(untitled)

Surveillance Camera Extermination Thread Hello, Lain! Upon scanning the catalog I noticed that, while there is a little bit of discussion of lockpicking and physical security bypasses, there is not much talk in securing your identity as you traverse meatspace, so I have brought to you a slew of questions and propositions relating to exactly that. The main goals of this thread are: - Especially, to determine the most cost-effective, stealthy means of exterminating threats to your physical anonymity. This can range anywhere from the humble sling and slingshot, to spraypaint, to paintball and BB and water guns, to plastic bags and tape, to ropes and blunt objects, or even to cheap lasers or computer cracking. - To determine the most efficient way to move from point A to point B while remaining unseen for a contiguous stretch of at least 20% of the journey. This is focused mainly on distances of less than a kilometer. - To determine how to best conceal the originating point of your route in highly surveilled locations. This may involve wearing draped clothing like a cloak, dipping in and out of backyards, entering a crowded spot from a surveilled point and exiting at a less surveilled point, or just taking as long and roundabout of a route as possible to make it difficult to follow you back in time- etc. Let us use the United States as a prime example of the prominence of surveillance cameras. According to this article from The Verge[0], there is one camera for every 4,6 people in the United States, amounting to 70.000.000 cameras. There are 330.000.000 people in the USA, of which ~270.000.000 have 15+ years of age. If as many as 1 in every 500 of those people were displeased enough to destroy those cameras, each one would have to destroy 207 cameras in order to eliminate them all. While this does not seem infeasible (a fun weekend project, at most), given that the French managed to rile up enough people to destroy 60% of all speed cameras in their country with ease[1], it is likely that the ratio of annoyed citizens to panopticon devices is much more fortunate than 1/500. If any movement towards a systematic destruction of the surveillance state is to be accomplished, there is one barrier remaining- widespread knowledge of proper OPSEC and effective stragies. That is to say, when an individual comes to the conclusion that they ought to do something about this problem, they are forced to individually think through the details of moving about the world without being traced, to anonymously obtain the clothing and basic items necessary to do the deed, to avoid leaking timing information (i.e. you are the only person who purchased spraypaint in this local region during the past week), to understand the ramifications of digital surveillance (don't carry your phone!), to understand secrecy (it's not a secret if you tell somebody), to properly compartmentalize, to start at a random location unrelated to themselves, to have situational awareness, and other extremely basic concepts that they are likely to be completely clueless about. An idiot-proof guide ought to be constructed that contains strategies for exterminating surveillance cameras and just general OPSEC tips, that is simple enough for the lowest common denominator to comprehend and follow. It should be short and to the point, containing only tips that guarantee an increase in safety when followed. It would also be useful to gather some intel on surveillance camera companies. Finding what the most common models are and their physical constraints and capabilities, as well as which companies or entities control the infrastructure where their footage is streaming to- in many places, a significant fraction of these cameras upload their footage to company servers, which can be exfiltrated by agencies via legal means very easily. Figure out how badly we're fuarrrked. [0] - https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/9/21002515/surveillance-cameras-globally-us-china-amount-citizens [1] - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46822472 Anyway, discuss tactics and tips below.

Some generic advice I can think of off the top of my head: Wear gloves. Wipe fingerprints off of any item you carry. Do not carry any electronic device that has embedded wireless capabilities, like your phone. Not even if it's "off". Do not tell anybody about anything you're doing, except those who you are doing it with. Do not collaborate with more than 7 other people at the absolute maximum. Ensure that no one does anything without everbody else coming to a conensus on precisely who will do it and how. Do not talk to the police. Talking to the police can only harm you. Ask for a lawyer and zip it. (advice for Americans only) Never assume that authorities are too lazy to pursue you. Instead assume that all of their focus is on you alone. Do not keep records. If any papers are produced with incriminating information on them, burn them. Meet in person with any collaborators, and distribute propaganda in paper leaflets. To enter a surveilled space anonymously, first enter a sizable stretch of non-surveilled space carrying different clothing (shoes, dark pants, dark hood, dark mask, sunglasses, ideally a cloak), and use them to approach a more surveilled space. Be mindful of making uncommon purchases with your real identity. If your face or name can be connected to a purchase of some uncommon item, and that item is soon used in a crime, you will be traced. 'Public key cryptography', 'threat modeling', 'defense in depth'. If you do not recognize the concepts behind these words, avoid using the Internet for anything sensitive. When your life or freedom is at stake, attempting to wield a tool that you do not understand will only harm you.

