Live data from Hacker News

Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

online.wsj.com

41–50 of 94 posts

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#41
post #3

So they shame people before they've proven they've committed a crime? They are putting the neighborhood under surveillance? I appreciate the ingenuity, but this is big brother-ish.

Technically speaking, the residence is being accused of an infraction, not a crime. It's akin to a parking ticket. As I've noted in my earlier comment, the "jig" is up with this procedure the minute the infraction is fought in court and a single precedent is established in case law.

The residence is being accused? Residences can commit crimes/infractions?

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know parking there is legal, but I suspect if the vehicle had cameras trained on the house it would be considered harassment.

While I don't necessarily condone it, I don't see how parking in a public place taking camera pictures of things in plain public view would actually be harassment. Google street view mapping of public roads and views accessible from same is perfectly legal, right? (and perfectly reasonable, right?) Why would this not be legal?

Taking pictures wouldn't be illegal from a public place, similar to google's street view. Taking multiple pictures over a prolonged time could likely fall under harassment laws, depending on your state or country.

Videoing someone else's property, if done on purpose, is illegal, unless you have a valid reason for doing so. If your neighbour has 'violated the peace', IE noise disturbance (that you called the cops for) or something else but has been warned but not charged, then you can video tape someone else's property. If they're on the sexual offenders list or have a suspended sentence, or have been convicted of any crime that hasn't expired from their record. For example, your neighbour could have shoplifted, which IIRC stays on their record for 5-10 years after their punishment is served, you can legally record them (if you suspect them of other illegal activity, not because you're a pervert) until this time is spent. If you're recording them after this has expired, you're likely breaking the law and you're 100% open to a civil suit. However, if you have a neighbour you feel is dodgy, simply place a CCTV on your property to monitor a part of your property so it accidentally catches the other persons property (this has been proven legal in the UK, USA, CA, NZ and Australia, AFAIK). If you think your neighbour is doing something illegal in their back yard, but can't prove it, well you can legally video tape your back yard with a wide angle lens.

Audio recording someone else's conversation is definitely illegal; conversations are considered private, unless you're included in them. Public property is a different matter, but anywhere on private property is a crime, even if it is your private property, if the conversation doesn't include you it's still a crime.

Basically, if what you're photographing, and to some extent video taping and even less audio taping, what you could see or hear from the road if you stood there for 8 hours then that's legal. If you're purposely pointing the camera through windows, or any audio recording of their property, then you're getting yourself in a dangerous position. If your neighbour shouts and screams and can be heard on your property, that's legal to record.

Laws vary between countries, but generally if there's laws to protect you from the police doing said action, you definitely shouldn't be doing it. Also be careful, it can be illegal to photograph someone without their express permission, even on public property. I know a photographer got fined $1,000 here in Canada for photographing a girl in a bikini without asking. She told him to delete the photograph, he didn't. He was fined $1,000 by the police, and I believe she dropped civil action against him due to the police record, I think he was liable up to $25,000 in the small claims court she was taking him through.

So, personally, I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns. There's no sense putting yourself at risk for cash.

In this case, if the cops are just sat there in a surveillance van, not surveillancing anyone then it's legal. If they put it on a street with a known high crime rate, it's okay. If they put it on your street because of you, that's harassment.

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#43
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Is the average person allowed to own a vehicle with cameras and park it outside the home of someone they don't like?" Yes.

You may wish to visit this website: http://maps.google.com . Pick a location, then hit "street view".

funny,... but it just snaps a single picture, and in no way monitors what is going on at street level.

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea but the people were being harassed by the illegal activity first. Also the truck was an eyesore for criminals . normal people would actually like it if cops were nearby preventin' crime.

Normal people always imagine that there is no way they would ever be considered criminal enough to themselves warrant such treatment... It sounds like this is your view.

If the police considered me criminal (by mistake, vindictive, whatever) enough to park the naughty van in front of my house for a little while, and then drove it off, I think I'd recover.

