Comment on Flock CEO calls Deflock a “terrorist organization”

KoboldCoterie@pawb.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• otter@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I had to double-check what Deflock was for:

  DeFlock’s mission is simple: to shine a light on the widespread use of ALPR technology, raise awareness about the threats it poses to personal privacy and civil liberties, and empower the public to take action.

  This app makes it easy to view and report AI powered surveillance cameras, automatic license plate readers (ALPRs), and other surveillance infrastructure near you.

  Sharing information about where cameras are located is terrorism now?

  🙄

  source

  • ozoned@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Careful! I think logic and questions are the new terrorist things to do! Oooo scarey!

    source

    • diabetic_porcupine@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Shit I just had a thought

      source

      • db2@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Better ask chatgpt what to do about that.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Believe it or not, jail

        source
      • 5oap10116@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Don’t turn off your telescreen

        source
  • Damage@feddit.it ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Shit from the title I thought they were going around smashing the cameras and that it was an exaggeration, but I was clearly wrong on the scale

    source

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It’s a surveillance company, stoking fears of terrorism is just good business, especially if it’s not true

      source
    • waterSticksToMyBalls@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Be the change you want to see in the world

      source

      • Damage@feddit.it ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Eh no I’d rather stay out of the US at the moment

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• sorghum@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  This is just a play out of the rules for radicals playbook: accuse others of what you are doing.

  source

  • Maeve@kbin.earth ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    DARVO

    source
• defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It lost all meaning the second Bush declared the “War on Terror”.

  source
• FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It means ‘Enemy of the rich’ now

  source
• chisel@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  That’s partly the point. Use words that accurately describe your evil group to incorrectly describe other groups and all of a sudden the words lose meaning and nobody can call you that anymore. Hooray!

  source
• Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It never had any meaning. Reagan had them redefine it in a way that didn’t implicate America.

  source
• Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  In the UK the term is defined by the government as anyone who is deemed by the government a threat to the government or the people or someone’s property or the predominant local religion. But recently it’s been exclusively used for the first one. In this country state law is valued higher than corporate, moral, ethical and religious laws, so YMMV

  Introduction
  The Terrorism Act 2006 uses the definition of terrorism contained in the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 34 amends that definition slightly, to include specific types of actions against international governmental organisations, such as the UN. The definition in the Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended) states:
  
  1. (1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where:
  2. the action falls within subsection (2)
  3. the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public
  4. the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.  
  
  (2) Action falls within this subsection if it:
  
  1. involves serious violence against a person
  2. involves serious damage to property
  3. endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action
  4. creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public
  5. is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system
  
  Section 1(3) to (5) goes on to expand on the effect and extent of this definition.
  

  Link

  source

  • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    In the UK it means the cop wants your ID and is willing to pretend your camera is a gun to get it.

    source

    • Senal@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      The UK isn’t the US (at least in this context) almost nobody has guns.

      In very limited situations the police can, but it’s not the norm.

      Don’t get me wrong, ACAB, they just don’t generally use guns a as a pretext, perhaps a knife, or perhaps there is more than an arbitrary number of people grouped together so they can claim an ‘illegal’ protest.

      source

      • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I didn’t mean they really thought a camera were a gun. I mean UK cops will “suspect” people filming with a camera of being a terrorist (as if aiming the camera were like pointing a gun).

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Fatal police shootings in the UK are getting more common. In 2019 one man was “lawfully murdered” because an officer said the victim’s mobile phone looked like a handgun.

      source

      • Senal@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Sure, that seems about right and the link is interesting.

        I was just saying it’s not a common excuse for cops in the UK (right now).

        source
  • hector@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    It’s so broad, they can accuse anyone of it, and that’s the point. Both parties have long supported these over broad laws too, because they are not on our side, they want the ability to bring the power of the state on the heads of any groups that might not be breaking the law in a way any reasonable person would condemn but still scare those aritstocrats.

    source
• phutatorius@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It means “me no like.”

  source
• hector@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It never had meaning. To instill deep fear. Doing violent acts with the purpose of achieving a political end.

  It’s always been super broad and just waiting for a domestic party to adopt the tactics of Israel’s occupied territories here in the US, that’s where this was always heading.

  source