Attempting to destroy cameras or interfere with their collection of data will ultimately achieve nothing as the cameras will be replaced, should a pattern of cameras being vandalized in an area develop law enforcement will launch some form of investigation and the perpetrator will inevitably be caught sent to jail and fined. Evading cameras and preventing one's self from being identified by surveillance systems is the only path. A good hat can hide your face from cameras, you could wear a mask, or hat and sunglasses, a hood, any combination of these things. Don't wear branded or distinct clothing. Also on average CCTV footage completely overwrites itself after 3 months, but that is just an average the duration required will obviously vary, perhaps it can be reliably estimated. If you can't exit your home without being recorded by cameras you're traceable no matter what you do. If you can be recorded within a relatively close proximity to your home you're still traceable. Maybe you couldn't be tracked by the botnet but authorities could potentially locate you. For the sake of example, say you did something illegal, you returned home afterwards and were recorded along your journey up until 400 meters of your home, you could be captured later on depending on how motivated the authorities are. Through analysis they could determine the general area in which you live and begin surveying that vicinity. Wiping the prints off of items you carry is pointless unless they are not your personal items and are used for things you would not like your identity associated with. Wearing gloves is a good idea, however prints can bleed through some thin gloves. One should be careful in their handling of their gloves, don't touch the exterior of them, particularly the palms and fingertips. I just minimize the things I touch, I am conscious of all things I touch, like an OCD sperg I will literally experience a physical sensation I cannot describe if I touch something outside of my house with my fingertips. I am capable of doing many mundane things without using my fingertips although my palms could be used which can also be printed. Observing your environment and utilizing basic logic should be enough to allow you to move outside of the gaze of a camera and would help if partaking in illegal activity. These threads are a bit pointless in my opinion, most can be figured out on one's own, I guess some ideas can be obtained. I just see gay soykaf like the post above.

>>20812 > Attempting to destroy cameras or interfere with their collection of data will ultimately achieve nothing as the cameras will be replaced My point was that a culture of absolute intolerance of public surveillance, if adopted by even a small fraction of the population as small as 1 in 500, would be enough to seriously stymie this threat. The problem is that yes, we can all figure out these things by ourselves, but to actually achieve that ratio a guidebook of similar edginess and popularity as the anarchist cookbook once had must be created such that even those who cannot figure these things out, can contribute. > If you can't exit your home without being recorded by cameras you're traceable no matter what you do. If you can be recorded within a relatively close proximity to your home you're still traceable. Not quite. You could carry the necessary clothing and tools in a bag, walk away until you reach a place that is less traceable, and don your gear there. Then you can take a very roundabout way to your desired location and once you've widened your anonymity set with enough distance, start wrecking cameras and expanding the unmonitored space manually. When you are done, you can retrace your steps, put your gear back into your bag, wait for some time for more people to pass through the area and thus expand your temporal anonymity set, and return home.

>>20812 If it's a mass decentralized effort it'll work. I recommend burning the sensors with a nice high powered laser

>>20812 >however prints can bleed through some thin gloves I've heard this urban legend dozens of times. Some Agatha Christie wannabee probably wrote it long time ago. It seems to be only true for thin medical latex gloves covered in grease. Nothing would "bleed" through regular work gloves from hardware store. >>20815 >I recommend burning the sensors with a nice high powered laser We're not in star wars universe, there are no powerful enough civilian lasers to permanently damage image sensors of cameras without lighting yourself on fire and probably coming out blind too. An inverse square law guarantees that you'd have to be standing less than one meter from it's lens pointing strictly perpendicularly for more than 1 minute to even make a noticeable temporary jitter artifacts on the image with a hope of burning a few pixels.

>>20809 You forgot to specify how many traffic cameras the Yellow vests were reported to destroy. 60% out of 3200 is 1920. In whole France! My city alone has more than 4000 according to data from 2015.

>>20816 Prints can bleed through any thin polymer gloves like nitrile. It''s not an urban myth, I've never heard of them needing to be covered in any kind of grease. Albeit most people probably wouldn't wear those kinds of gloves.

The verge article seems to only take into consideration what one traditionally considers surveillance cameras. Surveillance is not done solely by cameras installed at traffic lights or by store owners anymore. Now people have doorbell cameras with cloud backup (some providers of which explicitly grant law enforcement free reign to view as they please), smart and self-driving cars which capture everything they see (and happily collude with law enforcement), special dash cams that scan and record the location/time/appearance of every car they pass (funded by private insurance companies who use the surveillance data to verify your cars history when you file claims, but also readily available to private investigators and law enforcement), civilian drones, law enforcement drones, weather monitoring systems, ATM cameras, and many more I'm surely forgetting.

