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

Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

dailymail.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 190 posts

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#111

Post by xoa »

hedora wrote: post #74
StavrosK wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that, ultimately and generally, the government does what a majority of people wants (or at least tolerates). Why are we tolerating this loss of freedoms? The only answer I can arrive at is "because it doesn't inconvenience people enough to do something about it". Protesting against something takes a lot of energy, and inconveniencing you only a little (or very much but extremely rarely) doesn't make most…

Your question was well-answered by the quote you are replying to. Put more succinctly: It is the full time job of law enforcement to use these tools to solve crimes. Even if literally everyone protests them next month, if you wait 10 years, people will have moved on with their lives, and it will be implemented anyway. Here is a concrete example: Back in high school, a holocaust survivor visited our class. We were tol…

>That difference no longer exists in the US in any practical way because technology has obsoleted the legal mechanism of “you can’t ask for my drivers license without probable cause”.

Are you sure this is quite as absolute and one-way as you’re saying here? ID isn’t required by government to be driven, use public transport, fly on private aircraft, use boats, etc. Sure as a practical matter in the US non-car options are not nearly as powerful as in most first world countries, but that’s not a matter of law. And while technology helped create the current state of affairs, it can disrupt it too. The motivation for drivers licenses is a real one of public safety. If self-driving cars mean most people cease manual driving though, the need for licenses will cease as well (and also most of the typical suspicions and justifications police use to pull over a car). That may result in a significant clawback of travel privacy in some respects. Practical is not always the equivalent of legal long term is it?

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#112

Post by mywittyname »

dazc wrote: post #13
Angostura wrote: post #8

From the Independent coverage: > The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. However, witnesses said several people were stopped after covering their faces or pulling up hoods. > “The guy told them to p * off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine for swearing,” Ms Carlo added. “He was really angry.” I live close to Romford, and…

“The guy told them to p* off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine for swearing,” Ms Carlo added. “He was really angry.” Accepting such a fine is voluntary, he could go to court and defend himself instead. I'd be surprised if some organisation or another didn't offer to pay his costs?

If he gets off, it will absolutely be the result of the publicity around this case. Courts will uphold these rules if imposed on normal people.

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#113

Post by 781 »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #92
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #4

How do they enforce this on people wearing hijabs or other religios clothing that covers the face?

Hijabs do not cover the face. A niqab or burqa would, but the former are very rare in the West, and the latter virtually nonexist.

Maybe in the countryside. Go to any West EU capital and you'll see planty of niqabs and burqas.

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#114

Post by sieabahlpark »

petercooper wrote: post #17
Angostura wrote: post #8

From the Independent coverage: > The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. However, witnesses said several people were stopped after covering their faces or pulling up hoods. > “The guy told them to p * off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine for swearing,” Ms Carlo added. “He was really angry.” I live close to Romford, and…

“The guy told them to p off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine for swearing,”* This is a common use of laws in the United Kingdom. They put lots of laws on the books around trivial things that they almost never enforce on their own, but then which officers arbitrarily use in "convenient" situations like this. The average person swearing in the street will not be accosted, someone arguing with a cop who…

To what, show who is really in control of the land? Sounds corrupt and a slippery slope to me.

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#115

Post by sleepychu »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #71
willyt wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically he was fined for swearing at the police, not for covering his face. If he had said nothing he would not have been fined but might have been searched as the police have the power to stop and search anyone who they have reasonable cause to suspect is acting suspiciously.

But they didn't have reasonable cause.

Actually in England they don't need reasonable grounds.

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rig...

> You can only be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds if it has been approved by a senior police officer.

