• chisel@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months 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!

    • hector@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months 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.

    • Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months 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

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

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

        • Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months 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. In 2024 it was announced the officer would not be prosecuted. Not one police officer has been found guilty of illegal murder as of yet.

        • Senal@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months 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.

          • tabular@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months 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).

            • Senal@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              and I’m saying it’s not a common occurrence, intentional or not.

              Guns aren’t common enough in the UK for “they’ve got a gun” to be a go-to for the police.

              “They’ve got a knife” or “They’ve got a sign the ruling class don’t want people to see” are more likely.

              As another poster pointed out, it has happened, but it’s by no means the norm.

      • hector@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months 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.

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months 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?

      🙄

  • Multiplexer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Feeling the need to state “they are closer to Antifa than anything else” might be a good point to rethink your ethics…

  • cabbage@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    This guy couldn’t sound more fascist if he broke into German 1930s marching songs. This video should be used in education.

  • ozoned@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    So we’ve moved on from Woke finally and just calling everything terrorist now? At least I won’t have to ask everyone saying “everything is so woke now” to define woke and watch them sputter.

  • Smaile@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Notice how a lot of these servailence CEO often come across as quite skittish and oddly concerned about what other are doing while obvuscating their own actions, kind of reminds me of a someone I used to know with diegnosed parinoid…

    Just sayin…

  • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I would like to kindly invite this person to lodge their head in a deeply recessed part of their own anatomy.

  • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Since Flock CEO wants to give this movement some press

    Here’s Benn Jordan, he’s done a series of videos on the cameras, demonstrates their vulnerabilities, and talks about how Flock has been deploying secretly by co-opting local municipalities to subsidize their national rollout.

    First video, the one seems to have started the major anti-Flock push: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp9MwZkHiMQ

    Follow-up showing how easy they are to hack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB0gr7Fh6lY

    More live demonstrated vulnerabilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU1-uiUlHTo

    Not as directly related, but he discusses a way to use generative AI models to create noise masks for your specific plate that will disrupt the OCR process that ALPRs use. (Key term: Adversarial Noise) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_F4rEaRduk