>>20816 >there are no powerful enough civilian lasers to permanently damage image sensors of cameras without lighting yourself on fire and probably coming out blind too. An inverse square law guarantees that you'd have to be standing less than one meter from it's lens pointing strictly perpendicularly for more than 1 minute to even make a noticeable temporary jitter artifacts on the image with a hope of burning a few pixels. I can tell you're pulling this straight out of your ass. Where's that laser user in alaska when you need him. There's a lot of available lasers that are relatively high power, handheld & battery powered systems. Part of the trick with cameras is that they focus a lot of light onto a tiny little sensor covered with delicate electronics, so the amount required isn't that high. What year are you from ? Your glove comment makes it sound like you have a few brain cells but the laser bit is something else. >>20819 >Albeit most people probably wouldn't wear those kinds of gloves. wasnt the alleged moscow idaho murderer doing this ? nitriles are widely available and not super uncomfortable. Also not hard to get them slightly greasy. Rub your nose ? bam, grease. >>20814 >Not quite. You could carry the necessary clothing and tools in a bag, walk away until you reach a place that is less traceable.... this is all assuming (((they))) can actually effectively use the cameras. Many cameras are run by stores, they'll almost definitly comply with police demands but the police need to figure it out. Even if (((they))) have *all* the collected data they still have to go through it, find and watch and go through all of it. Its sometimes worth it, but often pretty fuarrrking expensive to do right. This is why soykaf like ring is like kicking dead whales down the beach, as it risks making this all too easy if they do it well.

For every one camera destroyed two or three will take it's place. Also don't forget satelites are in the sky. Wouldn't it be more useful to have cameras with their suspected vision mapped out on something using OpenMaps or something? Then you can just choose when to be seen and when not to be seen. You also have to keep in mind dash cams are becoming more common so being anywhere near a road you potentially be caught on camera though that's unlikely an issue 99.999% of the time. You're more likely to just personally deal with cameras like wearing welding glasses so you cant have your eyes visible even on night mode which normally could see through because the near IR passthrough. Now when it comes to actually changing systems this is just speculative of what someone may do but wouldn't it be less risky for someone to just use signal interference to make the cameras near by not work or even just hack them in the cases that would apply as a possibility?

>>20816 >We're not in star wars universe, there are no powerful enough civilian lasers to permanently damage image sensors of cameras without lighting yourself on fire and probably coming out blind too. you must be a newlain to not have seen any of the threads from the psychopathic laser anon.

>>20823 Dont even speak of laser anon. He spams every imageboard he can find. He's seriously mentally fuarrrked. But yes lasers and actually even just pointing a camera at the sun is enough to damage the sensors if they dont have good filters so even just an array of mirrors can potential damage a camera.

>>20824 >He's seriously mentally fuarrrked I know he's crazy, I know he's caused one car crash and perhaps more, as far as I know he hasnt killed/seriously injured/blinded anybody but idk maybe he has, but idk fam we're in a thread about organized property destruction on a board that has a couple of theft threads and a discussion about joining the medical profession as a way to get drugs. Frankly I think laserguy fits in fine and I'd be glad to have him back.

>>20819 Nitrile gloves are for handling alcohol and some mild chemicals. When you do rough stuff like climbing poles, fences and roofs to kill a camera it's the worst choice. Why did you even bring it in? >>20823 I remember that LARPer. He posted lots of crappy laser beam photos pointing at his chinkware "rugged" smartphone camera, none of the regular photos he posted afterwards contained any visible artifacts. Artificial light sensors are more robust than human eye it seems.

>>20825 I wouldnt really compare these things. That's agitrpop and self liberation versus sadistic mutilation. These cant be any further appart. >>20812 I assume you mean 90 days is the standard rolling recording length rather than it being deleted once every three months. That probably is reduced depending on the number of cameras they have and the definition of the footage. I assume at least business owners will get overly focused on coverage and quality then run out of budget they want to spend on recording length. Though opposite also may be true some may have cameras so poor in quality from focusing just on record length it won't even matter they are there.

