Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla • Hacker News Board

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#71

Post by SkyPuncher » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 5:34 PM UTC

neilv wrote: post #63

snozolli wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they're parking in an area with a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a locker room, it's perfectly legal to record in the United States.

You can argue what exactly is and isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy, and someone else can argue differently. For example, the upskirt "street photographers" have long argued one way, and eventually they get smacked down, legally.

It’s hard to take your argument serious when you choose a pretty absurd example. You walk around the street with a pair of eyes on your face, but that doesn’t mean you can just bend over and look up people’s clothing.

The law clearly establishes a difference between capturing “normal” content in public and invading privacy.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#72

Post by gruez » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 5:43 PM UTC

ralferoo wrote: post #58

gruez wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do police have the legal right to access/take people's private property like this? I thought the 4th amendment of the constitution protected against unreasonable searches and seizures? Search warrants specifically exist to give police the "legal right to access/take people's private property", and are widely accepted to be constitutional.

This might be setting a new precedent though. I'm making assumptions here, but I'd have thought that search warrants were historically used at locations where the suspect lived / worked / frequented. Even at premises not owned by the suspect, the police turning up and requiring all the security footage doesn't deprive the premise owner of anything. Towing away an innocent law-abiding citizen's car for a matter entire…

>This might be setting a new precedent though. I'm making assumptions here, but I'd have thought that search warrants were historically used at locations where the suspect lived / worked / frequented.

Search warrants exist to give police access to evidence when there's probable cause. Often times this is "at locations where the suspect lived / worked / frequented", but there's nothing in the jurisprudence that limits it to those areas. The standard is "probable cause" in any case.

>Even at premises not owned by the suspect, the police turning up and requiring all the security footage doesn't deprive the premise owner of anything. Towing away an innocent law-abiding citizen's car for a matter entirely unrelated to them seems like it's massively overstepping the line set by any previous precedent.

They can and do break into premises, even if they're "an innocent law-abiding citizen", if the owner isn't there to allow them access onto the premises. The article specifically mentions that they only tow the car if they can't contact the owner, which seems consistent with that.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#73

Post by dylan604 » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 5:44 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #69

dylan604 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very much this. Towing by the police should only be something done when the car is in violation of something. I did not see anything about the expense of retrieving the car. You took the person's car so there is definite expense of getting there. Did you force the person to miss a flight, a meeting, a date? WTF do these people think they are so above and beyond rational thought is ridiculous.

>Very much this. Towing by the police should only be something done when the car is in violation of something. If the police has a search warrant for your home and you're not there, they can break in, even if you're not "in violation of something". I don't see how this is any different.

I don't have to make arrangements to go get my home when it is searched. Also, if you're searching my house, more than likely, I'm directly involved in something. They don't break into my house to get my Ring footage, which is much more equivalent in your attempt equating these disparate concepts. You've now made an innocent civilian incur ridiculous fees to get their car out of impound when there was no reason to impound it to begin with.

You could just as easily boot the car and wait for the owner to return. It's not like this was a long term parking spot. There are just so many options other than tow this innocent car.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#74

Post by gruez » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 5:49 PM UTC

neilv wrote: post #63

snozolli wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they're parking in an area with a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a locker room, it's perfectly legal to record in the United States.

You can argue what exactly is and isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy, and someone else can argue differently. For example, the upskirt "street photographers" have long argued one way, and eventually they get smacked down, legally.

>You can argue what exactly is and isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy, and someone else can argue differently.

No. The guy you're replying to isn't giving his opinion on whether it should be allowed or not, he's stating how the law works right now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy_(United...

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#75

Post by neilv » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

SkyPuncher wrote: post #71

neilv wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can argue what exactly is and isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy, and someone else can argue differently. For example, the upskirt "street photographers" have long argued one way, and eventually they get smacked down, legally.

It’s hard to take your argument serious when you choose a pretty absurd example. You walk around the street with a pair of eyes on your face, but that doesn’t mean you can just bend over and look up people’s clothing. The law clearly establishes a difference between capturing “normal” content in public and invading privacy.

Do the privacy laws regarding public surveillance speak of "content"? Because that sounds like something a techbro smug halfwit would say.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#76

Post by jauntywundrkind » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

To me, it's a bug not a feature that precedent can just expand infinitely as new capabilities in the world grow.

