Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears • Hacker News Board

Re: Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears

#71

Post by baobabKoodaa » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 1:51 PM UTC

__s wrote: post #69

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article does not make such claims.

Depends on interpretation of > an unauthorised, non-employee individual was allegedly living within a secure part of the O'Hare airport terminal Overall not many details in article, mostly signals one shouldn't be making "lol tos" remarks without knowing more

> Depends on interpretation of >> an unauthorised, non-employee individual was allegedly living within a secure part of the O'Hare airport terminal

No, it doesn't depend on intepretation. There is absolutely no way you could interpret that sentence as meaning "he used a stolen badge to get into areas not open to the public". He may or may not have accessed additional areas, but the article certainly does not claim he did. We know he accessed the "secure" arrivals area, and the article strongly hints that that's where he lived. Whether he also accessed other areas is possible, but it's not claimed in the article.

Re: Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears

#72

Post by __s » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #71

__s wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on interpretation of > an unauthorised, non-employee individual was allegedly living within a secure part of the O'Hare airport terminal Overall not many details in article, mostly signals one shouldn't be making "lol tos" remarks without knowing more

> Depends on interpretation of >> an unauthorised, non-employee individual was allegedly living within a secure part of the O'Hare airport terminal No, it doesn't depend on intepretation. There is absolutely no way you could interpret that sentence as meaning "he used a stolen badge to get into areas not open to the public". He may or may not have accessed additional areas, but the article certainly does not claim he…

Apparently it does depend on interpretation since we're having this disagreement. There can't be absolutely no way to interpret in that way, since that's how I interpreted it. Perhaps you're right, & there's absolutely no way I exist

Re: Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears

#73

Post by syshum » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #55

syshum wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The raw amount of the bail is not, and should not be relevant, as to a person with no money $1 bail is unattainable. This is why the Cash Bail system is regarded as punishment for the poor, and in part what makes the Legal system different for the "rich" vs the poor

I'm curious if you would still say the amount of bail is irrelevant if it were a well-off person getting a $1,000 bail. For what it's worth, bail is supposed to set to an amount based in part on the person's wealth. So for two people ~~convicted~~ accused of identical crimes, where one has 10x the means of the other, the bails should be 10x different. It doesn't always happen that way of course, but it is part of the…

Clearly you misunderstood my comment, I was making the case that if Cash bail is to exist it should be based on income,

The person i was replying to stated that the court did not take the danger seriously because they only applied and $1,000 bail, my point is to a Poor person that $1,000 may as well be $1,000,000. Where as to a billionaire than $1,000 is literally nothing

That is with out getting into the fact that if the person is a danger they should be denied bail outright, as slapping down some money to the state does not eliminate danger.

Bail as it was conceived was suppose to ensure the person showed up in court for face their crimes and a jury of their peers, it was not suppose to be about profit, or public safety, or punishment however cash bail system today is used for all 3 of those things and very little for its intended purpose

Re: Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears

#74

Post by tinus_hn » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 2:08 PM UTC

howlgarnish wrote: post #60

rkachowski wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel this quote hits on a nerve - what's more important than the actual safety is the perceived feeling of safety. For all the TSA shoe removal and bottled water prohibition, they couldn't prevent someone living undetected in a restricted area of an airport for 3 months. It's almost 20 years since 9/11 and there is still this ineffective security theatre.

But what's the risk to having someone live for three months in an airport? He's gone through the same TSA security as everybody else.

He could have fashioned any old popsicle into a shiv!

Re: Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears

#75

Post by scotty79 » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

totalZero wrote: post #58

scotty79 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it fine for the judge to say false things in the court if it's a part of the protocol?

If 'danger to the community' is a term of art that sets a standard for imprisonment/bail, then it's not so cut and dried as to say that the guy seems harmless so the judge is lying. Clearly this guy exploited a security problem that endangers the community, and clearly he didn't physically harm anyone during his time in the airport.

This term if built out of actual words that have actual meaning. Why call it danger-to-community if he's is not a danger to community?

If you want arbitrary label you want to assign arbitrarily why not call it ooglaboogla instead? At least you wouldn't be lying while using it.

