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

Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 214 posts

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#171

Post by xnx »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #11

This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak. This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down. Lives will be completely derailed, police and judges will not be held accountable. The wrongful arrestees will stil…

> This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak.

This sounds like a problem with an unaccountable police force. London has had a CCTV system for 60 years.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#172

Post by xnx »

segmondy wrote: post #31
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #11

This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak. This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down. Lives will be completely derailed, police and judges will not be held accountable. The wrongful arrestees will stil…

Someone that is innocent is going to get killed soon because flock flagged them incorrectly. I recall reading the auto journalist that got flagged for a stolen car while test driving a car. We have seen how often pull over/arrests can derail when a stupid cop that is aggressive pulls out their weapon first, fires fast and then investigates last. An innocent person that reacts wrongly is eventually going to make the n…

Flock doesn't kill people. Cops do.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#173

Post by TZubiri »

site-packages1 wrote: post #39
TZubiri wrote: post #25

I don't quite get the thesis of the author here. Regardless of the view that one may have on Cannabis laws, they are illegal, if the system is correctly detaining people that break those laws, and you have a problem with that, is the problem with the enforcement system or the law? If you don't like some aspect of this, should you be campaigning for removal of flock cameras? Or campaigning for cannabis rights and Cont…

The issue isn't prosecution for illegality, among other things it's the anti-Fourth-Amendment methods for constructing the case. So, I'm going to campaign for government entities to follow the Constitution (as amended).

Which of the events would be in violation of the 4th amendment here?

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#174

Post by logicchains »

giantg2 wrote: post #22
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #11

This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak. This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down. Lives will be completely derailed, police and judges will not be held accountable. The wrongful arrestees will stil…

"Even if they're wrong, you can't shoot back." Depends on the situation. You'd absolutely be arrested. Get in front of a jury of 12 people and you might have a chance if you have enough evidence for a self-defense claim and the cop acting outside of the law.

You absolutely do have a chance to get acquitted: https://www.police1.com/legal/articles/man-cleared-in-deputy...

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#175

Post by skinfaxi »

SoftTalker wrote: post #169
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police regularly ignore evidence that disproves their claims. They will not prove your innocence for you. It will still be up to you to pay the lawyer 1000s of dollars to do the discovery against flock cameras to attempt to prove your innocence.

You don't have to prove your innocence; innocence is assumed. The prosecution has to prove you guilty, and inform the defense of all the evidence that they have. If they have evidence that exonerates you, they would be stupid to even bring a case to trial as it would be a waste of everyone's time.

We live in a world where, routinely, police plant evidence and prosecutors fail to bring forth exonerating evidence. They don't have to be stupid when they are being deceptive.

Search "Brady violation" on youtube for some examples.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#176

Post by joquarky »

bko wrote: post #63
contagiousflow wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> terrorize large cities Oh I wonder what kind of terror he's talking about > Illegal blocking of sidewalk selling fake handbags Jesus Christ. If this is what brings you to a surveillance state with open arms maybe you should talk to people outside of your bubble.

It doesn't have to be like this. Why do you accept it? Serious question. You don't need a surveillance state. How many indignities do you stomach for what exactly? Some false sense of freedom? Freedom to buy illegal unlicensed untaxed weed? Freedom to get run over by a delivery ebike?

You seem to think everyone should conform to one homogenous way of life. This was tried in Europe a little under a century ago and it did not turn out well.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#177

Post by bluegatty »

antonvs wrote: post #103
bluegatty wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You started out right but this: "This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down." No. The 'domestic violence and prohibited substances' is the part that will ruin lives directly. Domestic violence, bad. The drugs, debatable, but that's a matter of getting 'weed' made legal, not a surveillance issue. It's not 'destroyed lives from crime…

> It's not the 'incident' that is the problem, because Flock is not helping cops be 'dirty cops' or anything. That's exactly what Flock is doing. It's just the latest variation on "power corrupts".

Then your argument is we should have no police 'because power corrupts'

I don't think this is reasonable or principled.

The evidence here is that Flock can be used maliciously, I don't think anyone doubts that, the question is it a tool that is inherently bad in it's normal functioning, and I don't think so.

Like ... 'pepper spray' can be used maliciously by cops, since it's 'less apparently extreme' they can get away with more shenanigans. But it's not 'inherently' bad tool, and perpetual use won't change policing.

If you see a story where cops use pepper spray maliciously, and it harms someone ... that's evidence of an incident, not of a bad tool.

The 'evil' of flock is the surveillance state, not in bad apple cops.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#178

Post by GuB-42 »

pixl97 wrote: post #151
GuB-42 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am playing devil's advocate here, but mass surveillance can also save you. Let's say your just broke up with your girlfriend, shortly after, her house get burgled and a bunch of jewelry is stolen, including some you gave her when you were together. A surveillance camera catches the burglar, a drug addict with a criminal record, he gets caught, tried and sentenced to 2 years in prison. The kind of case that won't ge…

Assuming cops actually present the evidence they have and don't hide it from the defense. The police and DA don't care if they put a guilty or not guilty person in jail, the 'tough on crime' faction that tends to get people elected cares about the number of people thrown in jail. The more the better. Throw 10,000 people in jail, you must be a damned good elected official and you get re-elected. >you can't have more a…

What I was trying to say is that if no one is available to make an arrest, you can't make an arrest.

Why do you think people get away with minor traffic offenses all the time, something right in front of an officer? There simply isn't enough means to deal with these, so they just ignore most of them.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#180

Post by joquarky »

bko wrote: post #140
jst1fthsdys wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go move to Tokyo then. I'm sure their safe and open society will welcome you. >There was a lot less of this petty criminality 10 years ago. No there wasn't. Or are you saying that because material reality is now encroaching on your bubble?

That's cute, the whole "if you don't like it leave" argument. But I am not Japanese. I have no ties in Tokyo and they have a sensible immigration policy that doesn't allow just anyone to come. I'm American and want to make America a safer and better place for the 95% of people that want to live in an orderly society. Of course there was less crime in NYC 10 years ago. Don't gas light me. Bootleg handbag sales were Ch…

> to live in an orderly society.

See Demolition Man (1993) for an example of this.

Post reply on HN