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

The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

fee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 155 posts

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#101

Post by ceejayoz »

pandaman wrote: post #77
oblio wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.

You are confusing criminal punishment with self-defense. In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. As far as I know, even in states where there is no death penalty for any crime. For example, "Manson Family" could not get death penalty for the murder of Sharon Tate and others because California banned death penalty at the time of their trial. Would you really argue that, if they had means to…

> In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense.

It's not quite that simple. Self-defense must be proportionate, so you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#102

Post by ceejayoz »

m0zg wrote: post #68
redis_mlc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read news reports that half the "cell towers" in DC are suspicious. So it's not about one particular organization or foreign government doing shady stuff. So "likely fake" => "almost certainly true." FTFY.

Sounds implausible to me. In their useful (active) mode these things emit. The FCC (not to mention the other TLAs) can easily track this shit down and shut it down. Except of course if those are NSA/FBI/CIA stingrays.

Make them mobile, use them for short, unpredictable periods.

Or site them in embassies, where the FCC can impotently yell through the locked gate.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#103

Post by soulofmischief »

luxuryballs wrote: post #31

Between this example and “no knock” warrants (where people get killed, including police) I think it seems obvious that people have forgotten what the point of a warrant is. A warrant is suppose to prevent either of the two cases from resulting in lengthy court battles or death from confusion, and it’s very simple: YOU SHOW THE PERSON BEING SEARCHED THE WARRANT IN ADVANCE! That is how you gain authorization... somehow…

Shoot first and ask questions later goes both ways, if an armed assailant in all black breaks into my house in the middle of the night without properly identifying themselves at my door.

Someone tried breaking into my apartment just a few months ago in the middle of the night. I fear for my safety. Surely that's something these people can relate to.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#104

Post by GiorgioG »

aspaceman wrote: post #90
kazagistar wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To expand, the castle principle is what this is called, and it is seen as much as an obvious default in the USA as a horrifyingly violent monstrosity basically everywhere else.

Yup agreed. It's not good. Made sense in a frontier without any cops. Doesn't make much sense anymore. Don't know why you use that historical fact as a springboard for some weird soapbox though. FYI. My opinion is you don't shoot people on your property. It's bad.

When seconds count, the police are only 15 minutes away.

When I was growing in a less than ideal neighborhood, someone purporting to be police rang the doorbell at around midnight on a Saturday night. My father opened the door with his .22 rifle in hand. These supposed cops were "looking for a missing child." My dad wasn't buying it and they left in a hurry, never taking their eyes off the rifle. My father called the police department afterwards and it turns out no child had been reported missing in the area. No, my father didn't shoot anyone - but you can be sure he was ready to do so if necessary.

If someone rings my doorbell in the middle of the night, they're going to meet me with a gun in hand. If someone is so bold as to break into my house while my loved ones are home - I'm not going to wait for the police to show up to protect them. The rational assumption is these individuals are a threat to the safety of my family. I'd rather go to jail than see my family hurt. While rare, home invasions are a thing - this is probably the worst/most-gruesome example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_in...

Victimization During Household Burglary https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

An estimated 3.7 million burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007.

A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#105

Post by kls »

iso947 wrote: post #96
nothingtos33 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. Last I checked the 2nd amendment was still a right.

Which militia are you in?

TLDR; 1700's English (Latin origin words) was closer to their true Latin definitions.

You realize that the term regulated is different than governed or ruled. The closest approximation for regulated would be to supply in a measured fashion or a pattern which follows a rule. It is from the Latin Regula. A SCUBA regulator does not rule you, it supplies, in measured order, breathable air, which your lungs survival depends on the supply by the regulator.

You need armed men to supply a militia or army. Regulated does not imply government run or even being associated with a militia it implies having armed men available should the militia (we had no standing army at that time) need them.

for reference:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#106

Post by sokoloff »

ceejayoz wrote: post #101
pandaman wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confusing criminal punishment with self-defense. In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. As far as I know, even in states where there is no death penalty for any crime. For example, "Manson Family" could not get death penalty for the murder of Sharon Tate and others because California banned death penalty at the time of their trial. Would you really argue that, if they had means to…

> In the US people are allowed to use deadly force for self-defense. It's not quite that simple. Self-defense must be proportionate, so you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat.

> you can only use deadly force against an imminent deadly threat

This varies by locale. In Texas, in a situation where the use of force is permitted, the use of deadly force is permitted to stop arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime.

Most states permit the use of deadly force to protect against serious injury, not just a deadly threat.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#107

Post by oblio »

celticmusic wrote: post #98
oblio wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most of the world, yes, you don't assume you're in mortal danger. This is the kind of logic that makes US police officers shoot everyone on sight. An intruder most likely wants to steal your stuff, which hardly requires a death sentence, as you seem to want to offer.

an univited intruder in your home shouldn't be considered dangerous? We have a word for this, it's called naive.

Not everything dangerous has to be shot on sight.

That's not being naive, it's being reasonable.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#108

Post by sokoloff »

aspaceman wrote: post #91
michaelmrose wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cops will arrive when they feel like it. It is well established that they have no legal obligation to respond in a timely fashion even where they in theory could do so. Response time in an emergency in major cities ranges from 5-10 minutes. Longer the further out from the city.

What does any of this have to do with anything I said?

In the context of "Back then [the castle doctrine] made a lot of sense. Nowadays we have cops instead", discussing the response time and obligation of the purported replacement seems perfectly relevant to me.

In many cases, you could call the cops and then make yourself a hamburger, eat it, and finish up the dishes before they arrived.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#109

Post by giancarlostoro »

kls wrote: post #105
iso947 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which militia are you in?

TLDR; 1700's English (Latin origin words) was closer to their true Latin definitions. You realize that the term regulated is different than governed or ruled. The closest approximation for regulated would be to supply in a measured fashion or a pattern which follows a rule. It is from the Latin Regula. A SCUBA regulator does not rule you, it supplies, in measured order, breathable air, which your lungs survival depen…

This also has the side benefit that even with our more organized military of today, if invaders were all over US soil, the citizens could rise up as one unified militia as well to protect the country. Not something I ever hear anybody discuss much, but absolutely nothing is going to stop citizens from protecting themselves if a war breaks out in US soil.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#110

Post by foobarian »

dunmalg wrote: post #48
stefan_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have SIM cards for 30 years to authenticate unique users to the network, but those same cards can't authenticate the network? No, this is entirely by choice and could have been trivially solved. They just forgot the "server certificate" part.

I'd say it's less a "choice" than an "oversight". SIM cards solve the problem of "how do we know if Random Phone is attached to an account and the bill is paid?" The question of "how does the phone know it's talking to a real tower" was never even ASKED, as the very idea would have seemed preposterous.

This happened with networked OSes too. There was a time when Ethernet jacks were trusted unconditionally and hosts could be authenticated by their IP address or worse. NIS used to use the "honor system." Great fun in college in the 90s :-)
Post reply on HN