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

131–140 of 190 posts

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

#131

Post by wallace_f »

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…

Tech has also given us freedoms. It's just what people do with it. This world would be so easy if nobody was cheating or aggressing on anyone else. And it's not lile that because people are terrible. Most people in this world are immoral and/or idiotic. The average person is not enlightened, nor even genuinely motivated to helping their fellow if they gets nothing in return.

Now you are asking for not just good nature or enlightenment, but for something more... moral courage.

The sad part is the people who are will be lost forever as we march this ugly walk into the Grest Filters which consciousness seems to tend to do to itself.

The only way to get something like moral courage from the masses is to spread ideas into people's minds the same way religious leaders or propagandists do. People love crusaded and want to be important so will become a part of them.

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

#132

Post by Zenst »

CharlesColeman wrote: post #107
Zenst wrote: post #102

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

> use the law against the law You can only do that if the lawmakers agree.

They already agreed lots of copyright laws and the like, be kinda ironic to use those laws for civil justice.

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

#133

Post by dazc »

mywittyname wrote: post #112
dazc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

I am not so sure he did anything illegal? Courts in the UK are fairly independent of public opinion.

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

#134

Post by geodel »

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…

I think TV has created an image where young people can get really aggressive or even physical with police, doctor/nurses etc. The receiving side of this aggression are quite understanding people who'd say 'oh this guy is just emotionally hurt and it should be fine'.

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

#135

Post by pbhjpbhj »

sanbor wrote: post #94
simonh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>..but want to make London safer. It would be nice to be safer from police harassment.

> ..but want to make London safer. By the police stopping you, taking your picture, and trying to match your face to a list of criminals with 96% of false positive match rate.

Hmm, it's not like they go "positive match, right bake 'em away toys". The officer will analyse the match and on their confirmation that match means there's reasonable cause to question you, ask for ID, or whatever.

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

#136

Post by RugnirViking »

ptah wrote: post #38
kypro wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What identification exactly? You don't have to own a passport or a drivers license in the UK, nor do we have ID cards.

most people here in the UK would have a credit or debit card on them. almost everyone have a driver's licence, but bank cards are a must even for those that dont

It's extremely normal to travel without any kind of ID, especially photo id. The main thing a lot of people carry is their driver's license, but if you don't have one of those you might very legitimately have none.

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

#137

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

781 wrote: post #113
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> you'll see plenty of ... burqas

No, you won’t. The burqa is extremely rare in Western Europe. This is pointed out whenever political parties propose a burqa ban: a country would be banning something that isn’t even a significant thing there. IIRC, the total number of burqa wearers in all of France, for example, does not exceed 300.

As for niqabs, you do see one from time to time, but they certainly aren’t common against the total Muslim population, and when you do, it may be that the wearers are visitors from e.g. the Gulf states and not locals.

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

#138

Post by klyrs »

turk73 wrote: post #41
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…

Because "doing something about it" requires violence. Americans have gone soft--we aren't demanding our rights be protected. Until we send a clear message, they will continue to walk all over us. Rights are won by force and no other way. I'm sorry if that offends you, but pick up a history book and read and you will see that I am correct. The above is why there is a full-court press to ban guns in the USA. They know…

> The above is why there is a full-court press to ban guns in the USA

Our military has become extremely proficient in combating guerilla warfare. You're fooling yourself if you think that armed insurrection could happen in this country without the support of our armed forces. A civil war seems plausible, but the reason people are getting sick of guns in this country is the frequency of terrorists shooting up schools: the people willing to take up arms are predominantly children with extremist, hateful ideologies.

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

#139

Post by mcguire »

turk73 wrote: post #41
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…

Because "doing something about it" requires violence. Americans have gone soft--we aren't demanding our rights be protected. Until we send a clear message, they will continue to walk all over us. Rights are won by force and no other way. I'm sorry if that offends you, but pick up a history book and read and you will see that I am correct. The above is why there is a full-court press to ban guns in the USA. They know…

Full-court press?

Do you also believe that Christians are being persecuted in America?

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

#140

Post by andai »

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.

For eighteen years, while living in the woods.
Post reply on HN