this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2026
1226 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

87627 readers
4154 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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 45 points 5 days ago

You know what, the people are alright.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 28 points 5 days ago (1 children)

We need to talk a LOT about Jury Nullification in this country. They are trying to weaponize the courts, and ultimately it doesn't come down to the system, or the judges, it comes down the Citizens simply saying NO.

Trials put the power into the hands of the Citizens, and we should exploit that power against our Opressors. WE will decide who gets punished in this country.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Someone just got banned for life from jury duty.

[–] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 54 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I imagine all cases prosecuted for destruction of networked Flock and Axios cameras are going to struggle to get through a jury. It's a clear privacy violation and everyone knows it.

[–] blargh513@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 days ago (10 children)

While you are right, there are almost no laws in the US that protect privacy. Short of being in your own home with the blinds down, there is next to nothing working in your favor. The assumption is that you're in "public" or clear view of the public, thusly, screw you.

Your pool? Clear view from the road. That douchenozzle with a drone, probably not breaking the law when he takes a video flying over. "Oh, I was looking at my own roof" or some bullshit.

There should be privacy laws. The world has changed so much, but most laws are stuck in the stone age and now sold to the highest bidder who actively monetizes the complete lack of privacy laws.

In the US, you can look up TONS of details about anyone's house. From the sale price, the tax history, tons of details about it and even photos of the inside. In what normal world does that make sense?! Your employer sells your salary data to ADP who then sells it to any number of others. What the actual fuck?! Nobody asked for this, it's opt-out only but the opt out expires. I did it a few years ago, and it's back on again.

If privacy were not important, then there should not be bathroom doors.

[–] COASTER1921@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

We have legal precedent that the police cannot use GPS trackers. A similar case was opened for the APLs in traditional speed cameras, but they were determined to be constitutional since you have no expectation of privacy on a public road and a camera can't be used to track you like GPS. The networked APLs accomplish the same result as GPS trackers just without technically using a GPS tracker.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] MrGeneric@lemmy.today 50 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Looks like Flock is back on the menu!

[–] halezinflames@lemmus.org 31 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] cdf12345@lemmy.zip 10 points 6 days ago (2 children)
[–] halezinflames@lemmus.org 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Nah, destroying those mass surveillance cameras is a public duty. One I don't have the cojones to do, but a public duty nonetheless.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

These are on public land without adequate public consultation... therefore they are "litter" and anyone removing them is doing a public service.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] cdf12345@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago

Fair. Point conceited.

[–] Space_Cowboy92@lemmy.world 25 points 6 days ago (1 children)

FlockHopper is a great way to see where they’re going up around you. You know, for avoiding them and NOTHING ELSE.

[–] boaratio@lemmy.world 24 points 6 days ago (7 children)

I looked online, and I'm kind of disappointed that there aren't any nearby where I live. I want to do my part!

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago

Holy shit. Over 40 have gone up within 4 miles of my house in the last 3 months.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] TheHound@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

You heard em boys, not a crime. Get after it!

[–] heartSagan5@lemmy.zip 12 points 6 days ago (2 children)

On the subject of Flock…

These are “autonomous deputies?” But uh, where is every single warrant for every plate they catch on a car? The plate may be public property, but the vehicle is not. Sure, maybe a bank has a lien due to a loan, but it’s still private property. This is some serious 4th Amendment violation because I have seen 0 warrant for any of these unwarranted searches.

[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago (5 children)

They dont need a warrant for a plate that is visible from public. If your car was locked up in a garage, that would be a different story. Taking your car out in public is the same as taking your face out in public legally speaking.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

That really needs to change also. That made sense back when it was just recording something in public that a random officer could have seen, but it’s no longer the same thing. No police force could have such large scale comprehensive surveillance and recording based on what an officer could have seen in public .

The fact that you could even have an officer overstep his authority to stalk someone one nationwide for personal reasons, is not just a failure of privacy safeguards, but proof that large scale surveillance is not the same as “what any random officer could have seen”

There needs to be a threshold, beyond which a warrant is required

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bluewing@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (4 children)

You what really works? Having a law on the books that plainly states the "the driver must be ticketed". And NOT the vehicle. So unless they pull the car over and hand the ticket to whoever is driving, they can't use cameras for that purpose.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

damn things should never have been built in the first place

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] plz1@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 days ago

Federal charges

100% Ohio will go after him now.

load more comments
view more: next ›