#1 By: Rob Beschizza, August 5th, 2013 11:39
#2 By: Rob, August 5th, 2013 12:14
I want one of those for the red-light cameras....
#3 By: Shane_Simmons, August 5th, 2013 12:19
Holy crap, I saw the Amazon link and I think I'm going to order one! I live in a fairly rural spot and wasps and hornets are a legit concern.
#4 By: Volker Birk, August 5th, 2013 12:23
My friend padeluun told me, that it's better to use hairspray instead of ink. It is cheap to clean away and there will be no damage – while the camera keeps unusable until cleaning is happening, just like with ink.
#5 By: waetherman, August 5th, 2013 12:24
And ironically, the Spray Close 6001 Spray Extender is made in China!
#6 By: fuzzyfuzzyfungus, August 5th, 2013 12:46
Unless you've isolated a CCTV camera from the herd, and are sneaking up on it from outside of its field of view and that of its friends, you might be better off with a suitably punchy laser (ideally outside of the visible range, so there isn't an obvious beam pointing back to you).
Especially with the benefit of being focused by the camera's optics, the irradiance of even quite modest lasers can reach quite horrifying levels.
#7 By: Tim, August 5th, 2013 13:08
Personally I find the DIY version of this far more clever and interesting than the plastic Amazon junk. Too bad you didn't show a picture of it, unless you didn't have rights to post it.
If you absolutely MUST order something from Amazon, get a corkscrew for $5.58, save some money, then make your own sprayer as shown on the original story. Or go to a junk/jumble store and pick one up for a buck so you won't be tracked by the man doing stuff online.
Additionally, the Ai Weiwei version allows you to stand directly under the camera and out of its field of view. The Amazon one isn't like that, and forces you to stand farther out (and in the FOV) if you want the spray to go directly onto the camera.
So all in all, I'd say Ai Weiwei's is a superior solution as it is DIY, cheaper, gives you greater security, and has the added bonus of letting you toast sticking it to the man (or the man's camera) with a glass of wine from a bottle you opened with the same tool you used to spray.
#8 By: David Forbes, August 5th, 2013 13:14
I agree that the original DIY version is more interesting. Link to this image instead!
#9 By: Stephen Schenck, August 5th, 2013 13:15
Vandalism isn't the answer. We need poles topped by an opaque plastic bag, outfitted with locking drawstring.
#10 By: Tim, August 5th, 2013 13:18
You could load it with silly string
#11 By: solstone, August 5th, 2013 13:28
Reminds me of instructions in Adbusters magazine like a decade or so ago for making a device for 'culture jamming' billboards. I always liked the idea of whiting out the eyes of models on billboards so that they look (even more) soulless...
#12 By: Atomic_Monster, August 5th, 2013 13:54
I don't want to be that guy because I hate the idea of being watched all the time as much as the next person. I like my privacy, but I'd hate to be the person who could have covered up this one
#13 By: Boris Bartlog, August 5th, 2013 14:28
Why is 'no damage' a goal? I would as soon use some sort of etchant (rather than mere paint) for just the opposite reason: if you're going to commit a crime to disable the cameras, you might as well make the repair as costly as possible. Though it looks like HF spray etchant isn't a readily available article of commerce...
#14 By: bzishi, August 5th, 2013 14:48
Methinks you might want to turn the nozzle about 30 degrees.
#15 By: Volker Birk, August 5th, 2013 14:48
Well, is it really a crime? What if the costs are zero or near zero – it's just the cleaning. Is making something dirty a crime?
I think this depends on the laws of your country. At least it's not too expensive, if they're catching you, so many people can do it wherever they are.
#16 By: Cowicide, August 5th, 2013 14:49
I'd hate to be the person who could have covered up this one camera
Except that camera didn't help catch them, it was when they decided to shoot another person, etc. that they got exposed.
#17 By: Donald Petersen, August 5th, 2013 14:54
Well, that's the discussion. If we want to make it as easy as possible to nab suspected "bad guys," so much so that we're more or less okay with trusting the authorities to not abuse this power and to only use it in pursuit of bad guys that we're always gonna agree actually are bad guys, then sure, we could use a bunch more cameras everywhere.
I, for one, have lost that level of faith in the authorities. In Boston, the practice worked, eventually. After causing a few complications for people who were mistakenly thought to be the bombers. But power still corrupts, and handing even more power to agencies that have already displayed a somewhat limited resistance to their own corruption doesn't strike me as worth it in the long run.
#18 By: Atomic_Monster, August 5th, 2013 15:33
I know they don't prevent anything from happening really, crime is gonna happen either way. But I wonder just how many people are successfully identified and caught with surveillance cameras. I mean there has to be a bunch we never hear about right? Robberies, rapes, muggings, theft, violence... people have to be getting caught right? I would assume the number is small based on what we see in the media, but what if the media only covers a few of the positive cases out of hundreds of successful ones. There's no reason to think it's part of every little town's agenda to report a positive case to the media. I'd want to see the numbers before saying we should get rid of them all, especially if they're helping and we just don't hear about it.
#19 By: chellberty, August 5th, 2013 15:56
should be up there.
#20 By: nathanng, August 5th, 2013 16:40
Personally, I like to use a sticker on a pole. A lot simpler, less bulky and quicker to setup /disengage than having some mechanism at the end of the pole. (this also lets you personalize a message to whoever has to clean it off, if you're into that sort of thing)
next page →