>>20821 You could also just make your own high powered laser. It will obviously require you to formulate some understanding of electrical circuitry and such, however it can all be self taught. I myself have not researched this avenue out of lack of interest so I can't really give any pointers on where to start. You can probably find blueprints and guides on how to make some high powered lasers yourself, you should develop an understanding of what you are working with though, you'd need eye protection, be sure your eye protection will block the specific wavelengths your laser is emitting, be sure to test your eye protection with a laser which will not blind you instantly like the one you'd be making. >>20826 I was just defending my point. My post was a bit halfassed I should've just specified the types of gloves prints can bleed through instead of "thin gloves". Obviously most people wouldn't wear those but stupidity is limitless I thought it should be stated, especially if someone was setting out to make a comprehensive guide.

OP here, I don't think lasers are that useful because even if the average guy could/would put in the effort to learn the necessary knowledge (lol), I doubt you could get many of them to do so. It is better to focus on anything and everything practical that increases success by a measurable amount for the majority of possible participants. Remember, the average Joe doesn't even know the basics- just look at some of the Iranian protestors filming their resistance activity or using honeypot VPNs from their personal connections for example. I personally think that old-school tricks for lobbing rocks are a more effective tactic, like slings (very powerful) and slingshot. From 'pedia on slingshots: >Slingshots depend on strong elastic materials, typically vulcanized natural rubber or the equivalent such as silicone rubber tubing, and thus date no earlier than the invention of vulcanized rubber by Charles Goodyear in 1839 (patented in 1844). By 1860, this "new engine" had established a reputation for use by juveniles in vandalism. For much of their early history, slingshots were a "do-it-yourself" item, typically made from a forked branch to form the "Y" shaped handle, with rubber strips sliced from items such as inner tubes or other sources of good vulcanized rubber, and firing suitably sized stones. >While early slingshots were most associated with young vandals, they could be effective hunting arms in the hands of a skilled user. Firing projectiles, such as lead musket balls, buckshot, steel ball bearings, air gun pellets, or small nails, a slingshot was capable of taking game such as quail, pheasant, rabbit, dove, and squirrel. Placing multiple balls in the pouch produces a shotgun effect (even though not very accurate), such as firing a dozen BBs at a time for hunting small birds. With the addition of a suitable rest, the slingshot can also be used to shoot arrows, allowing the hunting of medium-sized game at short ranges.[1][2][3] From wiki on slings, noted for having been used to slay Goliath and having power comparable to that of a bullet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon) > Ancient peoples used the sling in combat—armies included both specialist slingers and regular soldiers equipped with slings. As a weapon, the sling had several advantages; a sling bullet lobbed in a high trajectory can achieve ranges in excess of 400 meters (1,300 ft).[22] Modern authorities vary widely in their estimates of the effective range of ancient weapons. A bow and arrow could also have been used to produce a long range arcing trajectory, but ancient writers repeatedly stress the sling's advantage of range. The sling was light to carry and cheap to produce; ammunition in the form of stones was readily available and often to be found near the site of battle. The ranges the sling could achieve with moulded lead sling-bullets was surpassed only by the strong composite bow. > Ancient poets wrote that sling-bullets could penetrate armour, and that lead projectiles, heated by their passage through the air, would melt in flight.[26][27] In the first instance, it seems likely that the authors were indicating that slings could cause injury through armour by a percussive effect (i.e., the energy of a sling-bullet delivered at high velocity causing blunt trauma injury upon impact) rather than by penetration. In the latter case we may imagine that they were impressed by the degree of deformation suffered by lead sling-bullet after hitting a hard target.[28]

>>20829 >average person is too dumb to get and use a relatively high powered laser that's litterally just point and shoot >lets tell him instead to learn how to use a slingshot to strike small objects at long range personally I think everyone should build his own firearm, ideally a smoothbore (prevents bullet analysis) match lock (matches are common, no one can arrest you for matches) long gun (long range so you can shoot from saftey over a wider area). Widely used historically by militaries and with power comprable to bullets these would make excellent devices for taking down delicate electronics and the neccisary components to their construction are widely available. just buy lasers from chinkistan or elsewhere. consider running them over power. watch that styropyro youtuber guy for tips if our own laser bro isnt around. Its not that hard and they go straight.

>20830 The problem isn't that the average dude cannot point and shoot, it's that constructing a laser may be too difficult, and without the right expertise it is also difficult to know whether or not a laser will actually blind a camera at all. Gunmaking is a good idea, but I have no idea what can be done about the sound. Rocks seem like a good idea, seeing as they do not instantly notify everyone for hundreds of meters about your activity.

