this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2026
903 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
87716 readers
3247 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nonsense? You just posted a definition that describes this activity exactly...? So if anyone is posting nonsense, its you.
No. I did not. Relocation of the asset to the owners property means there's no intent to deprive the owner of said property which means that it's not theft.
The property has not been defaced, damaged, or destroyed so that means there's no intent of vandalism. Therefore vandalism did not take place.
What you're describing is criminal mischief, which I would agree this is.
I made a singular allowance in the case that the pole was cut (which counts as damage), rather than being dug up (which wouldn't), which you appear to have ignored.
If you don't like facts, that is a you problem.
You are welcome to kagi or whatever this yourself to see what I'm talking about instead of doubling down.
If you are incapable of that, don't bother to respond to me.
Yeah that's not how that works.
For one, the CEO of flock doesn't personally own all of the infrastructure used by the company that they run. That's not how it works. It doesn't matter if you damaged the thing or not.
It's like saying you could move a Verizon cell tower to the front yard of the CEO of Verizon. That's stupid.
No lawyer would ever attempt such a stupid and ridiculous defense.
Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit.
A lawyer worth their salt should absolutely defend you against a vandalism charge if by the lawful definition no vandalism took place.
Not only that, but a lawyer's job is to make sure the law is followed during legal proceedings. Meaning they are supposed to defend your right to a lawfully handled trial which would include dismissing charges that didn't fit the crime committed.
This is criminal mischief. That's a misdemeanor (just like vandalism).
Theft involves legally speaking an "intent to deprive the owner of their property".
Flock owns the cameras. It's a subscription model where the municipality actually leases the camera and "retains ownership" of the footage/data the collect.
So by rights the CEO having them dropped off on his property could be considered the same as them being returned to the owner.
You can take that however you want. But vandalism has a specific legal definition.