zlacker

Firing projectiles to destroy cameras (it doesn't matter how the slug is thrown) is... oh why bother, people won't change.

spray-chalk on a stick.

>>privat+(OP)
But airguns are usually much less regulated, much quieter and easier to supress and the legal liability for firing an airgun somewhere vs a firearm is usually much different. And they usually have enough power for that purpose without risking too much colleteral damage.

>>privat+(OP)
Installing cameras to _violate_ peoples rights is.. why bother, corporations won't change.

>>themaf+72
Nobody is saying "do nothing". The point is that shooting guns into the air is dangerous and you shouldn't do it. If you want to disable the cameras, do so in a way that doesn't recklessly endanger people (i.e spray chalk on a stick).

>>bigstr+65
Shine a Blue laser at the iris of the camera, burn the sensor from inside out.

Hack the planet. But yeah, don't do this.

>>double+Kh
As I linked in my original post, that doesn't really work.

>>IlikeK+R
I don’t even think an airgun could really have an effect, but for anyone contemplating this kind of thing, please at least deconstruct the device and put it into something different looking. There is no point in getting offed with impunity by some Idiocracy goon because he saw a finger gun.

Better use of one’s efforts could be to support legal challenges of this clearly unconstitutional mass surveillance by the government through its corporate, or in this case, YC cutouts.

>>hopeli+0y
There are airguns available otc with the power equal to roughly a 45 ACP fired from a pistol. I doubt these cameras can resist that.