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

Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

ipvm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 382 posts

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#171

Post by Ancapistani »

Manuel_D wrote: post #165
Ancapistani wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point wasn't that Flock allows this, but that it allows an entire class of surveillance that was previously not available.

What wasn't previously available? Automated license plate readers have been around since the 70s, and started being widely deployed in the 1990s as technology got cheaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recogni... It's not new tech.

The closest thing to it was repo companies sharing data.

This is very much a new thing.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#172

Post by Manuel_D »

etchalon wrote: post #169
Manuel_D wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, ballots are anonymous. But how would Flock cameras somehow de-anonymize votes? I had assumed you were referring to tracking people driving to polling stations to discover who voted - not how they voted. Because how on earth would automated license plate readers somehow de-anonymize individual ballots? Please do explain what you meant by that. And do explain the "idiocy" of the rest of my comment. Do you actually…

To be clear, ballots are anonymous, and voter rolls are not universally accessible to all offices or functions of any given government. Different localities have different laws regarding the transparency of voting records, with varying degrees of control and confidentially down to the county level in some cases. In most cases, access to that information requires, at a minimum, a documented request though laws vary co…

> We've had exactly one real test of that argument (Schmidt v Norfolk) that has yet to be make it to SCOTUS. The district court in that case ruled Carpenter didn't apply - but it was a district court whose opinion SCOTUS overruled in Carpenter too.

We've had at least two: in US vs Yang, the defense tried to invalidate the use of ALPR data using Carpenter to try and argue that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit disagreed and did not accept that argument.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#173

Post by zhivota »

eclipticplane wrote: post #63
ACCount37 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very doable when what you're dealing with is a Major Crime That Gets Full Institutional and Individual Attention. What about a bike theft, a jacked car or a stolen parcel though? There is a price to having information easily available to the law enforcement. There is a price to not having this information easily available to the law enforcement too.

Even with Flock, police aren't solving those crimes.

Yes, many cases of people calling the police with actual tracker data showing exactly where their stolen property is, and the response being to get laughed at and told it's not a priority.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#174

Post by etchalon »

Manuel_D wrote: post #168
etchalon wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At no point did I say it could de-anonymize ballots. You claimed ballots provided the government with the information they needed to know who voted. I pointed that is untrue. Ballots explicitly do not. The fact you posted that tells you know have a Google level understanding of the law in the US, and the fact you posted an article about private citizens using public data as proof of the legality of government-operate…

The 9th circuit upheld the use of automated license plate readers in US vs. Yang. The defense attempted to use Carpenter to argue against the legality of ALPR data, and failed: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/21... I really appreciate the irony of you alleging a "Google level understanding" on my part, when your own argument was tried in a court of appeals and failed.

If you're going to Google a rebuttal to sound smart, please read the opinion before you do.

The Ninth Circuit in US v Yang specifically did not rule on the applicability of Carpenter or whether ALPR's GPS database was sufficiently similar.

It ruled Yang lacked standing to sue on those grounds because you don't have any expectation of privacy in a rental car after you've turned it in.

It ... has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

I helpfully pointed out the actual case you should cite in a different comment.

Try Googling that one.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#175

Post by btrettel »

alexpotato wrote: post #141

Scott Adams' had a great line: "Whenever people have the opportunity to commit fraud and there is no monitoring, you can assume they are committing fraud."

Are you loosely paraphrasing here? The closest thing I could find by Scott Adams was "Whenever you have a lot of money in play, combined with the ability to hide misbehavior behind complexity, you should expect widespread fraud to happen."

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/10213582-whenever-you-have-...

(I didn't check the book, though.)

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#176

Post by Manuel_D »

etchalon wrote: post #174
Manuel_D wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 9th circuit upheld the use of automated license plate readers in US vs. Yang. The defense attempted to use Carpenter to argue against the legality of ALPR data, and failed: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/21... I really appreciate the irony of you alleging a "Google level understanding" on my part, when your own argument was tried in a court of appeals and failed.

