‘safe’ 5mw laser isn’t going to do shit, regardless of the color/frequency.

  • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
    33·
    2 days ago

    Just smash. Doesn’t matter how. Smash smash smash. Or cover with paint or an oily plastic bag. Or just smash. They are always like 8 feet up. Smash.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      9·
      1 day ago

      Just smash. Doesn’t matter how. Smash smash smash. Or cover with paint or an oily plastic bag. Or just smash.

      Basically my dating strategy as well

    • teslekova@sh.itjust.works
      6·
      1 day ago

      Yeah. Paintball gun if you want to be fun with it.

      Spray can on a stick (there’s tools for this at the hardware store, lets you press the button from down the other end of the stick) if you want to do it easily.

  • slowmolaggins@thelemmy.club
    612·
    2 days ago

    In my town, roads have potholes deep enough to cause damage to cars. Many intersections have been down and operating as 4 way stops for months. But somehow there’s money in the budget to do this shit. I think some vandalism might be in order to teach priorities.

  • Spezi@feddit.org
    23·
    2 days ago

    It would be interesting to train an image recognition algorithm on detecting flock cameras, build a raspberry pi with two servos and put it all in a nice box to carry around. For research purposes of course.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      It would be interesting to train an image recognition algorithm on detecting flock cameras

      Or just query nearby bluetooth devices:

      https://www.ryanohoro.com/post/spotting-flock-safety-s-falcon-cameras

      EDIT: Also, those things read bumper stickers in addition to license plates. I’ve often wondered if they check for injection attacks between character recognition and storing it in their database.

      Another edit: An attacker wouldn’t even need to put the sticker on their own vehicle. And a $20 thermal receipt printer (a “cat printer” as they’re known because the most popular model has cat ears and a cute cat face on it) can print on rolls of adhesive paper. I honestly wonder why no one uses them for sticker-based graffiti already. Probably because thermal prints don’t last long in sunlight.

      • Spezi@feddit.org
        1·
        1 day ago

        Just use a brother P-Touch with the 24mm rolls. They are pretty weather proof from my experience.

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          1 day ago

          But then you’d be the owner of something called a Brother P-Touch

          (I know it’s a great label maker, I just can’t pass up a chance at low brow humor when it presents itself)

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 day ago

          I want to make this clear: I was not speaking about myself, but a hypothetical attacker. I don’t even know if such an attack would be effective.

          That said, the rolls on the cat printer are 57mm and would probably be easier to resolve on a moving vehicle, and it would only need to last long enough to be read by one camera. Plus, the P-Touch doesn’t look like a kitty cat.

  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    173·
    2 days ago

    I mean the whole point of flock is that they can track you everywhere. Destroying their cameras doesn’t destroy the footage.

    If you destroy their cameras they will just trace your movements backwards until they find a way to identify you.

    You need to find a way to do it surreptitiously so it’s not clear who is doing it, and they won’t be able to figure it out by process of elimination by seeing who is commonly present when a camera iss destroyed.

    • Eric@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      42·
      2 days ago

      If this were really true, there would be no crime right now. Nancy Guthrie has been missing for months now despite the perpetrator being caught on camera in an affluent neighborhood where there would be many Ring, Flock etc. cameras. These companies overpromise and underdeliver as they all do. Their main purpose is get people to pay them. They are much less competent than they claim to be.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        4·
        20 hours ago

        Idk, I think they can probably do a reasonable job tracing a drone back to it’s takeoff location, and then tracking the person who brought it there back to their home, with decent coverage.

        That said I don’t know if I’m overestimating their ability regarding machine learning and AI - this is probably fairly labour intensive unless they’ve done a good job preparing all their data and they have plenty of compute.

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            11·
            1 day ago

            I mean if they can track a car around the city using their cameras, they can probably do the same for a drone. Even if you fly up out of view they could look for drones in a radius flying down into view and connect the dots.

            • einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              1 day ago

              Resolution of those cameras is limited and they are usually angled down. Also they are not on private property. So it can be assumed that max detection rate of a average sized done is maybe 80m tops, after that the drone itself is smaller than a singular pixel of the cam. Meanwhile range of those drones can be multiple km.

              If u had said they can use the integrated wide band SDR recordings of cell towers to triangulate the remote controller…i would have given u a point, but triangulating a drone using cameras that look down is not credible.

              • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
                1·
                1 day ago

                One of the big controversies is that these companies do have access to cameras on private property, using things like ring doorbell cameras.
                And depending on conditions, you can still track the movement of something smaller than a pixel. Smaller than a pixel doesn’t mean invisible, it affects the color of that pixel and you can track the movement of the disrupted pixel.
                And you have to actually get close enough you the camera lens to damage it, so there is continuity; they’re not just looking at a strange color pixel and leaping to the conclusion that it is a drone, they see the drone flying off into the distance (in reverse) and cross reference it with other cameras to track the movement at a distance.

                It’s a lot of effort, but protecting the investments of the wealthy is one of the only things that will mobilize both the finances of the wealthy and the actual effort of the police.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        1·
        1 day ago

        That’s an expensive way to get rid of a single camera, and they could theoretically track a drone around the city like they track people, and they’d track it back to you.