It is the easiest, cheapest, safest and fastest way to deflock your city. And there is nothing they can do about it - a green filter can be bypassed by a blue laser and vice versa.
50mw is too weak
>>543970936>deflock your cityAre you retarded?
>>543971157I just worry for my muttbros.
>>543970936city here has a command center where all the traffic light cam feeds come in. you'd have the full force chasing you after camera four. flock we don't have here, not yet. laser crime no joke as they'd argue health risk for huemons.
>>543972230Germoney is so far behind in technology I wouldn't even worry about mass surveillance. They will probably send you to war with Russia instead, try to ignore their letters.What makes lasers superior to a circular saw is its noiselessness. You can do it at night and nobody will wake up. Besides, unlike a disconnected camera, a blinded camera will not even sound an alarm, it will simply show a very poor quality image, so the glowies will not notice it immediately.
>>543972634if it doesn't go black and the laser wielding anon isn't visible in another feed, someone might be able to do this. i don't know anyone who'd want to and have the energy. people want their peace and quiet. i'll probably be where you post from if shtf.
>>543970936what happens if you just hook a car battery up to the new hardened camera kiosks?
>>543972634I can craft an AI-powered ALPR camera from off-the-shelf components and/or a rooted android phone for under $50.I can hide it in my mailbox, or a tree. Or a fake rock in my garden.You cannot detect and laser every potential camera.You cannot hide anymore. It's over.Don't do crimes.THERE ARE CAMERAS IN THE SUN
>>543973199Nice try, glowie.
>>543972991you want to be quick and hit it in passing. impede the function. sand in the gears. a car battery? bit impractical to carry around, even if it could crash a circuit. it wouldn't. energy should be put into finding the people who order the installation of surveillance and talk with them. and nobody has been talking with lidl owner schwartz.. which is where the database building happens. once flock comes here, it will know our faces and where we live.
>>543970974>>5439709361 watt and up is enough to start melting balloons and instant and irreversable eye damage. A 1 watt laser can be had for 10-50 depending on model. 5 watts can also be purchased in a similar price range. 1 watt will absolutely fuckup a camera in any wavelength. 5 watts will be almost immediate with a direct beam.
>>543972230Germans are unbelievable pussies jesus christ.
>>543975187In most of Europe getting your hands on anything above 0.5W is impossible. And even 0.5W will require some paperwork. Good that you have no laws regulating this shit for now.
>>543971225how do i save this .mp4?
>>543970936How do you know if it worked?
>>543975419Thats a different issue entirely and i can excuse such an explanation. It was the "we dont do that in germany" kind of statement the other anon made that was retarted. If he would have lead with that i wouldnt have been mean to him
>>543970936Wrong. While the claims of lasers being able to damage cameras aren't completely false, they are greatly exaggerated. Picrel is a breakdown of what lasers can actually do to cameras. And as you can see, the conclusion is that it is easier to just physically damage the camera than it is to try to damage it with a laser.
>>543970936That would be futile, they started an arms race they can't win in this regard.Maybe they'll sputter some more but there is nothing they can realistically do against something that is genuinely impopular / antipopular.>But muh pet cause that people didn't act against!Anon i know it is difficult for your pea-sized brain to accept but inaction is the truest testament to the majority genuinely not giving a shit about it.
>>543970936>burner bikesDo niggers really?
>>543975577https://i.4cdn.org/pol/1791457831962098.mp4>>543975934https://ipvm.com/reports/lasers-camerascan't access the original paper but here is their video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wREpnGqEhSM
>>543975908https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9lbrr04XBQthey are actually possible to upgrade at home
>>543970936You are severely underestimating beam divergence and the temperature required to disable camera sensors. You can point a camera at direct sunlight for hours with no damage. Even ridiculously powerful 5W laser pointers won't get to sunlight intensity (1000W/M2) at 100 meters, and you need a multiple of sunlight intensity to fry a camera sensor. Do some preliminary paper math before proposing such an inefficient solution, physical damage is far more feasible than lazors.
>>543976939It is not my post, alright the distance must be much shorter, but it is not a problem. And if you can come really close then picrel is definitely the best option. It is not completely silent, but not loud either.
>>543975934This is exactly the propaganda pro camera cucks would disseminate. You expose yourself if you hit it. Ill keep pointing lasers at them
>>543977157He is right, in order to cause a permanent damage it must be really powerful and pointed exactly at the sensor from a reasonably short distance, see >>543976162Temporary blinding works with any pocket pointer though.
>>543977157You probably won't have the kind of equipment to produce a powerful and accurate enough beam to permanently fry it, especially without sticking out like a sore thumb.Use an airgun if you want to destroy it from a distance, you could probably be more stealthy too.
>>543977138Picrel work?
>>543975934This was for laser pointers. For $500ish, you can buy a laser from China that can slice black construction paper from across the room. That will be effective at far greater distances. Hell, it'll be far enough you'd want to put a rifle scope on the damned thing. If the angles and geometry aren't weird, likely you can burn the camera's CCD from a distance where the camera never even shows your image in view: hundreds of yards or more.
>>543977894No it wasn't just for laser pointer. Read bullet point 2. It says they couldn't cause any permanent damage beyond 50 feet with a laser of any power.In any case, the point is that yes, you can damage cameras with lasers, but it isn't nearly as easy as OP or other people on social media are making it seem.
>>543977894You still underestimate beam divergence. Those are made for cutting and probably even worse than a laser pointer beyond 100ft. Not to mention you'd be seen even more easily desu.
>>543970936absolutely do not shine lasers onto reflective surfacesthis on the old 'throw together some specific cleaning agents to gas yourself' levels of trolling only this time you go blind. no normie should use a high powered laser in public under any circumstances. the last time i personally used a laser the cops showed up in under 15 minutes
a pellet gun, slingshot, or suppressed .22lr would be more effective than a laser
>>543978343>Not to mention you'd be seen even more easily desu.From what I can tell, "being seen" matters little. It's whether you're seen by the camera (or another camera) that matters... that's recorded, it's evidence at trial. Being seen by some jackass who doesn't know what's going on (or care)? Doubtful they'd even report it. If you look at footage from similar cameras, they're pretty useless for identification at the ranges I'm discussing.>>543981009>suppressed .22lr would be more effective than a laserSure, if you want to leave ballistic evidence. Might as well go up and lick the camera too, so that they have your DNA.
>>543970936Hin:t you can use Infra Red laser for extra stealth
>>543981064Your chink CNC engraving laser could only seriously damage the camera if you were less than 40ft away and you'd be largely visible by that camera and the cameras in the vicinity. Not to mention those lasers will scatter highly visible blue/visible spectrum light fucking everywhere such that even the biggest moron would notice.Let's not forget the prosecution will try and hype up the goymiggerslug boomer jury by saying you're using illegal super laz0r tech, even if you didn't manage to fry the sensor.
>>543981279Ultra violet ones work too and would probably burn better, IR lazers would probably be easier to obtain though since they're in just about every TV remote from the last 50 years