>>20837 https://ipvm.com/reports/lasers-cameras an interesting actual look at this problem >lasers Pros: low skill to use long range quiet and discrete Cons: low energy possibly difficult to obtain difficult to verify damage >slingshots Pros: long range quiet ish and discrete high energy Cons: more skill to use >baseball bats Pros: high energy Low skill easy to obtain easy to verify damage cons: short range, maybe can't reach some cameras not discrete >wirecutters pros: low skill to use verifiable damage quiet everyone already has one cons: short range anybody ever use paintball?

I swear a lot of you are literally 12 year old boys. Destroying the cameras in any noticable way is opppsite of what any inteligent person want to do because the attention it creates. If anyone was smart they would know to be subtle so it will just be assumed the cameras are crap and they will switch brands till ultimately giving up assuming all cameras arent worth the money. Destroying them noticably gives them strong reason to believe they need better security and will go to further and further lengths. For example if someone made the lens become foggy as if it had just become damaged from acid rain or smole or that the cable had been chewed on by squirrels or there is a software bug or that a power surge fried the circuitry. That's in addition to my other previously mentioned methods someone may use in interfering with the signal or hacking the system they operate on perhaps just to discretely reduce record length to a few seconds instead of months.

>>20839 >a lot of you are literally 12 year old boys I feel seen

>>20839 >Destroying them noticably gives them strong reason to believe they need better security and will go to further and further lengths. While I had thought of this, I do not really think that it matters that much if enough people are on-board, which can only happen if the media broadcasts results. Cracking thousands of cameras and diminishing the archive quality/length is a good idea that will be considered, though.

>>20809 >>20812 >Wearing gloves is a good idea, however prints can bleed through some thin gloves. One should be careful in their handling of their gloves, don't touch the exterior of them, particularly the palms and fingertips. I just minimize the things I touch, I am conscious of all things I touch, like an OCD sperg I will literally experience a physical sensation I cannot describe if I touch something outside of my house with my fingertips. good advice. leather gloves have a unique identifiable texture, maybe other glove types too

>>20868 There is no real reason to destroy a 5g tower- negatives are far from obvious. The effects of physical surveillance are very obvious to anyone who actually discusses the issue beyond a single knee-jerk bout of parroting, and they realistically be removed if enough people can be taught how to get away with doing so cheaply. >>20869 Oil-based paints seem like a great option, I will have to research this myself later. If you stand on the edge of the camera's field of view and stop moving, you can avoid revealing your gait as you aim and fire, and then once you've hit it you can approach and attempt more permanent solutions.

>>20809 Practicing OPSEC should be simultaneous to raising awareness to these issues. Most friends/family I've asked about recently installed ALPR cameras in our town (fuarrrk flaawwk) say they haven;t even noticed the big black poles placed all around. My suggestion for raising awareness is placing fake circular security cameras in chalant spots (practicing all the OPSEC routines mentioned ofc) to further exacerbate paranoia in those unsuspecting. or sticking qr stickers all over town linking to local police purchases of cameras, drones, etc. Or just plain staring at people. make everyone feel watched. Raising awareness to encourage everyone to desire legislative action should be first priority, not destruction.

>>20872 There also does exist paintball blank shells which are just plastic balls you can fill with anything in theory just nothing too dangerous since you have to assume they could burst when attempted to be fired. They could be filled with something like soot for example which would make it just seem like some diesel truck was parked too close to a camera.

Using acid sounds like a horrible idea some retard is just waiting to be blinded. Granting the acid they use is even concentrated enough to damage anything. Then there is producing the acid, it would essentially need to be hydrofluoric acid I don't know of many other acids that will eat glass, where the fuarrrk is a normal person going to get it, will they know how to produce it, probably not, so they could learn, would it be realistic for them to produce it. It may react with other components of the camera and produce toxic fumes. It doesn't seem like a great idea, it probably wouldn't work.

>>20890 relax m'lady you're going into hysterics. If its HFl then thats wildly worse to deal with and you'll be worried just about death not blindness. A lot of sec. cams also have plastic coverings, maybe even plastic lenses, so this is a moot point. Still there's probably better choices, like some grease which will fog the lens and get it dusty.

>>20887 Are you a dummy? Nobody implied shooting pedestrians with acid from a paintball gun. Use a marker pen or mop (an oversized pen) for this. Need to reach high camera from ground? Use a retractable garden tool stick.

>>20896 Even graffiti writers know to avoid acid etches. >>20897 If you read more posts you would notice I had also mentioned paintball shells can be filled with anything so I had to say it in case someone had that idea.