Re: Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears

#76

Post by syshum » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #66

pc86 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious if you would still say the amount of bail is irrelevant if it were a well-off person getting a $1,000 bail. For what it's worth, bail is supposed to set to an amount based in part on the person's wealth. So for two people ~~convicted~~ accused of identical crimes, where one has 10x the means of the other, the bails should be 10x different. It doesn't always happen that way of course, but it is part of the…

You forget that bail is refunded upon appearing to the court. A rich person will post bail, gain their freedom, and get the bail refunded to them when they go to court. A poor person can not afford to post bail, so they will lose their freedom. No-one will "refund" this lost freedom to them in any form.

Only if the person puts up the bail directly

If you use a Bail Bonds Company you only put up normally 10%, to the bail company who keeps that as a service fee.

So if you had a $1,000 Bail, you can pay $1,000 to courts and be refunded when you show up, or $100 to a bail bonds company who will keep the $100.

If you are a poor person most of the time you will end up paying the $100 and never see that money again

Re: Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears

#77

Post by _n_b_ » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 2:18 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #68

totalZero wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If 'danger to the community' is a term of art that sets a standard for imprisonment/bail, then it's not so cut and dried as to say that the guy seems harmless so the judge is lying. Clearly this guy exploited a security problem that endangers the community, and clearly he didn't physically harm anyone during his time in the airport.

> exploited a security problem that endangers the community Well, it's not his fault the security problem endangers the community. The US felony system is quite absurd. This guy is now marked for life for trespassing into a public space, based on the subjective opinion of a judge that despite him not harming anybody for 3 months, he is a danger to the community.

> This guy is now marked for life [...] based on the subjective option of a judge

That is not quite what this is. He hasn’t been convicted of anything; the judge is determining the conditions on which he can be released before the trial happens and making that determination requires the judge to weigh the available evidence and apply a legal standard—albeit one where ‘danger’ doesn’t align with its everyday definition-to determine if some level of monetary bail is required.

I do agree that he may well be marked for life and in the sense that Google will remember this event forever, even if he is acquitted at trial.

Re: Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears

#78

Post by rkachowski » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 2:19 PM UTC

howlgarnish wrote: post #60

rkachowski wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel this quote hits on a nerve - what's more important than the actual safety is the perceived feeling of safety. For all the TSA shoe removal and bottled water prohibition, they couldn't prevent someone living undetected in a restricted area of an airport for 3 months. It's almost 20 years since 9/11 and there is still this ineffective security theatre.

But what's the risk to having someone live for three months in an airport? He's gone through the same TSA security as everybody else.

Aside from the fact that screening methods have shown to be woefully ineffective at removing restricted items and weapons, I understood "secure area" as within the protected internal airport employee / admin part of the airport. The guy himself just chilling there isn't a risk, but the fact that an arbitrary person was able to do that in such a high security environment is the real problem.

Re: Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears

#79

Post by retzkek » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 2:24 PM UTC

syshum wrote: post #76

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forget that bail is refunded upon appearing to the court. A rich person will post bail, gain their freedom, and get the bail refunded to them when they go to court. A poor person can not afford to post bail, so they will lose their freedom. No-one will "refund" this lost freedom to them in any form.

Only if the person puts up the bail directly If you use a Bail Bonds Company you only put up normally 10%, to the bail company who keeps that as a service fee. So if you had a $1,000 Bail, you can pay $1,000 to courts and be refunded when you show up, or $100 to a bail bonds company who will keep the $100. If you are a poor person most of the time you will end up paying the $100 and never see that money again

Predatory lending is the biggest example of how "it's expensive to be poor in America." There's a few ongoing efforts to improve this situation, such as https://bailproject.org/ and https://www.vonzella.com/

Re: Man found 'living in airport for three months' over Covid fears

#80

Post by pc86 » Mon, Jan 18, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #63

pc86 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious if you would still say the amount of bail is irrelevant if it were a well-off person getting a $1,000 bail. For what it's worth, bail is supposed to set to an amount based in part on the person's wealth. So for two people ~~convicted~~ accused of identical crimes, where one has 10x the means of the other, the bails should be 10x different. It doesn't always happen that way of course, but it is part of the…

> So for two people convicted of identical crimes, where one has 10x the means of the other, the bails should be 10x different. Accused, not convicted.

You're right, I misspoke (mistyped?). Fixed :)