[ssl-3]

> Better yet, dismantle them without harm and send them back with no return address.

This definitely takes more effort than smashing them does.

> Reduces what you can be charged with,

Does it? How? There's not even a return address to show that a person sent the parts back to Flock instead of just disappearing it.

> prevents Flock from getting insurance benefits

How? The camera doesn't repair itself. It still takes money to turn a pile of camera parts into a working camera on some street corner somewhere.

> and is all the more frustrating for them to deal with.

Is it? Is corporate frustration the goal? (Is corporate frustration even possible?)

[MrDrMcCoy]

I think my choice of the word "dismantle" has caused some confusion. "Cleanly dismount, and ship back whole" is what I meant. If nothing is destroyed, they can't charge your with destruction. If the item is returned, it is not stolen. There surely will be some lesser things one could be charged with here, but I doubt they would be worth the effort and expense of a lawsuit, and unlikely to sway a jury to convict.

Frustrating them is not the goal per-se, but it feels good, and may make them consider that market as not worth the cost of maintaining a presence there.

[ssl-3]

When I take your things, I have quite clearly stolen from you. That's theft.

When I take your things and then mail them back to you, I have still stolen from you. That's still theft.

It's the taking part that constitutes theft.

---

If I instead just smash your things in-situ, then that can be a different crime like vandalism.

[cortesoft]

> If the item is returned, it is not stolen.

This isn't how the law works at all. You can absolutely still be charged with theft even if you return the item.

[MrDrMcCoy]

[Shrug] that's for the jury to decide.