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

Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 289 posts

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#261

Post by 0xffff2 »

diveanon wrote: post #113

So at what point would this become a net positive to society? Let's say it stops an average of 5 mass shootings a year and 200 domestic homicides, will the cost of lost privacy be worth it? I don't like the idea of systems like this, but in places like the United States where gun control and mental health treatment are off the table I don't see many other options.

The number of crimes prevented is an utterly irrelevant metric. This becomes acceptable when police abuse of power is statistically nonexistent.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#262

Post by freeflight »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #92

Starting mental health interventions before that mental health problem turns into compulsory admission or criminal problems, sounds generally like a good idea.

Even human doctors struggle with proper mental diagnosis, I seriously doubt an AI is gonna do any better.

Not to mention that every false positive would lead to the compulsory mental treatment of completely healthy people.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#263

Post by diveanon »

0xffff2 wrote: post #261
diveanon wrote: post #113

So at what point would this become a net positive to society? Let's say it stops an average of 5 mass shootings a year and 200 domestic homicides, will the cost of lost privacy be worth it? I don't like the idea of systems like this, but in places like the United States where gun control and mental health treatment are off the table I don't see many other options.

The number of crimes prevented is an utterly irrelevant metric. This becomes acceptable when police abuse of power is statistically nonexistent.

I disagree, and I am confident most other people would too.

We are educated on the merits of maintaining digital privacy, but most of the world isn't.

If you were able to prove that a system like this was saving thousands of lives a year I think it would have resounding support among the general public.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#264

Post by Fogest »

sandworm101 wrote: post #244
Fogest wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police in the past actually wanted me to come in and talk to them about an issue someone had reported. I came in and they surprised me with the line "My partner is just setting up the camera in the other room if that's okay". I was quite surprised and shocked that they wanted to record what they made sound like a friendly chat. I of course refused to give any kind of statement under video and instead just spoke p…

>> I of course refused to give any kind of statement under video Realize too that a great many officers now don body cameras. If you aren't willing to say it on video, do not say it. No matter what they tell you, police officers are not capable of private conversations. Every conversation with a cop is a conversation between a person and a government. It might be recorded. The cop can take notes. They cop can get bac…

Yes you're quite correct. I was in this case talking to more of a detective style person, not a regular in uniform police officer. They were taking notes while I was talking which was okay. However if anything went to court, or for it to go to court I would have had to had a video statement.

Me being in the police officers messy office just having a conversation about an incident is much different from giving them a video statement. I am referring to a case where the only evidence against myself would be what I say. As such there is not much to go on if it's just some notes the officer took while informally talking with me in their office. They have no one else with them to back up what was said or anything to prove what I said is accurate/true.

Since nothing was recorded not much could be done.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#265

Post by elliekelly »

ultrarunner wrote: post #247
elliekelly wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, most of Europe/the World uses a "civil law" system which is much less adversarial than the U.S. & U.K.'s "common law" system.[1] Fun fact: because of their French (and to a lesser degree, Spanish) influence, Louisiana's laws still follow a civil law system. [1] https://www.apprendre-le-droit.fr/anglais-juridique/what-is-...

And yet Louisiana has one of the highest (if not the highest) rate of incarcerations per-100k in the country[0]. Perhaps ‘less adversarial’ doesn’t count for much when it comes to the business end of the law. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incar...

Since most European countries (civil law systems) don't have such high incarceration rates and considering the U.S. (common law system) has one of the highest I don't think it's fair to attribute Louisiana's high incarceration rate to the state's civil law system.

Louisiana is one of the poorest states in the country and has one of the highest contracted private prison quotas in the country (96% occupancy).[1] And until recently, Louisiana had some of the harshest mandatory minimum drug sentencing requirements.[2] They still have harsh mandatory minimums for other offenses. If you're looking for an explanation for Louisiana's criminal justice issues those factors are the far more likely explanations than the existence of a civil law system.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Department_of_Publ...

[2] https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/assets/2018/03/pspp_louisi...

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#266

Post by [deleted] »

kjsbfkjbf wrote: post #225
781 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That video is very US centric. In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Also, in UK, refusing to talk to police at first contact can be used against you, for example it will be more difficult later to introduce exculpatory evidence that you were supposed to know of at the time you refused to speak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an...

> In Europe in particular, police officers are not such an enemy. Everywhere in the world the police are your enemy. They exist as the manifestation of a state's domestic violence.

[deleted]

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#267

Post by mcv »

danharaj wrote: post #260
mcv wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a democracy, the state shouldn't be your enemy either. The state should represent you, as should the police.

Shouldn't, but can't ever otherwise be.

I strongly reject that defeatist attitude.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#268

Post by Retra »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #251
Retra wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we should abolish police worldwide? Or is there maybe some nuanced angle there that the state might be operating on your behalf?

They're operating on your behalf when they're talking to other people. When they're talking to you, they're your enemy.

I just don't think this 'enemy' rhetoric is all that accurate. Dealing with the police is like handling volatile high explosives; sometimes you have to do it, but they definitely have their purpose, but you'd be a fool to handle the interaction carelessly. Reducing that to merely 'enemy' conflates them with harmful things that serve no purpose at all. Like stupidity.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#269

Post by sandworm101 »

Fogest wrote: post #264
sandworm101 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I of course refused to give any kind of statement under video Realize too that a great many officers now don body cameras. If you aren't willing to say it on video, do not say it. No matter what they tell you, police officers are not capable of private conversations. Every conversation with a cop is a conversation between a person and a government. It might be recorded. The cop can take notes. They cop can get bac…

Yes you're quite correct. I was in this case talking to more of a detective style person, not a regular in uniform police officer. They were taking notes while I was talking which was okay. However if anything went to court, or for it to go to court I would have had to had a video statement. Me being in the police officers messy office just having a conversation about an incident is much different from giving them a…

>> They were taking notes while I was talking which was okay. However if anything went to court, or for it to go to court I would have had to had a video statement.

>> Since nothing was recorded not much could be done.

That's where you are incorrect. The cop was taking notes. The cop can take the stand to testify as to what you said. During that testimony he may refer to his notes. Hearsay rules are complicated but it is safe to say that anything said to a cop can, one way or another, be used in court.

Re: Police in Canada Are Tracking People’s ‘Negative’ Behavior in a ‘Risk’ Database

#270

Post by Faark »

Retra wrote: post #268
MichaelBurge wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're operating on your behalf when they're talking to other people. When they're talking to you, they're your enemy.

I just don't think this 'enemy' rhetoric is all that accurate. Dealing with the police is like handling volatile high explosives; sometimes you have to do it, but they definitely have their purpose, but you'd be a fool to handle the interaction carelessly. Reducing that to merely 'enemy' conflates them with harmful things that serve no purpose at all. Like stupidity.

Seems a lot like a typical prisoners dilemma. Everyone treating each other hostile would give a worse overall outcome, but individually it seems like the best strategy.
Post reply on HN