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

81–90 of 94 posts

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

#81

Post by electromagnetic »

shard wrote: post #71
electromagnetic wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 involv…

"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."

I actually mistyped that sentence, sorry. What I meant was: I would only photograph something I own, or that no one owns.

I don't know how I messed that sentence up, I guess my brain flat-lined for a minute.

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

#82

Post by grandalf »

chrischen wrote: post #79
grandalf wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 determ…

Is free speech a gray area to you also? What about search and seizure?

You happen to consider this one example harmless... what if they started sending out a pink police van in states where "sodomy" is illegal when someone called in a complaint?

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

#83

Post by grandalf »

chrischen wrote: post #80
grandalf wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acknowledge…

To me the point of police is to fight crime. This requires that they are smart and do professional police work.

If we let cops become bullies whose own discretion is OK when it comes to harassment, etc., we are throwing away quite a few rights.

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

#84

Post by grandalf »

chrischen wrote: post #78
grandalf wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure what your point is. There will always be people who want police to come in and mistreat their neighbors... and sometimes that desire may be justifiable, but that doesn't mean that the mistreatment is appropriate.

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

#85

Post by shard »

electromagnetic wrote: post #81
shard wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 involv…

" 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." I actually mistyped that sentence, sorry. What I meant was: I would only photograph something I own, or that no one owns. I don't know how I messed that sentence up, I guess my brain flat-lined for a minute.

That doesn't make it much better. You still can't take photos in public where there are strangers, cars, or non-governmental buildings present. So pretty much it's photos inside your house, landscapes, and clouds.

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

#86

Post by chrischen »

grandalf wrote: post #82
chrischen wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 determ…

Is free speech a gray area to you also? What about search and seizure? You happen to consider this one example harmless... what if they started sending out a pink police van in states where "sodomy" is illegal when someone called in a complaint?

It in fact is a gray area. We all sacrifice our right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater don't we? See, nothing is black and white. So if they did start sending out "a pink police van in states where 'sodomy' is illegal when someone called in a complaint" then that is a whole other issue. But that's not the issue of contention here.

There is a gray area and cases like the ones in the article are not the same as the case you describe above.

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

#87

Post by chrischen »

grandalf wrote: post #83
chrischen wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 acknowledge…

To me the point of police is to fight crime. This requires that they are smart and do professional police work. If we let cops become bullies whose own discretion is OK when it comes to harassment, etc., we are throwing away quite a few rights.

Yes and we, as the people, should keep an eye out and keep a check on the government, authority. We should examine these situations and determine what crosses the line and what doesn't. But under no circumstances should anything be absolute yes or no. What you are suggesting is that those police were not smart enough? How do you know? What I'm saying is you can't really be certain that what they were doing was wrong unless you understand their position completely. You're making your decision, which is predicated on the fact that things are absolute right or wrong, based on limited information from an article.

I'm assuming all you did was read the article. Well if the world was really black and white, you could easily determine the righteousness of their actions, but the world isn't black and white. You can't assume their actions were unjustified simply because it leans a little towards that side. Just as sacrificing our right to yell fire in a crowded theater, while it means a restriction on our liberty, doesn't mean it's absolutely wrong. And like I said, i agree some of their use cases actually do seem like harassment.

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

#88

Post by grandalf »

chrischen wrote: post #86
grandalf wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is free speech a gray area to you also? What about search and seizure? You happen to consider this one example harmless... what if they started sending out a pink police van in states where "sodomy" is illegal when someone called in a complaint?

It in fact is a gray area. We all sacrifice our right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater don't we? See, nothing is black and white. So if they did start sending out "a pink police van in states where 'sodomy' is illegal when someone called in a complaint" then that is a whole other issue. But that's not the issue of contention here. There is a gray area and cases like the ones in the article are not the same as…

I don't think so. If you voluntarily choose not to yell out a false fire alarm in a crowded theater, you are not sacrificing your free speech rights any more than when you choose not to yell "boo" in the same theater. You wish to avoid the negative social consequences of the action. You still have a right to do it, though doing either one may get you kicked out of the theater.

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

#89

Post by chrischen »

grandalf wrote: post #88
chrischen wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It in fact is a gray area. We all sacrifice our right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater don't we? See, nothing is black and white. So if they did start sending out "a pink police van in states where 'sodomy' is illegal when someone called in a complaint" then that is a whole other issue. But that's not the issue of contention here. There is a gray area and cases like the ones in the article are not the same as…

I don't think so. If you voluntarily choose not to yell out a false fire alarm in a crowded theater, you are not sacrificing your free speech rights any more than when you choose not to yell "boo" in the same theater. You wish to avoid the negative social consequences of the action. You still have a right to do it, though doing either one may get you kicked out of the theater.

No you sacrifice your right to yell fire. Yea you probably have no reason to, but if you did choose to yell fire, you couldn't (legally at least). As a tradeoff you expect no one else to yell fire (unless there was actually a fire). Same thing for our right to kill people. We sacrifice that too. There's also a lot of rights we sacrifice. The right to run a red light, the right to molest little children, etc. That's what laws are. They define the gray area. They define the boundary as to what's acceptable and what's not. Anarchy is absolute freedom. Wiretapping: legal or not? Well we have courts to rule that and determine if it's too much of a violation of our rights and freedoms.

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

#90

Post by chrischen »

grandalf wrote: post #84
chrischen wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the women who was crying.

Not sure what your point is. There will always be people who want police to come in and mistreat their neighbors... and sometimes that desire may be justifiable, but that doesn't mean that the mistreatment is appropriate.

There will also be times where people want police to come in to police their neighbors (if they're doing something wrong).
Post reply on HN