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

Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 162 posts

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#151

Post by thrwhizzle »

heavyset_go wrote: post #35
LorenPechtel wrote: post #21

Good idea. I'd also like to see a law making it criminal for a site to post such information without also obviously posting that charges are dropped. You have one week to either take it down entirely or clearly mark it as dropped. If neither is done the post will be considered extortion. A very minor burden on news sites that have to update old articles. A big burden on the extortionist websites. And by making it a c…

> I'd also like to see a law making it criminal for a site to post such information without also obviously posting that charges are dropped. You have one week to either take it down entirely or clearly mark it as dropped. If neither is done the post will be considered extortion. Not only should it be criminal, but people should also be able to file civil suits for damages against businesses that are willing to expend…

Criminal charges and arrest records are public information. You could not possibly pass a law forbidding someone from displaying public information. And we certainly would not want to pivot to secret court systems.

I think what you really want is just transparency.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#152

Post by wizzwizz4 »

nradov wrote: post #119
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't it? Apparently the US government can compel you to act as though your website's records haven't been seized – which includes publishing your weekly “our records haven't been seized” notice.

That is not legally correct. There is no such law or precedent. If you disagree then please provide a specific citation.

> In September 2014, U.S. security researcher Moxie Marlinspike wrote that "every lawyer I've spoken to has indicated that having a 'canary' you remove or choose not to update would likely have the same legal consequences as simply posting something that explicitly says you've received something."[15][16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#153

Post by Sanzig »

hadlock wrote: post #147
stevenicr wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thinking similar.. mugshots still available to the public - however they must be obtained on an individual request basis, that comes with a license not to republish at all. This way anyone can get a mugshot - but no one can legally republish it - tech can give them tools to embed hidden artifacts to prove a republished pic was shared by person 1032 or whatever. This protects people from being dissipated and can help…

Many public record requests need a notarized request and a $10 fee, in particular marriage licenses. Even getting a copy for your own personal records. $10 dollars in today's money is nothing, but in volume adds up quickly, as do notarizing fees, and the hassle of scheduling a public notary etc. Any family member can pull your scummy Uncle's marriage certificate(s) from all 50 states, but it's gonna cost you and it's…

I think this is a good approach for many public records: add just the right amount of friction to the process. Just because a record is public doesn't mean it needs to be published in a readily accessible database.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#154

Post by boomboomsubban »

corin_ wrote: post #148
boomboomsubban wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meaning if you could prove police arrested someone and they could not produce a mugshot, something is wrong. Providing them a way to deny the mugshot without being suspicious gives them more options.

Couldn't the police just take a mugshot, confirm the arrest, and say "this person was later released without charge, none of our business where they are now"?

This happens, but between most people having friends/family and high profile cases having groups outside the station, this causes problems for the police. The proposed change gives them more time without needing to deal with those problems.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#155

Post by nradov »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #152
nradov wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not legally correct. There is no such law or precedent. If you disagree then please provide a specific citation.

> In September 2014, U.S. security researcher Moxie Marlinspike wrote that "every lawyer I've spoken to has indicated that having a 'canary' you remove or choose not to update would likely have the same legal consequences as simply posting something that explicitly says you've received something."[15][16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary

Those are informal opinions and carry no legal weight.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#156

Post by LorenPechtel »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #123
nradov wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a law probably wouldn't be Constitutional. Speech can't be compelled.

It would probably pass muster if framed in terms of defamation. Making it statutorily defamation (i.e. you automatically lose civil suits, regardless of your intent to defame) to distribute someone’s arrest record without also distributing their conviction record with equal prominence would probably strike the right balance.

It needs to be criminal so the people that do it offshore can be nailed.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#157

Post by LorenPechtel »

thrwhizzle wrote: post #151
heavyset_go wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd also like to see a law making it criminal for a site to post such information without also obviously posting that charges are dropped. You have one week to either take it down entirely or clearly mark it as dropped. If neither is done the post will be considered extortion. Not only should it be criminal, but people should also be able to file civil suits for damages against businesses that are willing to expend…

Criminal charges and arrest records are public information. You could not possibly pass a law forbidding someone from displaying public information. And we certainly would not want to pivot to secret court systems. I think what you really want is just transparency.

Yeah, I think we need to allow publishing them so you can't have secret arrests. What I'm proposing to make criminal is publishing deceptive records. So long as you tell the whole truth, fine.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#158

Post by thrwhizzle »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #157
thrwhizzle wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminal charges and arrest records are public information. You could not possibly pass a law forbidding someone from displaying public information. And we certainly would not want to pivot to secret court systems. I think what you really want is just transparency.

Yeah, I think we need to allow publishing them so you can't have secret arrests. What I'm proposing to make criminal is publishing deceptive records. So long as you tell the whole truth, fine.

I don’t know how you could police that or enforce it. Half truths are basically the entire modern mainstream media.

Arrest type information just needs to be more publicly available so these secondary sites don’t need to exist.

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#159

Post by dodobirdlord »

nradov wrote: post #135
dodobirdlord wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would probably pass muster if framed in terms of defamation. Making it statutorily defamation (i.e. you automatically lose civil suits, regardless of your intent to defame) to distribute someone’s arrest record without also distributing their conviction record with equal prominence would probably strike the right balance.

Unlikely. The Constitution contains no exceptions for defamation.

Defamation is already a civil tort. Are you under the impression that the First Amendment protects defamatory speech from being litigated as defamation?

Re: Online, mug shots are forever – some states want to change that

#160

Post by antihipocrat »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #124
antihipocrat wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone more clearly explain to me how the transparency laws actually improve transparency in practice? Why would a police department, who would act in a way malicious enough to disappear people, suddenly start adhering to the requirement of publishing a mugshot of a person they want to disappear?

“Disappear” doesn’t necessarily mean “murder and hide the body”. It can also cover harassing people and completely disrupting their lives by throwing them in jail for a while for no particularly good reason and then not telling anyone until you release them (possibly having beaten or raped them in the meanwhile, and extracted promises of future regime-approved behavior). Requiring that the police make public who they…

Thanks for that, I understand the argument a little more. If reducing undue harassment and disruption is the reason for publishing mugshots, and it turns out that in practice the mugshots are actually being used by others to harass and disrupt (potentially innocent) people's lives, then maybe it's worth reviewing the practice?

Where I'm from most minor criminal convictions on a persons the record are essentially wiped clean after 10 years (technically 'spent', and won't appear in normal police checks). It is illegal for people to obtain information about a spent conviction and use that information unless it is related to sexual abuse or violent crime.

Another thing, what happens to the people who don't have a lawyer or whose friends and family don't have the resources to take on the police department in the event that the police detain and abuse them? Who would they be able to call in that situation to seek justice if the same police who committed the crime are receiving the call?

Post reply on HN