This can happen if it is suspected that:

    serious violence could take place
    you’re carrying a weapon or have used one
    you’re in a specific location or area

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#116

Post by peterwwillis »

StavrosK wrote: post #36
lm28469 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not everyday I quote Ted Kaczynski, but I think he had a valid point when, in his manifesto, he theorise that no amount of regulation is capable of making us safe from technological abuse. 125 - 135 from: https://www.josharcher.uk/static/files/2018/01/Industrial_So... . > It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force an…

The issue is that, ultimately and generally, the government does what a majority of people wants (or at least tolerates). Why are we tolerating this loss of freedoms? The only answer I can arrive at is "because it doesn't inconvenience people enough to do something about it". Protesting against something takes a lot of energy, and inconveniencing you only a little (or very much but extremely rarely) doesn't make most…

> Why are we tolerating this loss of freedoms? The only answer I can arrive at is "because it doesn't inconvenience people enough to do something about it".

Throughout recorded history, people have usually been "ruled" by some form of king, warrior, aristocracy, etc. But it's not like one leader could really hurt or kill every single person in a large society, so the people as a collective shouldn't really need to follow his orders. So why do they?

The simplest answer is, there are a series of trade-offs made when following a leader (or government). You have less autonomy, but you may gain some benefits, such as security, order, direction, and the possibility that they might accomplish some of your wishes. Of course, if the leader controls an army, you could say fear is a big motivator to follow their wishes, but then why does the army follow the leader? Same thing: security, order, direction, accomplishment of wishes, etc.

We all make tradeoffs to live in a society. The loss of most freedoms isn't actually a huge impact to your ability to live your life; even in a highly repressive society, you can still eat, sleep, socialize, which is all most animals need. The idea that your society might be secretly abusing its citizens is troubling, but it's not as bad as, say, a food shortage, or waves of crime. So on the whole, mass surveillance is a minor inconvenience, and not something worth flooding to the polls (or storming the gates).

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#117

Post by wlkr »

bArray wrote: post #108

This makes me very sad for many reasons: * People are losing their freedom of privacy in the name of safety and most accept it. Many are likely unaware at this stage of the trade-off. * One activist was in presence by happen chance, otherwise this likely would have gone unreported. * The database _currently_ only keeps peoples data for 30 days. When the UK leaves the EU, this will likely be extended. China has alread…

> Telling an officer to "fuck off" or "piss off" is not a crime.

This is largely true but

> It's not an offense to be rude

is rightly or wrongly a very broad grey area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_5_Public_Order_Act_198...

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#118

Post by darkpuma »

ncr100 wrote: post #88
lm28469 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not everyday I quote Ted Kaczynski, but I think he had a valid point when, in his manifesto, he theorise that no amount of regulation is capable of making us safe from technological abuse. 125 - 135 from: https://www.josharcher.uk/static/files/2018/01/Industrial_So... . > It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force an…

For those who don't know, Ted murdered people with improvised explosive devices.

He was eventually caught after he coerced the NYTs into publishing his manifesto and his brother recognized the arguments contained within it.

Not quite stylometric analysis, but I think that's an interesting angle of the story.

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#119

Post by pbhjpbhj »

This was on BBC Click, which is on YouTube (for me, I'm in UK though). A good programme overall.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqFyBpcbH9A

They give stats and details.

It may not be the same incident as the OP, but it sounds broadly similar and the programme fleshes out the general situation well.

Edit: Actually it is the same guy. The issue and provision of the fine, etc., it's on the show.

Re: Police fine pedestrian for disorderly behaviour after he tried to cover his face

#120

Post by klyrs »

ncr100 wrote: post #88
lm28469 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not everyday I quote Ted Kaczynski, but I think he had a valid point when, in his manifesto, he theorise that no amount of regulation is capable of making us safe from technological abuse. 125 - 135 from: https://www.josharcher.uk/static/files/2018/01/Industrial_So... . > It is not possible to make a LASTING compromise between technology and freedom, because technology is by far the more powerful social force an…

For those who don't know, Ted murdered people with improvised explosive devices.

I've done some research that introduced me to some of his more... acceptable writing.

http://homepages.rpi.edu/~bulloj/tjk/tjk1.html

Post reply on HN