If you're going to Google a rebuttal to sound smart, please read the opinion before you do. The Ninth Circuit in US v Yang specifically did not rule on the applicability of Carpenter or whether ALPR's GPS database was sufficiently similar. It ruled Yang lacked standing to sue on those grounds because you don't have any expectation of privacy in a rental car after you've turned it in. It ... has absolutely nothing to…

But crucially, the police used the ALPR data without a warrant. Regardless of the rental car, the police did use ALPR data without a warrant and the court did allow that to be used in court.

It's still a court that came down in favor of warrantless use of ALPR data, even if the situation around the overdue rental car might limit it's application more broadly.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#177

Post by ultrarunner »

boring_twenties wrote: post #158

This shouldn't be hard to understand. Don't talk to the police, without your attorney present, under any circumstances whatsoever. Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle that I can only wonder what, if anything, those people are thinking. Anyway, the key takeaway seems to don't date anyone who dates the police. Firstly, because it directly puts your own safety at risk, as…

> Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle

There are still quite a few people who think the police are the friendly government-provided customer service agents of life, although I've watched this viewpoint decline markedly over the last twenty years at least.

Locally, a woman went on a hiking date with a Phoenix cop and wound up dead [0]. Notably, the woman was from New England, while the cop was local and absolutely should have known better how dangerous conditions would be. The police, of course, investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong.

[0] https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/hiker-recalls-seeing-woman...

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#178

Post by zhivota »

npunt wrote: post #18

> Important subject > Uses slop AI art Fastest way to make something into a farce.

It's not even that hard to make AI output images that don't look like AI slop either, just have to use some "in the style of" or "as if it was taken with a film camera" types of modifiers. This is what confuses me about AI slop, not only did you use the lowest effort method, you didn't even put a minimal amount of effort into making it work well.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#179

Post by etchalon »

Manuel_D wrote: post #172
etchalon wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, ballots are anonymous, and voter rolls are not universally accessible to all offices or functions of any given government. Different localities have different laws regarding the transparency of voting records, with varying degrees of control and confidentially down to the county level in some cases. In most cases, access to that information requires, at a minimum, a documented request though laws vary co…

> We've had exactly one real test of that argument (Schmidt v Norfolk) that has yet to be make it to SCOTUS. The district court in that case ruled Carpenter didn't apply - but it was a district court whose opinion SCOTUS overruled in Carpenter too. We've had at least two: in US vs Yang, the defense tried to invalidate the use of ALPR data using Carpenter to try and argue that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The Nin…

... you should probably read that opinion and maybe some legal analysis on what precedents it established. Specifically, that it established none.

Schmidt was explicitly about license plate reader data and whether a locality could install and utilize such a surveillance network without violating the Fourth Amendment.

Next time you get into this argument, point to Schmidt and its opinion. It has all the elements you need to make the point that a government funded mass scale video surveillance network is legal under current US law.

Then people will think you actually know what you're talking about.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#180

Post by Manuel_D »

etchalon wrote: post #179
Manuel_D wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've had exactly one real test of that argument (Schmidt v Norfolk) that has yet to be make it to SCOTUS. The district court in that case ruled Carpenter didn't apply - but it was a district court whose opinion SCOTUS overruled in Carpenter too. We've had at least two: in US vs Yang, the defense tried to invalidate the use of ALPR data using Carpenter to try and argue that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The Nin…

... you should probably read that opinion and maybe some legal analysis on what precedents it established. Specifically, that it established none. Schmidt was explicitly about license plate reader data and whether a locality could install and utilize such a surveillance network without violating the Fourth Amendment. Next time you get into this argument, point to Schmidt and its opinion. It has all the elements you n…

It established the precedence that use of automated license plate reader data does not require a warrant in at least some circumstances. The decision did mention that an overdue rental car has a lower expectation of privacy, but the court did not say that a warrant would have been required outside of that circumstance.
Post reply on HN