This thread seemed the closest to my conundrum. I got a new neighbor about 2 weeks ago. Seems like a man in his 20s or 30s. He set up security cameras facing both my front door and my car. I have noticed that when I move parking spots, the cameras have moved to face the spot my car is in. If the cameras were just outside, I could maybe do something, but the cameras are in front of his shades that are always closed and inside his windows. The first camera was just convenient, I thought he wanted to watch the parking lot, but after the other one faces right at my front door that he put up this week, I have my doubts about what his intentions are.

>>23913 ask him to point them away from you

>>23913 You could just conveniently set up something highly reflective that will glare the sun into the cameras forcing him to reposition them. But you should first just nicely ask if there is a different way to position them not invading your privacy. He might not really be intentionally doing it and just isnt considering anyone having a problem with it since people are so used to being under surveillance these days they think nothing of it.

>>23916 Did you miss the point about he readjusts the cameras specifically to point at the car whenever it moves? This is clearly intentional.

>>23919 >clearly intentional IDK Ive heard of cameras that do motion tracking and stuff for objects of interest. Also fyi it can be difficult to tell where lasers shining into cameras are comming from if you do it right.

>>23919 The camera could have motion tracking. Could just trip it up using bright infrared lights whenever heading out.

>>20809 I have used a spray paint on an automatic radar. Two weeks of bills lost and they were forced to send people to change the glass, which was certainly factured $1000 since it's paid for with public money and public money is free. All it costed me was two hours of my time and $4. Now, for cameras that are out of reach I guess you could just throw the paint there. >Super easy to do >10 seconds of actions and you start running >If caught, the sanctions are certainly much lower. Keep doing it until they place a police car under every camera. >>20810 I want to repeat some of your points: >Do it alone, never brag about it, do not take pictures of you doing it and don't post them on FB, what is wrong with you? >Tracking devices like flatphones are to be kept home. >Yes, your car does have a GPS. Yes, your car does register your every move. Yes, your car will rat you to the feds. >>20812 That's why you break one camera and then do nothing for weeks. One night I wanted to do a thing and I had to walk a long path to make it look from the point of views of the cameras that I was going somewhere and then I changed clothes, walked another path, did my thing and walked back to change my clothes again. I never got caught, but in my city cops won"t move if no one is in danger, so...

>which was certainly factured $1000 since it's paid for with public money and public money is free. As you say, public money is free. The only people who are troubled by you destroying cameras are the people who pay taxes (so you, your parents, your friends, your neighbours,...), not the policy-makers.

>>20901 >>20896 >>23913 Don't use acid, instead there are specialized products which welders use to test if they welded something together correctly. I think it's called revealing agent or penetrative agent or something like that, usually red or white, used specifically for welding metals. Especially the penetrative agent is designed precisely to seep into anything and it will never fuarrrking leave it. I know concrete will drink that soykaf up and steel also obviously, but i'm not so sure about plastic actually. It's just that if it works it would be a horrifying weapon. Buy high powered laser and precision strike >>20890 melt his optics >>23919

Will it ever be possible to non-obviously distort your image? Changing your hair color, for example, instead of appearing as a glowing LED blob (which might not work anyway?). It sounds sci-fi of course (how would it be done?), but might be the only practical response to having cameras everywhere.

>>26230 I had always thought of using a QR code that hacks the cameras but it is unrealistic because they likely are not even reading QR codes anyway and you have to know what software they run.

>>26230 we had a bit on this before some chinese group came up with IR light emitters built into clothing, since a lot of cheap cameras used to run on IR. not sure how it would hold up nowadays, and it still looks kind of weird.

>>23934 >the only people who are troubled by you destroying cameras are the people who pay taxes (so you, your parents, your friends, your neighbours,...), not the policy-makers. It's not like they give the money back to the people if they don't spend it all. And I would much prefer them to spend the money they stole from me on replacing vandalized cameras rather than bombing children in gaza.

>fly drone above camera >drop thermite on camera >fly away

I can't find the article again but there was some anti photo/video tech used in public venues where they have the lights strobe at a specific frequency to make it so you can't film without heavy banding distortion. There must be some way to make use of this in an on the go form to make it subtle. But how do you do this without winding up making yourself a glowing orb?

>>26257 Interesting. I presume that this wouldn't work well unless most of the the lighting in a video was this micro-strobing kind. Maybe you could subtly manipulate existing lights somehow? I bet a lot of lights are strobe-able if you just got control of the power that flows into them and play with it. More speculatively Maybe something could be sprayed on to occlude the glass of a light more/less in a cyclical rhythm? Do you need them all synced up, or not?