The van is not a permanent fixture. It's not a scarlet letter burned into your front yard. It goes away.

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#45
post #14

My college roommate's dad worked with microfinance companies in India. Every month, a representative from the company would go from town to town collecting monthly payments from the borrowers. Sometimes the borrower would claim that they could not pay. In that case, the collector was instructed to just sit down and wait for them to pay. The shame of having the collector sitting in their village was overwhelming, and…

That doesn't just work with debters, I've done it to electronics retailers who've jerked me around. I was told my phone had water damage when it was in fact over heating, and then they somehow managed to lose it when I asked for it to be returned. I sat in the phone store for about 3 hours watching the guy, and the store front was about 20sqft with a bench. I got a brand new replacement phone out of that one.

I've also sat on the line with my cell phone operator for near an hour because they wiped my credit early. I got a full refund and they extended my top-up time by two weeks.

People willingly stress themselves out, staying relaxed and using this to your advantage can help you anywhere.

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal people always imagine that there is no way they would ever be considered criminal enough to themselves warrant such treatment... It sounds like this is your view.

What treatment? It's a scarecrow, not a killer scarecrow. Yes it's my view in that I am not a drug dealer, it is preferable for me to have this in front of my house (granted there is a drug dealing/violent illegal activity in my neighborhood) to warrant it.

If you trust law enforcement officials to do this, then why not require far more detailed surveillance as a matter of course, in the name of preventing criminality?

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal people always imagine that there is no way they would ever be considered criminal enough to themselves warrant such treatment... It sounds like this is your view.

If the police considered me criminal (by mistake, vindictive, whatever) enough to park the naughty van in front of my house for a little while, and then drove it off, I think I'd recover. The van is not a permanent fixture. It's not a scarlet letter burned into your front yard. It goes away.

you seem to think that pre-emptive "scarlet letters" are a good method of discouraging criminality..

Why not simply erect use data mining techniques to pinpoint households likely to commit criminal behavior (based on age, sex, employment status, national origin, etc.) and send out the vans before the crimes can be committed!

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#48
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that this is designed specifically for when police don't want to do their job. They believe the people are "bad" and engaged in undesirable activity, but they can't be bothered to investigate and gather evidence of criminal activity. Instead, they want to make their lives miserable, on the principle that the threat of surveillance bothers the guilty, but not the innocent. And any sweet old lady can tag…

We need close-knit communities where good old boys are eager to enforce the nervous prejudices of the community using violence and intimidation anyway. We just need lots of such communities, with very varied nervous prejudices, including the occasional such community with a nervous prejudice against the situation I'm describing (an escape hatch within the system)

If you think there's some degree of social homogeneity that will keep people from conceiving suspicions, hatreds, and jealousies, dream on.

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal people always imagine that there is no way they would ever be considered criminal enough to themselves warrant such treatment... It sounds like this is your view.

What treatment? It's a scarecrow, not a killer scarecrow. Yes it's my view in that I am not a drug dealer, it is preferable for me to have this in front of my house (granted there is a drug dealing/violent illegal activity in my neighborhood) to warrant it.

[deleted]

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the police considered me criminal (by mistake, vindictive, whatever) enough to park the naughty van in front of my house for a little while, and then drove it off, I think I'd recover. The van is not a permanent fixture. It's not a scarlet letter burned into your front yard. It goes away.

you seem to think that pre-emptive "scarlet letters" are a good method of discouraging criminality.. Why not simply erect use data mining techniques to pinpoint households likely to commit criminal behavior (based on age, sex, employment status, national origin, etc.) and send out the vans before the crimes can be committed!

Because "data mining techniques to pinpoint households likely to commit criminal behavior ..." and a van with scary cameras meant to help an innocent person live in peace are different things.

You should really stop seeing things as black and white. It's not one or the other. We're not all with the terrorists or with Bush. You're falling prey to a common logical fallacy: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope. You base all your arguments on hypothetical what ifs.

Post reply on HN