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

Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

ipvm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 382 posts

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#201

Post by tptacek »

BrenBarn wrote: post #194
tptacek wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct: "never talk to the police" is a very online belief. I watch people talk to police all the time . People go out of their way to do it. I don't even know what to do with the "never date police officers" thing. Most police officers are married. It's a shift-work job, so they have high divorce rates, but they just remarry.

The fact that most people believe it's not good advice doesn't mean it actually is not good advice.

I'm not making a normative claim about what your best strategy is to protect yourself from a police investigation, but rather a positive claim about ordinary people's attitudes towards the police, which are not (gesturing towards this thread) this.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#202

Post by derektank »

willis936 wrote: post #79
ACCount37 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very doable when what you're dealing with is a Major Crime That Gets Full Institutional and Individual Attention. What about a bike theft, a jacked car or a stolen parcel though? There is a price to having information easily available to the law enforcement. There is a price to not having this information easily available to the law enforcement too.

If only we had an amendment in the original bill of rights that drew the line here.

The 4th amendment doesn’t really have much of anything to say about public surveillance; the courts have largely agreed it does not constitute a search unless it reveals information that is not intended to be public (such as the thermal imaging of buildings) or reveals intimate personal information (such as documentation of habits through long term data aggregation).

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#203

Post by etchalon »

Manuel_D wrote: post #188
etchalon wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... the entire point of the decision was whether a person has an expectation of privacy in a rental car outside of the rental period. The court didn't come down in favor of warrantless use of ALPR data. It said that the defendant did not have standing to challenge the use of ALPR data, warrant or not, because said person had no expectation of privacy in a vehicle they had no legal claim to during the period the data…

As I wrote in my comment the court did add a caveat that could limit how broadly this precedence gets applied. But at the end of the day: 1) The police did use ALPR data without a warrant. 2) The court upheld the use of ALPR data without a warrant in this case. How widely this will get applied remains to be seen. The court did not say that a warrant would be required had Yang not been in a rental car, which is what p…

... There is nothing waiting to be seen.

The court ruled, as hundreds of cases have been ruled before, that Fourth Amendment protections only apply if there is an expectation of privacy. Its opinion made clear that they were ignoring whether warrantless use of APLR data is a Fourth Amendment issue because you can't have a Fourth Amendment issue if there is no expectation of privacy and there can be no expectation of privacy in Yang's specific situation.

It didn't uphold the use of the data. It said it didn't need to address the use of the data, because it was a moot point.

This is like arguing with someone that a court didn't say Dragons couldn't be charged with a crime because the court only said Dragons aren't real.

Please stop doubling down.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#204

Post by [deleted] »

etchalon wrote: post #203
Manuel_D wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I wrote in my comment the court did add a caveat that could limit how broadly this precedence gets applied. But at the end of the day: 1) The police did use ALPR data without a warrant. 2) The court upheld the use of ALPR data without a warrant in this case. How widely this will get applied remains to be seen. The court did not say that a warrant would be required had Yang not been in a rental car, which is what p…

... There is nothing waiting to be seen. The court ruled, as hundreds of cases have been ruled before, that Fourth Amendment protections only apply if there is an expectation of privacy. Its opinion made clear that they were ignoring whether warrantless use of APLR data is a Fourth Amendment issue because you can't have a Fourth Amendment issue if there is no expectation of privacy and there can be no expectation of…

[deleted]

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#205

Post by [deleted] »

Ancapistani wrote: post #171
Manuel_D wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What wasn't previously available? Automated license plate readers have been around since the 70s, and started being widely deployed in the 1990s as technology got cheaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recogni... It's not new tech.

The closest thing to it was repo companies sharing data. This is very much a new thing.

