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?
e: important clarification, by rich I mean billionaires who own the majority of everything and not successful doctors, engineers or movie stars. Know your classes, kids
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!
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
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
"
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.
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.
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.
The word ‘terrorist’ has lost all meaning at this point.
It means “me no like.”
I had to double-check what Deflock was for:
Sharing information about where cameras are located is terrorism now?
🙄
Careful! I think logic and questions are the new terrorist things to do! Oooo scarey!
Shit I just had a thought
Better ask chatgpt what to do about that.
You jest but this is my default behavior now
“Things you couldn’t get me to publicly admit for $500, Alex”
That’s really concerning. Like, if a loved one told me that I’d express serious concern for their mental health
That is not healthy, and you should stop doing that.
What is this pic from exactly?
Victory Gin and Victory Cigarettes are from 1984. The specific context of this image I’m not sure of.
Believe it or not, jail
Don’t turn off your telescreen
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
It’s a surveillance company, stoking fears of terrorism is just good business, especially if it’s not true
This is just a play out of the rules for radicals playbook: accuse others of what you are doing.
DARVO
It means ‘Enemy of the rich’ now
e: important clarification, by rich I mean billionaires who own the majority of everything and not successful doctors, engineers or movie stars. Know your classes, kids
It lost all meaning the second Bush declared the “War on Terror”.
It never had any meaning. Reagan had them redefine it in a way that didn’t implicate America.
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!
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
"
Terrorism: interpretation. (Terrorism Act 2000)
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where— (a)the action falls within subsection (2), (b)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, and ©the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it— (a)involves serious violence against a person, (b)involves serious damage to property, ©endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action, (d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or (e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4)In this section— (a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom, (b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated, ©a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and (d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.
"
Link
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.
In the UK it means the cop wants your ID and is willing to pretend your camera is a gun to get it.
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.
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.