>>26264 Maybe if the light is near infrared so most people wont see it and a higher intensity than surrounding light? At least the lights in many stores are not very bright. Though it should be looked into if infrared lights can trigger seizures in the photoepileptic. Dont want to have to deal with potential lawsuits. Though it's likely a safer bet than trying to use electrical signal interference which might harm people with pacemakers or other medical equipment since photo epileptic seizures are rare and might not occur in specific frequencies of light but still requires research if it works in tests. Also you likely can make a person out with distortion but a computer may fail to facial track them at least.

Anyone has any /lit/erature on the topic of CCTV's? Anything related is welcome. Also are cameras in the woods a thing? I'm talking European forests near a city. I know there are some camera traps, but are there any CCTV's in such remote areas? I wonder.

>>20809 I had a handheld laser that burnt even shielded cameras. I know emps can disrupt camera activity as well.

>>20890 >>20890 if youre going this far you might as well just get real close with the lazer maybe some powerful magnets too you wont fuarrrking kill yourself unless you want to see if the lazer is working by burning your eyes with it i mean if youre trying to burn the camera because you love to burn i would personally reccommend a torch cutter or something welding or fire related instead

Since there was a recent fork of Organic Maps into CoMaps maybe someone could suggest they add a feature to use OSM data on surveillance cameras to have navigation that minimizes the view of these for privacy reasons or at least an option to notify you one is near by so you are aware how often you are on camera. I would do it myself but I have no email currently so I can't register on Codeberg and am not familiar enough on where you send feature requests. The potential issue is misuse of this by bad actors though but there already is OpenStreetMap data on this both public CCTV cams and some private cameras.

>>26738 > Since there was a recent fork of Organic Maps into CoMaps maybe someone could suggest they add a feature to use OSM data on surveillance cameras to have navigation that minimizes the view of these for privacy reasons or at least an option to notify you one is near by so you are aware how often you are on camera. Sounds like a good idea. Thank you for your post, I wasn't aware that Organic Maps had been forked into CoMaps. > I would do it myself but I have no email currently so I can't register on Codeberg and am not familiar enough on where you send feature requests. Given it's your idea you may have a better idea of how to phrase it. I'd definitely support it if you presented the idea, even as an experimental/optional feature. If you need a temporary email, use emailantor(dot)com or temp-mail(dot)org to make a burner account on Codeberg. > The potential issue is misuse of this by bad actors though but there already is OpenStreetMap data on this both public CCTV cams and some private cameras. I think the positives (avoiding the surveillance state and it's appendages) generally outweigh the negatives (someone misusing the feature to commit hypothetical crimes). I think generally if someone aims to avoid cameras for nefarious purposes, the existence of the feature won't make a difference regardless. Worst case, it can be buried in the feature menu and mentioned in passing, to decrease the possibility of someone seeing it and misusing it. I think it's a great idea, and definitely a feature that I would like to see added.

>>26740 I previously tried creating an account with a disposable email and was rejected for it so I was holding for a while before trying again so they do not think im a bot.

>destroy one per day to keep the glowies at bay https://deflock.me/

Assuming they aren't there just for me, my city uses a lot of drones. What should be done about them?

>>27548 Improvised EMP beam gun

>>20838 Lasers are probably your best option for physical damage of surveillance installations. You can probably get some spicy ones off aliexpress for CNC engravers. Sure, verifying damage is difficult but those camera sensors are just as sensitive as human retinas. Just don't be one of these antifa glitterboys going around and pointing them at zogbots or helicopters. But a better vector might be the software level. Most of them are made by the same companies who care more about securing gov contracts than ensuring their security. And I also wonder how easy it is to poison the already terrible facial recognition AI. But it's not just cameras anyway, your phone with all those jeet coded apps that emit all sorts of data in plain text are enough to track you easily by corpos and govs alike even if you aren't targeted. Hiding is near impossible in the modern world and destroying telcom masts is not a bright idea either, but again, noise and flooding might be better to render things useless for dragnet surveillance.

>>27551 Zog bots also watch these cameras you know, its not 100 percent AI run. Your best bet is spray paint with black oil they wont ever get that off,

>>27548 I imagine if someone flew kites with long threads hanging from it they could get tangled up in it.

>>20814 >would be enough to seriously stymie this threat You do know that LEAs put up signs and cameras hoping that they're destroyed so they can justify larger forms of privacy infraction, right?