[deleted]

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#206

Post by rexpop »

tptacek wrote: post #182
boring_twenties wrote: post #158

This shouldn't be hard to understand. Don't talk to the police, without your attorney present, under any circumstances whatsoever. Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle that I can only wonder what, if anything, those people are thinking. Anyway, the key takeaway seems to don't date anyone who dates the police. Firstly, because it directly puts your own safety at risk, as…

This is an extremely online belief. Oak Park, IL, the inner-ring suburb of Chicago where I live, is almost certainly one of the 10 most progressive and left-leaning municipalities in the country. Oak Parkers (not me) have the opposite concern: we're below our threshold number of sworn officers, and desperate to add more. The median Oak Parker has very positive views of the police (and also all the standard progressiv…

Everything you believe about the police you gleaned from children's cartoons as a toddler.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#207

Post by Retric »

tptacek wrote: post #201
BrenBarn wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that most people believe it's not good advice doesn't mean it actually is not good advice.

I'm not making a normative claim about what your best strategy is to protect yourself from a police investigation, but rather a positive claim about ordinary people's attitudes towards the police, which are not (gesturing towards this thread) this.

Meanwhile I’ve spent way too much time around people in real life on both sides of the isle that absolutely loathed the police.

The general attitude seems extremely positively correlated with income, and the average American isn’t particularly well off.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#208

Post by etchalon »

Manuel_D wrote: post #180
etchalon wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... you should probably read that opinion and maybe some legal analysis on what precedents it established. Specifically, that it established none. Schmidt was explicitly about license plate reader data and whether a locality could install and utilize such a surveillance network without violating the Fourth Amendment. Next time you get into this argument, point to Schmidt and its opinion. It has all the elements you n…

It established the precedence that use of automated license plate reader data does not require a warrant in at least some circumstances. The decision did mention that an overdue rental car has a lower expectation of privacy, but the court did not say that a warrant would have been required outside of that circumstance.

No it didn't. You keep insisting it "set a precedent" when the opinion explicitly cites precedent to say they don't need to set any precedent or make a novel ruling because existing precedent already establishes that there's no expectation of privacy in an overdue rental car in Yang's situation. The majority APPLIED existing precedent to the case facts.

Please go actually read the opinion.

If you do, you'll see the concurrence specifically says, "Hey, I agree we should reject Yang's case, but we should have probably decided this on Fourth Amendment grounds and actually said ALPR data doesn't require a warrant and Carpenter doesn't apply", because the majority EXPLICITLY did not do that and the concurring judge wanted to.

What's baffling here is it's not even that long an opinion. With the dissent, it's less than 30 pages. It's incredibly straightforward.

You apparently just can't accept the ego hit that you were decisively wrong about something.

That's really sad, dude.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#209

Post by [deleted] »

etchalon wrote: post #208
Manuel_D wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It established the precedence that use of automated license plate reader data does not require a warrant in at least some circumstances. The decision did mention that an overdue rental car has a lower expectation of privacy, but the court did not say that a warrant would have been required outside of that circumstance.

No it didn't. You keep insisting it "set a precedent" when the opinion explicitly cites precedent to say they don't need to set any precedent or make a novel ruling because existing precedent already establishes that there's no expectation of privacy in an overdue rental car in Yang's situation. The majority APPLIED existing precedent to the case facts. Please go actually read the opinion. If you do, you'll see the c…

[deleted]

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#210

Post by etchalon »

Manuel_D wrote: post #168
etchalon wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At no point did I say it could de-anonymize ballots. You claimed ballots provided the government with the information they needed to know who voted. I pointed that is untrue. Ballots explicitly do not. The fact you posted that tells you know have a Google level understanding of the law in the US, and the fact you posted an article about private citizens using public data as proof of the legality of government-operate…

The 9th circuit upheld the use of automated license plate readers in US vs. Yang. The defense attempted to use Carpenter to argue against the legality of ALPR data, and failed: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/21... I really appreciate the irony of you alleging a "Google level understanding" on my part, when your own argument was tried in a court of appeals and failed.

Holy shit, I just realize you linked the wrong US vs Yang case.

You googled, someone mentioned US v Yang, and you found a Seventh Court decision about a different case altogether, that had nothing to do with ALPR data or Carpenter, and linked it. Without reading the link.

I knew the case so I didn't need to read the link to know you were wrong about it. Didn't bother to click it.

That is ... absolutely hilarious.

Post reply on HN