Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why do people keep coming to this couple’s home looking for lost phones?

fusion.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 266 posts

Re: Why do people keep coming to this couple’s home looking for lost phones?

#141

Post by refurb »

manarth wrote: post #124
anikamariam wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they have the right to detain those people on reasonable suspicion.

It appears (on the information given) that the police did neither: they didn't lawfully detain the suspects or control their actions through a legally authorized manner (e.g. arrest them, serve a warrant on them), but the police did restrict their actions (prevented them from entering the house). It seems on the face of it that the police inhibited the victims' legal rights, without exercising a legally authorised re…

they didn't lawfully detain the suspects

Why not?

The had a data point (albeit a poor one) that said a missing person was in their house. The officer told them to sit outside and not go back in. That's lawful detainment.

Re: Why do people keep coming to this couple’s home looking for lost phones?

#143

Post by refurb »

manarth wrote: post #126
anikamariam wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes it will hold up in court. Police don't let suspects out of detention just because they complain they have to pee. High-tech state-of-the-art tracking technology from Google and Apple indicates that these people are somehow involved in the disappearance of a missing person. How dumb would the officer look if he let a suspect destroy evidence, escape, or otherwise pull something on the claim that they have to pee?

There's nothing in the article to say that the residents were arrested. An arrest is the threshold for controlling someone's legitimate actions: if the police don't have enough evidence to arrest the person, then they shouldn't be limiting their movements. That is the whole point of arrest (and the related burden of proof required to make an arrest). To restrict someone's actions without legal authority - such as arr…

An arrest is the threshold for controlling someone's legitimate actions

No it's not. You can be legally detained.

For example, if a cop stops you for speeding, he won't arrest you, but you will be detained until he gets the information he needs and gives you a ticket.

That's why you're supposed to ask "Am I free to go?". If you are legally detained, the answer is "no".

Re: Why do people keep coming to this couple’s home looking for lost phones?

#144

Post by strathmeyer »

xlayn wrote: post #3

Other options: -The name of the wireless in a database and picking up the first one, could not be fixable changing the router name or ip address as it is already recorded somewhere -Same for other routers or ip address in the neighbor -Maybe it's not their fault but someone else did it on purpose, e.g. take the cell phone and manipulating it inside a room with stolen/faked/forged data somewhere else and wrapped in a…

1) Their location is some form of null/zero or the default location 2) Their location is the dead center of some area, such as a zip code, city, county, or state 3) Some frequent error always returns the same bad value

Re: Why do people keep coming to this couple’s home looking for lost phones?

#145

Post by refurb »

bloaf wrote: post #59
nness wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The geolocation would probably be enough evidence for claims of libel to be ineffective.

Hence the after I deliberately emphasized. If they had already visited the house and not found their phone (especially if the police were there) then subsequent claims of theft against the couple would be much closer to libel.

So you're saying the couple would have to allow a stranger to go through all their person belongings until they were satisfied the phone wasn't there and then sue?

Doesn't sounds like something I'd want to do.

Re: Why do people keep coming to this couple’s home looking for lost phones?

#146

Post by harryh »

manarth wrote: post #117
harryh wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilized society depends on the cooperation of the law abiding populace. It's your civic duty to answer the door. It's a categorical imperative.

Civilized society depends on well-articulated laws that enable citizens to understand what is legal and what isn't, and allows Police to make use of force when it is appropriate, and prevents them from using force when it isn't. "The legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those power…

That's true! And while I certainly agree that we have some problems in this area, I don't think they rise to the level of "don't ever answer the door if the police knock on it."

Re: Why do people keep coming to this couple’s home looking for lost phones?

#147

Post by harryh »

mentat wrote: post #125
harryh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoid engaging with the issue at hand, but instead respond with a witty catch phrase!

So civil disobedience is a detriment to society?

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't.

I'm not sure if I understand the point of your question.

Re: Why do people keep coming to this couple’s home looking for lost phones?

#148

Post by simoncion »

harryh wrote: post #86
beeboop wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stories like this further my conviction to simply never answer the door if it's a police officer unless they specify having a warrant. They can't detain you if you don't answer, and chances are the officer will escalate the situation on his own if he wants a reason to detain you. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Civilized society depends on the cooperation of the law abiding populace. It's your civic duty to answer the door. It's a categorical imperative.

> It's your civic duty to answer the door.

If and only if I can reasonably expect that the officer at the door is competent and adequately prepared to perform whatever task he is present to perform.

If an officer comes to the door, then -effectively- locks me out of my own house for an hour+ because he failed to prepare for the possibility that I would refuse to permit a warrantless search of my property, then his incompetence has done me a serious injury. (Especially if I have an urgent need to urinate!)

I am under absolutely no obligation to -as a courtesy- permit the police to waste my time with their incompetence. There is a system that every taxpayer pays for that provides at least a cursory double-check of an officer's search plan, and provides written certification that said plan has been approved. If an officer CBA to get such a certification and announce that he has one in his possession when he knocks at my door, I CBA to waste my time while he locks me out of my home for the time it takes him to get the certification that he should have gotten before he ever made the trip to my place.

Re: Why do people keep coming to this couple’s home looking for lost phones?

#150

Post by schoen »

gnu8 wrote: post #118
mikeash wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An amusing example of this sort of problem shows up sometimes on airplanes with onboard WiFi. If the phone doesn't get a GPS lock right away (common when you're in a metal tube) then it may show the position based on the mapped location for the hotspot MAC address, which is often at a completely different airport. Obviously, Skyhook isn't driving around mapping airliners, but I think these days they have the mobile d…

Maybe the industry should assign a bit in the BSSID to indicate a mobile AP that shouldn't be used for mapping purposes.

You can opt out of some of them with _nomap (maybe not all). https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ssid+nomap
Post reply on HN