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

121–130 of 190 posts

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

#121

Post by timthorn »

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. It's not an offense to be rude and you certainly shouldn't have to "Wind your neck in" in fear of a public servant.

Yes it is: From the Public Order Act 1986 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64)

A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

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

#122

Post by cies »

timthorn wrote: post #121
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. It's not an offense to be rude and you certainly shouldn't have to "Wind your neck in" in fear of a public servant. Yes it is: From the Public Order Act 1986 ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64 ) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words…

Always start your sentence with "In my opinion you should..."

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

#123

Post by pbhjpbhj »

wlkr wrote: post #117
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...

Also, if you're aggressive IIRC then it can be considered to be threatening.

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

#124

Post by wlkr »

timthorn wrote: post #121
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. It's not an offense to be rude and you certainly shouldn't have to "Wind your neck in" in fear of a public servant. Yes it is: From the Public Order Act 1986 ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64 ) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words…

There are exceptions for police officers though, who are expected to tolerate some swearing. Relevant cases are listed on Wikipedia.

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

#125

Post by FerretFred »

StavrosK wrote: post #12

> The force had put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious”. That's why it's called "erosion of rights" and not "outright nullification of rights". Unfortunately, it works, and it's entirely unsurprising that face surveillance will become normalized.

> That's why it's called "erosion of rights" and not "outright nullification of rights"

True, but you can't erode something ad infinitum; eventually it will disappear.

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

#126

Post by pbhjpbhj »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #109

Is there another source for this? I don't even want to visit the Mail's website, let alone read whatever misrepresentation of what actually transpired that they have put down in their article.

See my comment, it was on BBC Click a few days ago.

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

#127

Post by moorhosj »

lm28469 wrote: post #105
moorhosj wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

==Why are we tolerating this loss of freedoms?== Fear. Why do people think it is unsafe to walk outside when statistics show us we have never been safer? Why are people afraid of public places when crime is far more likely to happen in the home?

We need to go deeper though. The decrease in perceived safety is, at least in part, due to 24/7 news reporting about violence, crime, terrorism, hate and generally negative topics. Which itself is due to progress in information technology and in the way we make money out of it. There is literally no benefit for the general public in this. Don't get me wrong, you have all the reasons to fear these things if you live w…

The book Fortress America [1] posits that, in America at least, it has been a long shifting of the fear from red to black. Basically, after USSR was defeated, we shifted more vigorously into a "law and order" society. Politicians and the media played up the threat (even though all data was showing a safer society) of gangs and "thugs".

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Fortress-America-Embraced-Abandoned-D...

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

#128

Post by ben_w »

mises wrote: post #73
stavros wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sorry if that offends you, but pick up a history book and read and you will see that I am correct. It doesn't offend me, it's just trivially wrong, as I know of many privacy-enhancing laws that got passed without a drop of blood being spilled (e.g. the GDPR).

This is part of why I object to the dilution of the term "right" with the modern, European concept of creating new rights to suit a political agenda. Basic liberties are a very narrow category as laid out in the Bill of Rights. "Owning your data" is not a right in the sense in which your parent comment was speaking, certainly not in the same way as the Right to Bear Arms. In other words, there is a big difference bet…

> Basic liberties are a very narrow category as laid out in the Bill of Rights. "Owning your data" is not a right in the sense in which your parent comment was speaking, certainly not in the same way as the Right to Bear Arms.

I’ve seen this attitude to the second amendment many times. You might regard it as a fundamental and inalienable right (even though it’s in an amendment and therefore, y’know, amendable), but so far as I can see most of the rest of my [1] world think America is basically insane to even want that.

[1] i.e. anecdata, as I can’t find stats one way or the other.

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

#129

Post by pif »

I personally don't see any issue with this.

If you want absolute privacy, than stay at home.

If you want absolute freedom, than go live somewhere where nobody else lives.

Society runs on compromises: your freedon to swing your fist ends where my nose begins (and viceversa); your privacy ends where my safety is concerned (and viceversa).

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

#130

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Zenst wrote: post #102

I wonder if you could copyright your face and then use the law against the law. DMCA takedowns etc etc.

It's not an artistic work, and there are broad rights to images in public that preclude you from making a work on your face to prevent imaging of it.

It's a nice idea but it would allow lots of law breaking of things worked that way. Eg paint something on your car, now police can't capture you on speed camera!!11one.

Post reply on HN