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

Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 94 posts

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

#71

Post by shard »

electromagnetic wrote: post #42
sokoloff wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

In the US at least, photography on public property does not require the permission of the subject, otherwise photography in crowded tourist spots would be well nigh impossible. There are of course exceptions, such as when the subject expects privacy (even in public, upskirts are no good), when you are making a profit from your photographs (which will then require model releases), or when "national security" is involved. (ref http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm )

In the UK it is approximately the same, with the addition that the subject may not be harassed (defined as behavior that causes alarm or distress over multiple incidents) (ref http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v... )

I've found the relevant laws regarding photography in Canada (http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php), and it seems to follow the US and UK in general. Therefore I think there are unspecified extenuating circumstances in the case of the photographer that got fined $1000.

Ever since 9/11 there has been increasing scaremongering regarding people using "professional" looking cameras, which is an erosion of rights with no real benefits.

I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns This would restrict you to photography only within your house, with all the shades drawn. Maybe even with the TV off.

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

#72

Post by grandalf »

chrischen wrote: post #51
grandalf wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why would I want far more surveillance? I want what's enough to get those damn drug dealers out of my yard! Is that too much to ask without slipping off your slope!?! First of all that truck was not meant as surveillance. You'll have read in the article that they used the cameras mainly as a deterrent. These cops are just trying to help. Why make it seem like they're trying to start the next totalitarian regime? So I…

Yes, it's harassment. Have you ever been harassed by police? I have, and it is not fun.

I'm a typical HN reader who does not engage in any criminal behavior... yet on a few occasions I've been the victim of cops who are on a power trip. These experiences taught me that the less power police have the better.

If the cops can't do real police work and solve a crime and arrest someone, they have no business messing with anyone...

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

#73

Post by pbhj »

dkarl wrote: post #56
nonrecursive wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say that it's designed for when police don't want to do their job. There are many communities where there aren't enough police to do a good job. Using techniques like this seems like it would allow them to use actual humans where they're more needed. The cases cited in the article were of neighbors asking the police to somehow combat the unruly elements in their communities. It seems like you're under the…

As far as I'm concerned, nobody is a drug dealer until the police have caught them dealing drugs. Gossip is not a good way to determine who the good guys and bad guys are. In the cases described, what's freaking people out is their neighbors being noisy and dirty and keeping odd hours. These are class and cultural differences which, I will admit, are really annoying and (I assume) strongly associated with criminal ac…

"As far as I'm concerned, nobody is a drug dealer until the police have caught them dealing drugs."

Which is clearly false.

"Then use existing laws or HOA rules about trash and noise."

How do you make a noise survey without surveilling people. How do you know which house to surveille without listening to the neighbours?

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

#74

Post by pbhj »

jpwagner wrote: post #8
erso wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The surveillance footage is rarely reviewed by the police and is saved for just a short time before it is erased.

A trusting lot you are.

Because the police are going to find hours of footage of the front of a house exciting? Hey look in this one he comes out with the trash. Wow, here he's cleaning the front yard - bet we can sell this to Hollywood.

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

#75

Post by pbhj »

movix wrote: post #11

More than 900 people have been followed and filmed by Greater Manchester Police as part of a pilot project to prevent crime. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8164697.stm They can arrest you before you've even THOUGHT of committing a crime. Not as a 'civil libitarian' but as an ordinary human I find this disturbing. I don't know how you solve the problem of these mostly 'low level' criminal activities, bu…

"They can arrest you before you've even THOUGHT of committing a crime."

You arrest (halt people from continuing in their normal activity) in order to determine if a crime has been committed or to determine if the person halted is prima facie guilty and accessory or privy to information about a known crime.

It's almost a truism that the police should arrest those who are not able to be proven guilty or are not guilty of any crime.

When I've been stopped, yes it makes me nervous, but it also affirms to me that the police are actually taking part in tracing criminals and attempting to reduce crime.

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

#76

Post by Semiapies »

chrischen wrote: post #68
Semiapies wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice dodging of the question! I'll ask again: if it's not some sort of "treatment", then why are the cops bragging about the effect it has? "You think people like you smashed that cop car up?" Do you think everyone whose home this has been parked in front of smashed that car up? Do you think they were all guilty of the "crimes" that they haven't even been charged with? After all, they weren't "people like you". Of co…

> Do you think everyone whose home this has been parked in front of smashed that car up? How many people's home was this parked in front of? Do you think cops went around parking cars in front of people's homes to intimidate random people? > Do you think they were all guilty of the "crimes" that they haven't even been charged with? Did I say that? Did I even imply that? You think I am one of those "sacrifice liberty…

RTFA.

That is the last typing I'll waste on you.

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

#77

Post by kragen »

Semiapies wrote: post #67
kragen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a big difference between killing people indiscriminately and putting a camera in front of their house.

edited Retracted - I'm just too disgusted reading this thread, today.

I'm sorry to hear it. There's some pretty ugly stuff coming out, for sure.

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

#78

Post by chrischen »

grandalf wrote: post #72
chrischen wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I want far more surveillance? I want what's enough to get those damn drug dealers out of my yard! Is that too much to ask without slipping off your slope!?! First of all that truck was not meant as surveillance. You'll have read in the article that they used the cameras mainly as a deterrent. These cops are just trying to help. Why make it seem like they're trying to start the next totalitarian regime? So I…

Yes, it's harassment. Have you ever been harassed by police? I have, and it is not fun. I'm a typical HN reader who does not engage in any criminal behavior... yet on a few occasions I've been the victim of cops who are on a power trip. These experiences taught me that the less power police have the better. If the cops can't do real police work and solve a crime and arrest someone, they have no business messing with…

Tell that to the women who was crying.

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

#79

Post by chrischen »

grandalf wrote: post #70
chrischen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_slop…

My point is that harassment is harassment so why are you not willing to make a bold statement advocating it across the board if you think it's harmless?

Look we all have to sacrifice some liberty for security. For example, we sacrifice our right to kill others so that we cannot be killed ourselves right? It's not pure liberty, or pure security.

When a police officer points a gun at someone that is harassment right? So we have to allow the police some degree of ability to harass people and to do it with a reasonable amount of suspicion right? And there's a line determining what acceptable harassment is. Well I believe that line wasn't crossed because that lady called the police in and they acted.

And I won't advocate it across the board, because there is a point where it crosses the line and while the last example of the cop with the van in the article would probably cross the line, I think the other reasons for its use didn't.

My point is that nothing is all-or-nothing. There is a gray area and you can't make a snap decision that they were wrong simply by reading that article. You'd really have to understand their situation. But given the details in the article most of the reasoning behind its use was okay.

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

#80

Post by chrischen »

grandalf wrote: post #70
chrischen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_slop…

My point is that harassment is harassment so why are you not willing to make a bold statement advocating it across the board if you think it's harmless?

Actually, after rereading the article, many of the use cases do seem like harassment. And the fact that anyone can request it does make it more like a tool for harassing.

But not all harassment is wrong. I'm just saying many of them do seem to cross the line now that I reread that, some of them may have been warranted though. I also think in those cases the cops all had good intentions. Though I've always acknowledged the potential for it to be misused (you'll see an earlier comment about that somewhere above).

Post reply on HN