Those people throwing tea into the harbor are destroying property for political reason and are wrong and should be considered terrorists.
If they don't like the King's governors they should petition the court to appoint one that more aligns with their taxation desires.
Also, only knaves and fools would be concerned with The Crown's modest regulations for reporting "meta data" on all guilds and meeting-houses.
"Using Metadata to find Paul Revere": https://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metad...
Terrorism requires people to be in terror. Is putting the flock cameras up or taking them down causing more terror?
Or more narrowly, terrorism is the use or threat of violence to influence a political outcome.
Clearly not the case here
The political outcome is that Peter Thiel wants to have full control of all security apparatus around the world. Fighting Flock is 100% a political fight.
When the removal of Flock prevented police from apprehending a kidnapper in Houston, I would consider that pretty terrifying. It's like cutting the brakes of police cars or deflating their tires.
Get a grip man.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/article/...
From what I'm seeing online, it looks like Houston started installing Flock cameras in 2022. How were they investigating kidnapping cases before that?
I'd be astonished if decades of methodology and infrastructure for investigating crime have all completely evaporated in the wake of a new and experimental tool -- one that's neither fully demonstrated its reliability as an investigation tool nor that it does not itself create a threat to public safety.
It's a bit polemical to blame their failure to apprehend their suspect on the lack of an tool that shouldn't have been necessary to apprehend the suspect in the first place, don't you think?
Unless you're an [ex-partner and/or woman seeking an out of state abortion](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/13/flock-saf...). So it's like deflating a police car's tires while the occupant is getting ready to stalk his ex-girlfriend.
> It's like cutting the brakes of police cars or deflating their tires
These two things are decidedly not on the same level. Cutting someone's brakes is an attempt to kill the driver. Deflating tires is just plain old property damage.
Well the government was illegitimate. Is that what you're contending happening here? Are you trying to overthrow the police department or municipal government? How do you feel about Jan 6?
I think the extrajudicial use of these types of surveillance is an illegitimate use of power and thus fine to be destroyed.
If you're against [X] you can destroy property? This isn't an argument. Do you understand why this doesn't work in democracy?
If I'm against police force can I set their cars on fire.
I'm against abortion, so I can set abortion clinics on fire.
I'm against data centers, I can blow them up.
Try harder
The comment you're responding to didn't formulate the argument as "I am against [X], therefore I am justified in destroying property used to do [X]", but is rather closer "[X] is itself illegal and therefore I am justified in potentially destroying property in order to stop imminent lawbreaking".
You can argue the point as to whether this particular "[X]" actually does constitute illegal activity that a citizen is justified in responding to with force, but I don't think it's valid to mischaracterize the argument as the response being justified solely by personal opposition.
Well you can do whatever you want but those are hardly equivalent to destroying a camera.
Of course you can, just you likely won't get any sympathy in the large number of cases where the public or government doesn't agree with you (police, abortion clinics).
In this case looks like the people agree with destroying these things.
Violence is increasingly the only path forward in America.