this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
520 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

87417 readers
3844 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 87 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That was never the objective in the first place. Blanket surveillance and getting people used to the idea of zero privacy, ever again.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 63 points 2 weeks ago

“Under observation, we act less free, which means we effectively are less free.”

-Edward Snowden

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 69 points 2 weeks ago

Just like most AI, it makes the user lazier. And I'm someone who is forced to use AI for work and I can confirm.

Why would police actively try to solve a crime when they could lean on flock? Even if it gets it wrong they can say they tried and then move on.

[–] EmilieEasie@fedinsfw.app 30 points 2 weeks ago

Really good at helping cops commit crimes though

[–] nullspace@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago

That would be terrible news if their purpose was fighting crime.

[–] spacegoat@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago

They’re to prevent justified civil unrest

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 2 weeks ago

Funny thing, UK camera'd up London in the aughts on the pretense of fighting crime.

That didn't work either.

[–] soratoyuki@piefed.zip 14 points 2 weeks ago

The police have been yelling for years that fighting crime is just an unwanted side effect of their actual jobs; protecting capital and killing brown people.

One of these days we should believe them.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Sure would be a shame if someone pointed lasers into them.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You'd need a laser powerful enough and those are hard to get. Those are super dangerous I'd recommend people stay away from them if they don't know about how they work.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

Absolutely. 500mW+ lasers can injure human eyes in a fraction of a second, even from a reflection, similar to how they can destroy a camera sensor.

They're not particularly hard to get online in the USA though.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Spray paint poles are cheaper and safer. Tungsten carbide sawzall blades aren’t that expensive either

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

just use a circular saw with a medium tooth count blade designed for metal.

a six inch circular blade can cut up to 300 times more than a reciprocal saw blade when you compare tooth to tooth.

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

They also cut faster, though are loud as hell.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

That's a bad idea. You don't want to get a stranger, or yourself in the eye.

Anything that would do meaningful damage to a camera sensor will easily do that to human eyeballs if it refracts or gets reflected.

Especially for cheaper high-power lasers, which may not properly filter out invisible wavelengths like IR.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Anything that would do meaningful damage to a camera sensor will easily to that to human eyeballs if it refracts or gets reflected.

I don't think that's true? The lidars on Waymo have been known to damage camera sensors but are safe to the eyes. By damage, like a pixel or two go out, but that's from a random hit. If you did it right you could do more damage.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Interesting. I would have expected cameras to be more resilient between both their internal filters and the sensor material being tougher than human eyeballs, so anything that could overwhelm that and burn out a camera sensor would be able to ruin someone's vision almost instantly.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

This says its about the specific wave lengths and our eyes are okay with the ones bad for cameras

https://www.faceofit.com/lidar-camera-sensor-damage/

If I hadn't heard of this happening before though I wouldn't have guessed this to be the case.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

Thanks to signal trace, they don’t need functioning cameras so…good news everyone!

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

That's only a problem if you care about false positives, which fascists don't.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, we know. Is the FBI now just the FB?

[–] TransNeko@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

Warning extreme sarcasm and satire here.

Simple guide to getting away with crime in areas monitored by flock (Warning: do not actually do this as it is a Felony offense to possess or distribute CP in any form. and anyone who produces or consumes such vile filth should be shot in the head on sight.): put up a small solar powered video player in front of every flock camera with CP on loop. the Flock operators will be too busy masturbating to their second favorite porn, to report your nefarious deeds. (rape of ICE detainees being their first favorite form of entertainment).