If you've never seen it, it's worth your time to watch "Don't Talk to The Police", a lecture by a law professor, in case the FBI, etc. come knocking on your door. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Watch this 2 times.
FBI agents track cell phones that pinged near the Capitol
341–350 of 516 posts
Re: FBI agents track cell phones that pinged near the Capitol
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you change the subject or redirect when someone asks you a difficult question you're not lying. That sort of thing could be called social engineering.
Obscuring information from Law Enforcement is still probably perjury if they find out and can prove you knew
The requests themselves were probably illegal, sidestepping standard procedure as they were. I don't think one could be charged with perjury for refusing unlawful requests. IANAL!
Re: FBI agents track cell phones that pinged near the Capitol
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The use of cell phone data is well understood, well litigated, and for all intents and purposes, settled law. I don't have strong views on the right policy outcome, but it is not accurate to call this issue well litigated and/or settled law. Just yesterday, NYTimes ran an article about DIA claiming a "commercial availability" exception to the only Supreme Court case addressing cell phone location data (Carpenter).…
How can it be litigated if it is secret? The sorts of lawyers allowed to know of it are not the sorts of lawyers who file suit in the public interest.
> but their rational is secret so we won't know until it is... litigated.
Presumably, this statement means that litigation will necessarily reveal the rational by presenting it.
Re: FBI agents track cell phones that pinged near the Capitol
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because no one was there for an insurrection. Thats a conspiracy theory by mainstream media and the democrats
What euphemism do you prefer for trying to overturn the result of democratic election using violence?
Overturn by peacefully protest, showing Pence that there is popular support to investigate the election inconsistencies.
The biggest act of violence was a policeman shooting a protester point blank in the neck, after being let through by 6 other policeman.
I mean can you elaborate how exactly would it work with violence? What was their plan? And how would that be accepted by the every authority and the people?
Re: FBI agents track cell phones that pinged near the Capitol
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you change the subject or redirect when someone asks you a difficult question you're not lying. That sort of thing could be called social engineering.
Obscuring information from Law Enforcement is still probably perjury if they find out and can prove you knew
Perjury is for courtrooms after you take an oath. Lying to law enforcement is categorically not perjury.
Re: FBI agents track cell phones that pinged near the Capitol
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unrelated, but when I saw this first comments were still allowed. Everywhere on YouTube it seems comments are being disabled on new and old videos :/
It's because leaving comments enabled invites the worst of humanity to post excrement on your videos. It's a well known issue. Unless you have time to devote to deleting offensive comments (and many comments are just swear words copied and pasted a few hundred times), just disable comments.
Often case it's the author disagreeing with a good number of the viewers, and not any spam or vulgar content.
Re: FBI agents track cell phones that pinged near the Capitol
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can become a suspect for all sorts of random things you have no control over, like being near a crime, knowing certain people, etc. I don't see how it can work any other way.
Which means there will be 100 suspects where usually there would be maybe 2. Which means the data is useless and therefore won't be used. Law enforcement doesn't want a system that incorrectly flags hundreds of people, unlike what some people seem to think. They want systems that reliably flag potential suspects, because that reduces work in stead of increasing it.
Unless they can use it target they people they already "know" committed the crime, maybe?
Re: FBI agents track cell phones that pinged near the Capitol
#348If you've never seen it, it's worth your time to watch "Don't Talk to The Police", a lecture by a law professor, in case the FBI, etc. come knocking on your door. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
If you are from EU take it easy at 27:25, I’m sure there’s no data about what he’s talking about.
Yeah, I was going to react to that. I'm not from Italy or Spain but definitely could be in "so forth", I found that somewhat offensive. Especially coming from an American policeman, where police brutality is no small problem...
I found him a good advocate of "don't talk to police", a lot of things he describes as standard police practice I would have hoped are illegal, and probably are in some EU countries (police can lie in interview??)
Re: FBI agents track cell phones that pinged near the Capitol
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can become a suspect for all sorts of random things you have no control over, like being near a crime, knowing certain people, etc. I don't see how it can work any other way.
The problem is that one is explainable and the other is not. "He was near the scene of the crime and has no convincing alibi," is very different from, "The computer said he's a suspect and we don't know why, but we still want a warrant." People being targeted for being anomalous is bad, but centralizing and scaling it up is worse.
To me "being a suspect" is a long way from a warrant being issued.
If cops can get a warrant on mere hunches, then I agree we have real problems. But a separate problem.
Re: FBI agents track cell phones that pinged near the Capitol
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can become a suspect for all sorts of random things you have no control over, like being near a crime, knowing certain people, etc. I don't see how it can work any other way.
The problem is that one is explainable and the other is not. "He was near the scene of the crime and has no convincing alibi," is very different from, "The computer said he's a suspect and we don't know why, but we still want a warrant." People being targeted for being anomalous is bad, but centralizing and scaling it up is worse.
> The computer said he's a suspect and we don't know why, but we still want a warrant.
Mission critical ML systems (G/FB ads, crime forensics, medical decision support, financial algorithms) do not work like this.
The designers know exactly which features are causing responses/predictions in the model, their respective perturbation sensitivities, and have clear bounds regarding adversarial inputs/outliers.
“Not knowing how the model works” is definitely true for deep learning, though.