Guys, please use drones to disable these things
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2026
236 points (98.4% liked)
Not The Onion
22326 readers
1451 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
That's been on my mind a bit. It's not a foolproof way to do this though, as you'd likely need to:
- Do a ukrainian style one way mission. The materials used in it could be led back to you through purchases, fingerprints, or DNA.
- Be nearby the drone and control it as it flies in. You could be seen nearby though, and your controller's signals could be located.
- Use an FPV drone to see from the drone's perspective. Though this also has the risk of your controller's signals being located.
- Use a fully autonomous drone that is configured to meet you at a safe location after the mission. This is by far the hardest version to do, and you'd need to do a lot of research + trial and error to ensure edge cases don't get you caught. What if the drone fails to complete the mission? What if it physically gets captured? What if it is followed?
I think it would definitely be possible to do something like this in theory, but in practice it would be incredibly difficult to do more the once or at scale, and not get caught.
There were some conservation groups doing research on fully autonomous drones that could fly around the Amazon in remote regions to study the wildlife.
I imagine they learned how to nest in trees during high sun to recharge.
I imagine this research is mostly already done. The only thing we need to do is teach it to identify camera lenses.
And occasionally refill its tank with black paint (or, better, cache a hotswappable tank somewhere in a forest and then send an encrypted signal with the coordinates)
The mayor of the town was not happy about this sting operation. There had already been debates in City Council about removing them, and the mayor doesn't seem to be a supporter.
cool. guess instead of cutting them down, we'll just start strapping explosives on them instead.
That's surprisingly clever for a group of donut eaters.
They must have finally graduated to the coyote/roadrunner cartoons.
It really isn't clever. It was privately printed and installed without government approval. So the only reason this is being charged as a felony at all is corruption.
Someone destroyed illegally installed private property that is worth maybe a few dollars. That is barely even a crime and certainly not a felony.
Means they can no longer afford the surprisingly cheap price of $800 per camera and have started to use fakes
If everything is a felony then what’s the point
everything won't be felonies as long as rich people never go to jail for abusing kids with prolific paedophiles.
Felony depends on state.
Most are $1k, so is Florida.
And from this story I've learned that it only costs $800 for a Flock camera.
So in the vast amount of states, if you only break/take the camera, it shouldn't be a felony:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/felony-theft-amount-by-state
Destroying property is usually about the same limits state by state.
Obviously you want to research specific state/local laws, you know, because knowing is the half the battle.
Indiana is $750.
Inflation go up. Felony limit go down.
Inb4 states and municipalities begging to pay $1000+ each to justify increased charges
Exactly, just burn it all down and go extreme if the punishment for anything is going to be equally extreme
The high score, silly
Entrapment sounds like typical Florida pig style.
Isn't entrapment when the cops are persuading you to do it. This seems more like they set bait and someone comes and does the deed
This does not remotely fit the legal definition of entrapment
There are two possible reasons for putting up a fake, to scare people to behave themselves and to catch someone destroying it. The latter has been happening a lot and is widely covered by the news. If it is the first then maybe it wasn't ~~entrapment~~ baiting, but i can't think of any other reason. Also the article specifically states the intent of the cops.
Bait isn't entrapment. Entrapment is when the government persuades someone to do something they normally wouldn't and charging them for it. So, an undercover officer can't pressure you to rob a bank and then charge you for it. This is more akin to a bait car, prostitution sting, or surveillance.
Still seems like the same thing..
I wouldn't normally beat up a guy, but if a police officer was in plainclothes beating the shit out of a woman on the street, I might do the right thing and beat him up.
This person might not normally cut down invasive surveillance technology, but if the police put up a fake flock camera in his neighborhood, he might do the right thing and cut it down.
I wouldn't normally beat up a guy, but if a police officer was in plainclothes beating the shit out of a woman on the street, I might do the right thing and beat him up.
And that wouldn't be entrapment
Thanks for clarifying, didn't know the difference.
That's what I was thinking. Isn't this a classic case of entrapment? I guess it doesn't matter since it's Florida.
Legally no, it's not entrapment. Still if the cops hadn't placed the bait, there would be no crime. They know where the line is, and ride it.
Thanks for the answer
I should add that given the details it's not entrapment. At the same time though, there are thousands of flock cameras, and somehow the cops knew this particular spot for a fake one would lure someone in? There's no telling if they instigated it in some way not mentioned. And the charges they filed are very likely to fall apart anyway, because it wasn't a flock camera, it was a cheap decoy, and felonies are based on actual value, not imaginary. It also may not have been authorized to be installed. So the defendant could legally have been removing vandalism from a pole.
This is why you can't really adjudicate from a news story, there's a million unknowns, and often weird technical details to laws that aren't well known to the public. Top that off with most news information coming from defense lawyers giving an intentionally biased account of events, because the police don't just call the press most of the time. And when they do, it's usually to give their own damning version of events.
Good stuff, thanks