There's a lot of people saying that search warrants have always allowed intrusion & seizure. But the fact that all these devices (cars, cameras, phones) are now potentially interesting data-rich objects to be seized, mined for ever larger total information awareness by the state seems like a massive defect & flaw of the system to me.

I dont want old laws + new technology to automatically result in the state's eye of sauron (palantir) getting to better observe us.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#77

Post by gruez » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 5:52 PM UTC

righthand wrote: post #33

klyrs wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People will move out of the cities onto land where they can remove/shoot down cameras People interested in method Mad Max LARPing are significantly overrepresented on HN.

Drones, country where owning a gun is right. I see no post apocalyptic societal leap needed to get to something like this happening. People interested in fiction as the only match for predictions, are significantly overrepresented on HN. Please reference at me that “life will find a way”.

>>>People will move out of the cities onto land where they can remove/shoot down cameras.

>Drones, country where owning a gun is right.

Shooting down someone else's drones/cameras however, isn't.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#78

Post by gruez » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 5:58 PM UTC

righthand wrote: post #40

Loughla wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's illegal, even in rural areas, to shoot down drones. Also it's not drones that are an issue. It's ring cameras and car cameras and CCTV cameras.

It’s different depending on the municipality. Your initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in the US. Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small police department can actually do about it.

>It’s different depending on the municipality. Your initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in the US.

Please enlighten me where in the US you could legally shoot down someone else's drones.

>Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small police department can actually do about it.

If you're interested in protecting your privacy, why would it ever be a good idea to commit a bunch of felonies, by illegally discharging firearms to take down cameras? Even if you somehow didn't get caught, you're painting a big target on your back by committing all those crimes and putting everyone in the area on edge.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#79

Post by gruez » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 6:13 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #52

gruez wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If drivers were worried about their rates going up, they would not do the very activities that put them in that risk in the first place. Not if they're underestimating the risk. For instance, if they think speed limits are instituted by clueless bureaucrats, or they think they're better than the average driver and therefore can drive more aggressively.

Interesting how none of the risks you cite are an increase into their insurance premiums. In fact, what you point to are completely irrational thoughts that have nothing to do with the risks presented by undertaking those activities. It doesn't matter if speeds are set low or irrationally, the fee for a ticket is the same as is the insurance premium increase. Same with being better than another driver, it doesn't mat…

>In fact, what you point to are completely irrational thoughts that have nothing to do with the risks presented by undertaking those activities. It doesn't matter if speeds are set low or irrationally, the fee for a ticket is the same as is the insurance premium increase.

I can't tell whether you wanted an opportunity to rant about unjust speed limits in your area, or are trying to get in a smug "well ackushally \u{1F913}" response. While it's true that speed limits can be arbitrary and driving above it doesn't magically make you a dangerous driver, it's pretty obvious when people say "driving like a complete maniac", that's not the sort of behavior they're referring to. Thinking "speeding" and "driving like a complete maniac" means driving 1 mile over the speed limit in an artificially low speed limit zone is about the least charitable way of interpreting that statement.

>Same with being better than another driver, it doesn't matter if you are or aren't better than another driver when they crash into you.

Again, I can't tell whether you're trying to be snarky. Being a better driver (however it's defined) might not fix your car when it gets into a crash, but I don't think anyone doubts that a professional driver is going to be able to avoid more accidents than the 90 year old granny that only drives every sunday to go to church, when put in the same situations.

>I appreciate you making my point for me.

Whatever you say, champ.

Re: Did your car witness a crime? Bay Area police may be coming for your Tesla

#80

Post by Loughla » Sat, Aug 31, 2024, 6:18 PM UTC

righthand wrote: post #40

Loughla wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's illegal, even in rural areas, to shoot down drones. Also it's not drones that are an issue. It's ring cameras and car cameras and CCTV cameras.

It’s different depending on the municipality. Your initial statement is not exclusively true of every inch of land in the US. Furthermore any illegality is limited to what any small police department can actually do about it.

I'm pretty sure it's the FAA that dictates that one. It's federally illegal.

And how motivated are they? Well I'm assuming someone will complain that you shot down their drone. And most police are very interested in firearm crimes.

The FAA is also very interested in people who shoot at aircraft of any kind.