Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#131

Post by weisser » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:36 AM UTC

emily37 wrote: post #28

subsystem wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were actually about to abort the "bruteforce" operation before they got a call that someone had found the suspect in their boat, outside the perimeter. I really hope they evalute the operation properly. A good outcome doesn't necessarily validate the process.

I thought it was really odd that they told people they could go about their business after completing the Watertown search without finding him. It seemed to me at that point the probability of us being injured had just gone up. However, lifting the stay-indoors request turned out to be crucial, because a man spotted the blood on the boat only after going outside for the first time all day. On the other hand, if they…

> However, lifting the stay-indoors request turned out to be crucial, because a man spotted the blood on the boat only after going outside for the first time all day.

And I think that was why they might have decided to allow it. Most people would NOT have felt comfortable going outside until he was caught and by letting people go out they had more eyes and a better chance of spotting him. It worked, and quickly.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#132

Post by mindcrime » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:36 AM UTC

scottkduncan wrote: post #106

InclinedPlane wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People talk about the "90%" or whatever support that universal background checks had among the voting public. However, ignoring the problems of legislating based on shallow polls, nobody seems to be talking about the 90+% of sherrifs and police officers who believed that neither universal background checks nor a so-called "assault weapons ban" would have any beneficial effect on gun crime.

"As we have discussed, the most logical starting point to address gun violence is the expansion of the background check system. Incomplete or absent background checks create a gaping hole in the wall between firearms and criminals. Loopholes in the background check system give criminals unprecedented opportunity to access firearms. This problem must be remedied quickly." - National Fraternal Order of Police President…

For another take on gun-control issues from the LEO perspective:

PoliceOne’s Gun Policy & Law Enforcement survey was conducted between March 4 and March 13, 2013, receiving 15,595 responses from verified police professionals across all ranks and department sizes.

http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013...

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#133

Post by cdash » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:36 AM UTC

cjbprime wrote: post #93

lurker14 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the maximum reasonable spend to catch a bomber, for an efficient force? $1M? $100k? A large part of the expense was due to the successful effort to apprehend him without killing him or bystanders. Tweets aren't precisely geolocated, so that's not really relevant.

> What's the maximum reasonable spend to catch a bomber, for an efficient force? $1M? $100k? The US has a "value of a statistical life"[1] of around $7M, and they had already killed 4 people and injured over a hundred more, so $50M seems like it would be very easily justified. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

I would have to include the economical cost of shutting down a city for an entire day in the cost of the operation as well, I am not sure what that would be though.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#134

Post by Thrymr » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:37 AM UTC

emily37 wrote: post #28

subsystem wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were actually about to abort the "bruteforce" operation before they got a call that someone had found the suspect in their boat, outside the perimeter. I really hope they evalute the operation properly. A good outcome doesn't necessarily validate the process.

I thought it was really odd that they told people they could go about their business after completing the Watertown search without finding him. It seemed to me at that point the probability of us being injured had just gone up. However, lifting the stay-indoors request turned out to be crucial, because a man spotted the blood on the boat only after going outside for the first time all day. On the other hand, if they…

The suspect hiding in the boat was found directly because the police finally told people to go about their business.

Alternatively, if they had lifted the shelter-in-place order earlier, the guy would have gone out in his yard and noticed something going on in his boat sooner.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#135

Post by ra » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:37 AM UTC

mbell wrote: post #27

He seems to make the mistake of comparing damage done to response instead of potential damage done to response. The two suspects, after settings off anti-personnel bombs in a civilian area, executed a police officer, then got into a firefight with automatic weapons, grenades, and more anti-personnel bombs. They demonstrated the means and the lack of conscience to do a LOT of damage in an urban area. A lot more than t…

Absolutely agree. He'd been seen with another IED, home made hand grenades and automatic weapons in a metropolitan area.

What the fuck else could the police do?

This isn't 'fear of shadows', as Stallman puts it.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#136

Post by sk5t » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:37 AM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #65

tkahn6 wrote: post #35

> 4 people killed in a week is not a lot compared with the background level of deaths in the US It's not every day that people have their legs blown off while enjoying a public social event. There's an expectation of danger while driving a car. There is no expectation of danger while spectating at the Boston Marathon. It's not complicated.

> There is no expectation of danger while spectating at the Boston Marathon. There also is no expectation of getting struck by lightning while spectating at the Boston Marathon, yet that is much more likely to happen than getting hit by a terrorist's bomb.

It doesn't matter. People can go indoors if thunderclouds form. Terrorist attacks freak people out because such attacks make people feel powerless to control the risk.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#137

Post by D9u » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:38 AM UTC

declan wrote: post #88

rdouble wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppressors are legal in all but 11 states if you fill out the paperwork.

Please don't interject facts into this discussion! This is Hacker News, where we should just say what we THINK might be correct, or should be correct, without having any actual knowledge of the subject. That's what real hackers do, right? BTW it's worth pointing out that some countries like Finland do not regulate silencers/sound suppressors on the grounds that they reduce noise pollution and benefit public health by…

...without having any actual knowledge of the subject. That's what real hackers do, right?

Not at all. Real "hackers" are intimately knowledgeable regarding the systems with which they work.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#138

Post by m_myers » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:38 AM UTC

rdouble wrote: post #82

InclinedPlane wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The death of a police officer is no more tragic, necessarily, than the death of anyone else. However, an attacker who is brazen enough and well-prepared enough to attack and kill a police officer is more of a threat to the public. Ordinary citizens are generally not as well armed, armored, or trained as police officers, nor are they in near constant contact with police dispatch. Someone capable of and willing to kill…

Ordinary citizens are generally not as well armed Not sure how accurate that statement is in America.

Disclaimer: the following text is written for non-American readers. If you are in fact an American and your statement was simply hyperbole, feel free to ignore.

America isn't the wild west. We value our right to keep and bear arms, but not that many people actually carry weapons with them. Most gun owners keep their guns at home.

The best numbers I could find [1] indicate 8 million active concealed carry permits; so at most ~4% of the adult population has a permit to carry a gun outside the home. And most of those (anecdotally) don't do it often.

[1]: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/7/new-federa...

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#139

Post by ra » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:39 AM UTC

marknutter wrote: post #65

tkahn6 wrote: post #35

> 4 people killed in a week is not a lot compared with the background level of deaths in the US It's not every day that people have their legs blown off while enjoying a public social event. There's an expectation of danger while driving a car. There is no expectation of danger while spectating at the Boston Marathon. It's not complicated.

> There is no expectation of danger while spectating at the Boston Marathon. There also is no expectation of getting struck by lightning while spectating at the Boston Marathon, yet that is much more likely to happen than getting hit by a terrorist's bomb.

> There also is no expectation of getting struck by lightning while spectating at the Boston Marathon, yet that is much more likely to happen than getting hit by a terrorist's bomb.

Not sure where you're getting your data from.

Re: Richard Stallman response to Boston Police efforts

#140

Post by pekk » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:39 AM UTC

tiredofcareer wrote: post #130

I've noticed this tack a lot recently (three arguments like this in 24 hours), and I'm concerned by it. There seems to be an inability on the part of some people, apparently Richard Stallman included, to realize that active intent to harm human beings is not in the same ballpark as passive intent to harm human beings. They're not even playing the same sport. A fertilizer plant has a chance of harming someone in an ac…

If you know that people will die, but are simply indifferent to it, the difference between that and actively wishing to murder is at least arguably academic. You are killing people with your choices in either case.