British Drivers Destroying Surveillance Cameras

miletus writes "A Wired article tells us that not everyone in Britain loves the surveillance state." The linked entry (part of Bruce Sterling's blog) quotes a story about British anti-camera groups, one of which claims its up-and-coming methods "will enable them to destroy a roadside camera in just a few seconds," and illustrates with a burned-out camera. I wonder how many Americans are similarly motivated.

Privacy

[Brian Lewis]

It's time to build some tin-foil hats for your cars people.

That, or get some kind of cool preditor laser thing that will somehow find the camera and shine it directly into the lens causing it to go "blind" for the brief period that you are in it.

Capt Gatso deserves a knighthood

[earthforce_1]

George Orwell was about 25 years too early in his predictions.

Re:Woo Hoo

[Captain Splendid]

You forgot to ask us to get off your lawn.

Re:Not CCTV

[MightyYar]

Yeah but now they'll need CCTV cameras to watch the speed cameras.

Re:Sweet!

[DarrenBaker]

The Coast Guard?

Re:Not CCTV

[Hognoxious]

you don't have a choice whether you get hit by a car travelling 20mph over the speed limit because the driver is convinced that the laws of nature and the realities of human reaction speeds don't actually apply to him.

Sure you do. Stay the fuck out of the passing lane unless you're overtaking another vehicle.

Hang on, are you suggesting that you can only get hit if you're in the passing lane? I think you should patent that discovery.

Re:my safety

[FinchWorld]

A speed camera does nothing to stop a car doing 200 in a 40 zone

A camera does nothing at all, by the time the second flash occurs the car is already out of the camera's area, so they can't verify speed. Of course, you do have to be travelling at 200 mph...