Hundreds Support Legal Defense for Engineer Charged with Destroying Flock Surveillance Cameras (futurism.com)
- Reference: 0184324052
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/07/06/0011246/hundreds-support-legal-defense-for-engineer-charged-with-destroying-flock-surveillance-cameras
- Source link: https://futurism.com/future-society/air-force-engineer-flock-surveillance-support-legal-gofundme
> According to [3]local channel WAVY , Virginia-based Air Force engineer and mechanic Jeffrey Sovern is facing 13 counts of destruction of property, as well as six counts of both petit larceny and possession of burglary tools related to the destruction of Flock license plate cameras... [Wavy reports the cameras were sometimes pointed in the wrong direction or thrown to the street.]
>
> Armed with [4]garbage bags , [5]spray paint , and even [6]chainsaws , a not insignificant number of privacy vigilantes have taken the fight to Flock, using any means to free their neighborhoods of the ominous surveillance poles. On a [7]GoFundMe page to raise money for his legal defense, the 41-year-old Sovern explained that this kind of privacy-minded vandalism has far more support than would outwardly appear...
>
> Sovern kicked off the campaign late in December of 2025, where he encouraged his supporters to "reach out to the local governments and demand that these systems are taken down." The Virginia resident initially set his funding goal to $8,500. As news of his case has spread across the web, the amount of support has far outpaced those already-hopeful aspirations. [Two hours ago the legal fund stood at $23,326 from over 680 donors].
[1] https://www.slashdot.org/~schwit1
[2] https://futurism.com/future-society/air-force-engineer-flock-surveillance-support-legal-gofundme
[3] https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/suffolk/detective-suffolk-man-accused-of-damaging-flock-cameras-said-theyre-unconstitutional/
[4] https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/flock-camera-surveillance-activism/
[5] https://www.wsj.com/us-news/the-nationwide-backlash-against-cameras-watching-your-car-401a656a
[6] https://newrepublic.com/article/206992/flock-safety-cameras-alpr-deflock-resistance-nationwide
[7] https://www.gofundme.com/f/jeff-sovern-legal-fund
What's his defense? (Score:3)
Which one:
"I did it, but it is not illegal to destroy cameras."
"I did it, but I'm insane."
"I'm a nice guy, find me not guilty (even though both you and I know I'm guilty legally *wink* *wink*) because I don't deserve the punishment."
"It was self-defense."
"I didn't do it."
Re: (Score:2)
The [1]Bart Simpson defense [youtube.com].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTbgsoHDc24
Re: What's his defense? (Score:1)
"I totally shot that cop in self-defence, preemptively. He might have shot my friends as they were setting their explosives..."
[1]https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/... [cbsnews.com]
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/verdict-prairieland-alvarado-ice-facility-federal-trial/
Re: (Score:1)
Best case scenario: Jury trial and jury nullification.
Paying for legal defence is one thing (Score:2)
but getting a jury to acquit is another. Chances are this guy is going to be punished both civilly and criminally.
I don't like it that the State thinks it can use a private company to do its dirty work either, but that's the type of goverment we seem to have these days.
Initiative and referendum is probably correct the way to resolve this (At least in states which permit it). In states without initiative and referendum you could write your assembly and senate representatives, but the problem with that is th
Just remember folks (Score:2)
Leave all your connected devices at home if you accidentally back over a flock camera.
Re: (Score:2)
All these cameras are mounted up on a pole. IDK how you're going to back over them.
Re: (Score:1)
seemingly at great speed.
Re: (Score:2)
backed over with my metal cutting blade. oops.
"Unauthorized" surveillance? (Score:2)
Aren't these things a form of unauthorized privacy invading surveillance? I understand they claim it's legal to track your every move, your every purchase, your every breath, whom you have sex with, whom you associate with, ... Why isn't this type of destruction more prevalent? I know we are effectively the frog in the pot of water on the stove... but still....
I agree, but do it legally (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't destroy the cameras. Raise the issue before the city councils and the courts. This type of vigilante logic I could use against the camera smasher too and destroy his own property.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally speaking, the city councils don't care what you have to say. They approve data centers and flock cameras by default for some reason.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you raise the issue with the city, then the objection becomes a matter of public record. He wants to be a martyr, and it's going to get him nowhere in terms of getting the cameras removed.
If I don't like how this guy painted his house, am I justified by burning it down? He believes he's acting ethically and he's not affected any type of change by this form of activism.
Re: (Score:3)
> If you raise the issue with the city, then the objection becomes a matter of public record.
Oh thank god for the public record.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A vandalized camera is just going to be replaced, and this guy will just end up in jail. He's accomplished nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
100,000 destroyed cameras however.
Re: I agree, but do it legally (Score:1)
You underestimate the states interest in surveying you with your own money.
Re: (Score:2)
Also a public record.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes seconds to permanently ruin the camera. Eventually it becomes economically unsound to pay a person to come out and install another thousand dollar device time after time.
Re: (Score:2)
> If I don't like how this guy painted his house, am I justified by burning it down?
Only if there are no people or animals in the house, there's no danger of the fire spreading to 'innocent' houses, your tax dollars paid for the paint, and the paint is part of a network of other such paint jobs that spy on and track the movement of you and your neighbours.
Careful with those false equivalences!
> If you raise the issue with the city, then the objection becomes a matter of public record.
And this accomplishes what?
By the way, your implicit assumption that the city government deems itself responsible to the voting citizens would be cute if it wasn't dangerous. Power-hungry police and p
Re: (Score:2)
Only if there are no people or animals in the house.
So it's OK to burn down a vacant house that I don't like? Yeah, whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
You added a period to a statement that actually had a comma with several "and" statements after it then pretended it was a quote. Do better.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, like most upper-managers. they are hoodwinked by slick corporate Power Points. They were told the Flock cameras will help with public safety, which will in turn make them appear "tough on crime". As far as the data centers, that is a my$tery why they approve those.
Re: (Score:2)
The promise of creating jobs, and kickbacks and other "benefits"
Re: (Score:2)
Here the mayor basically passed the buck to the chief of police as the administration wasn't directly involved, and it's the police department who got them.
Re: (Score:1)
Local councils will tell you to fuck off and have the cops carry you out of the room.
Re: (Score:3)
yep a goverment has never been swayed by words in all of history. its only money or the blade.
Re: (Score:3)
The would work, 40 or 50 years ago - our government has outgrown the need for citizens. We don't need vigilantes, we don't need crying at the circus (council meetings), we need to change the fundamental way our government responds to citizen concerns by making corporations legally powerless to interfere with all aspects of government.
Re: (Score:2)
they think they outgrown us time for the realty check
Re: (Score:2)
you dont change a government by asking then nicely to change you force them
Re: (Score:2)
sure they can arrest few but if the movement is to large destorying these things its game over they are forced to put the brakes on this. my god did you just forget people have done this threw history.
Re: (Score:2)
if they cared what people had to say none of these cameras would be up. there paid billions for this mass surveillance push. we are past that point of begging them to fix it.
Re: (Score:1)
Technically your correct. But in the end the vigilante logic is bringing more visibility to the flock cameras which will in turn into angry citizens at city councils.
In the end this is just another part of silicon valley's "move fast and break things", which now adays means "rape you and ask you why you don't like it." It's only going to get worse before it gets better. People still have a degree of not assuming the worst.... but it won't last for much longer.