251–260 of 323 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment may sound cliché, but I genuinely believe this, no material possession is worth more than a human life. A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot.
If I kill you over a $2K catalytic converter, my sanity is gone. I could never sleep at night without thinking about what I have done.' A life is worth a lot more than $2k for my sanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Right to privacy" isn't a specific right in the US. Furthermore, being in the middle of a public roadway in a registered vehicle shouldn't confer the expectation of privacy, per Katz. Probably the closest case law is Carpenter, which only covers cell data and was specifically meant to apply narrowly to that type of info.
> being in the middle of a public roadway in a registered vehicle shouldn't confer the expectation of privacy And this is where US caselaw and my personal beliefs about privacy start to differ. Why can't we expect some level of privacy in a public place? There are some countries that confer that, to certain levels.
Because it’s a public place. We already have laws covering things like harassment, voyeurism, etc; so existing legal conduct in a public place should remain legal.
Texas > In 2023, the Texas Legislature unanimously passed a law raising auto insurance costs for Texans by $1 to combat rampant catalytic converter theft. > The Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority, led by a board mostly appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott, has turned the $1 fee hike into at least 3,200 Flock cameras. More coming. Meanwhile, secure your EV!!! Batteries will be next!!!
What an insane trade off. Seems like a few bait cars and a couple of trackers would be plenty to figure out where the converters are getting fenced. Obviously there is a small number of buyers driving the entire catalytic theft economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Texas has among the highest crime rates in the country, 17th for violent crime, even worse for property crime. Given the wealth of Texas, having such high crime rates is even more embarrassing (crime and poverty go hand in hand, but Texas doesn't have that excuse). In short, you're talking out of your ass.
Try researching rural vs urban, most of this crime happens in urban areas, Houston, Dallas etc. Texas rural rates of crime are significantly less than Texas urban and the US overall.
If guns and capital punishment reduces crime, it doesn't matter whether the crime happens in rural or urban areas. If it works, Texas, the whole damned state, should have remarkably low crime, but that's not the case at all.
You're having a different conversation than the one I'm having.
For a country that staged a revolution over a tea tax modern Americans sure seem to love having their rights trampled.
Because many people agree with having cameras to help reduce/monitor crimes. From their views, the right isn't trampled. It's a win
It feels like some juvenile "I can't kill you but I can pay this guy $200k to make you go away"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carpenter only covers cell data and was specifically meant to apply narrowly to that type of info.
Glad you mentioned Carpenter. I've been spending a Lot of time getting to know it and related cases lately (Chatrie) Roberts did use the word 'narrow' in the Carpenter opinion. That part is accurate. But read what narrow actually meant: the Court said it wasn't overturning all of third-party doctrine at once, and wasn't addressing every possible surveillance technology. It was not saying 'this principle only applies…
There’s the potential for searching the database to require a warrant, but the cameras themselves, and being recorded on a public street (which everyone’s crying about) has no reasonable pathway to being unconstitutional.
For a country that staged a revolution over a tea tax modern Americans sure seem to love having their rights trampled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
people freqently conflate Stand Your Ground vs Duty to Retreat... with the entire rest of the debate. I'm trying to keep this neutral, so I'm using a rather cut and dry example: Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. investigation finds a sabatoged eng…
> Somebody kicks in your door with a pump action and starts shooting- There are _some_ jurisdictions that require you to try and flee. You kill them and they werent bodily blocking your car in? Murder charge. Which jurisdictions? Is this in the US? I’ve lived in a bunch of European countries and in none would you be charged with murder in that situation.
For a country that staged a revolution over a tea tax modern Americans sure seem to love having their rights trampled.
Over a tea tax without representation . Very common to forget that part!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good thing the courts are already upholding the constitutionality of Flock in US v Jackson and Schmidt v. City of Norfolk. If it reaches the SC, I think it'd be easy to see a limit similar to Carpenter on scope and duration of the searches of the database without a warrant, but recognize fundamentally that collecting the data itself is not violating anyone's rights. As just mentioned, being watched in a public space…
Got it, you're one of those Americans.
Since you’re apparently new here, please familiarize yourself with the HN Guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
“Edit out swipes.”