>>23919 He could just be an asshole instead of a spook. Still you have to ask him; even if he is a spook it's too late

EMPs were mentioned before. I know they can disrupt a camera but can they fully damage it? Also need to keep in mind how bad an idea this is for anywhere with people or cars. This makes me wonder other ways electronics fail. I assume you cant really heat internal components from outside without risk of melting external components making it obvious it was tampered with but what about freezing components? Likely it cant be executed but I am just curious how this would work. Compressed gas through a long tube and pole?

>>26738 >>26740 I finally did it. All you Lains show support for these features or help point to anywhere something similar has been done to make it easier or help get involved in development yourselves https://codeberg.org/comaps/comaps/issues/2968 https://codeberg.org/comaps/comaps/issues/2772 Do not get your hopes up high because some of the developers come off like bootlickers to me.

>>27579 lol that's incredibly cool to be honest

https://eyes.daylightingsociety.org/ I used to contribute to this project back in the day, but it has been abandoned for almost 5 years now. I don't think it would be too hard to spin up another version of this.

>>27596 I also suggested they add navigation using other internal sensors than GPS so you can use it without it or use it to improve accuracy without giving out a wifi signal but I have doubts anyone will attempt something that challenging to make accurate. >>27597 Hopefully.

anyone here used those IR lights to screw with cameras looking at your face ? I know its not perfect (turns you into a torch and all) but it is something (if it works). I'm looking for product reccomendations or advice on if this is even a viable way to keep my face out of random photos, especially cellphone photos.

>>27599 During bright daylight it is questionable how well this would work because the camera Id assume will already be adjusted for it

>>27600 true, fwiw I am principally thinking of indoor settings

The solution to this problem starts with making lists of the people (officers and directors) that run these corporations, the mayors of cities and city hall committee weenies who lie to their constitutions, and anyone else who by way of their own action wittingly put this surveillance grid in place. You are not going to vote your way out of this. You can let them continue to feel safe walking down the street or you can live without the surveillance hellscape they are building.

>>20809 The French actually start soykaf when their government does dumb soykaf. The USA, if recent events with surveillance billionaires and Flock haven't started a revolt, I don't see it coming any time soon. A country of people shouting that they have a history of taking down corrupt governments, it has happened a whole of one single time. The French have done it at least four.

>>27655 Ive seen some videos talk about how many cities removed their Flock cameras after people soykaf on them for it or they could not be allowed to remove them so they taped plastic bags over them.

>>20809 Battery-powered power tools with carbide blades for cutting steel (reciprocating saw or grinder), but don't get zapped. Take whatever precautions you would to avoid being identified too of course.

>>20809 I was in Hawthorne. Look how many cameras they got on Crenshaw. Holy soykaf that's a lot for one nondescript intersection. I was thinking of mapping out capabilities for each of these sensors and posting them on public maps.

>Especially, to determine the most cost-effective, stealthy means of exterminating threats to your physical anonymity. [1] - Buy or make bumper stickers to throw off AI cameras and attach adhesive magnet fridge backing so they are not perm and you can take them off (its not illegal since it doesn't cover identification. (Think adversarial type patterns) [2] - Buy clear coat and gloss spray paint to spray licence plate with in lines and random stencils to throw off cameras when sun hits them. [3] - Buy some type of clear thermal paint that reduces temperature in houses or something similair for ALPR's to block the thermal on your plates like [2].

[4] - Remove telematic or unplug Telematic Control Unit (TCU)if you have a newer car. These are basically a WiFi/Bluetooth/GPS card for your laptop but for youre car.

> https://deflock.org/ > > https://www.whattheflock.us/ License plate readers for speeding give politicians a % of the speeding tickets Flock is not just this but tracking movement with thermal and logging plates regardless of speeding. They also have facial reconition.

>>23933 be aware that a lot of newer ebikes have GPS, LTE and bluetooth built in, and the BT module will get picked up by a flock camera. It's important to be aware of this when choosing a ride. If you're converting an older bike make sure your kit is relatively open source and doesn't have these issues. when in doubt just pay a crackhead to borrow his bike or get him to do the needful, taking the obvious precautions for interacting with crackheads

Picture related. Nobody will spend too much effort to catch the guy who is spraying paint, so just don't have your phone and don't do rookie mistakes and you will be fine.

Are these ALPR cameras connected via underground wires or through wireless connections? Maybe some type of jamming can be done. And for traversing meatspace, why not use drones?