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

Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

guessingheadlights.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 248 posts

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#211

Post by scottLobster »

throw0101d wrote: post #157
scottLobster wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, if you had a 30% chance of encountering an armed individual as a cop, you'd damn well assume they were armed every time. That's one in three traffic stops, and you probably do a lot more than three as a cop. Keep in mind that number will be a lot higher depending on your locality. If I'm ever elected God Emperor of the United States I'm going to make beating XCOM 2 a high school graduation requirement just to imp…

> Uh, if you had a 30% chance of encountering an armed individual as a cop, you'd damn well assume they were armed every time. I understand that thinking (see also 'would you play Russian roulette with those odds?'), but the "(>)1:1" comments hides the underlying distribution, which I think colours how people think about the (alleged) pervasiveness of firearms in the US. As another example of perception versus realit…

You want to talk perception vs reality and then post that?

Yes, merely owning a gun does make you statistically more likely to die of a gun shot, but only in the same sense that owning alcohol mean you're more likely to drive drunk, owning a car means you're more likely to die in a car crash, and having a house wired for electricity means you're more likely to die of electrocution.

For instance, that article says that the risk of suicide is 5x higher with a gun in the house. Well my risk of suicide is presently zero, and 5 x 0 = 0.

There's a great deal of individual control over the risk when it comes to personal ownership. Compare that to a cop who is professionally obligated to pull over a large sample of people they don't get to select, and this sample is disproportionately violent or otherwise untrustworthy.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#213

Post by tavavex »

swingandamiss wrote: post #194
Tostino wrote: post #5

I just spoke at my county commission meeting this morning, against these cameras, as they're debating putting 50% more cameras up across the county. The original set went up without any news coverage or fanfare. https://www.youtube.com/live/1OmEmpL-7qY?t=720&is=z_mb9ZEVCs... Looks like I have two serious opponents to privacy on the commission to deal with, and the commissioner seems to at least want to end the contra…

How do you feel about people like me who own a home (multiple homes actually), have dozens of cameras around it, with license plate readers, and work with local police? As I enter retirement I plan on starting an open source style project where others can join a network of home owners that can upload video/data (with license plate number, bluetooth identifiers, etc) and have this publicly accessible and free. Cars ha…

This is just crowdsourcing a surveillance state. For now, people can still record everyone passing by their property (not even through!), although there's an argument for changing it because your right to recognize people out of your window shouldn't automatically imply a right to digitally catalogue every one of them 24/7.

But even if we take the legal status quo. The ability to automatically tag people moving through different areas is what is really dangerous. Both well-meaning people going after criminals as well as stalkers, vigilantes and private businesses that will find a way to scrape this data love the idea.

Bluntly, whatever risks Flock has, this has too. Just about the only thing this would have over Flock is that it would be not for profit, which is not the concern people are expressing over the automated mass surveillance of everyone. Enjoy your fortune, please stop trying to bring online surveillance to the real world to watch over the rest of us. I'm still young, I want to live in the world that you lived in, not the hellhole that everyone is enthusiastically trying to turn it into now. We did just fine in the 20th century when violent crime rates were obscene compared to now, I'm sure we will survive without this.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#214

Post by consumer451 »

throw0101d wrote: post #157
scottLobster wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, if you had a 30% chance of encountering an armed individual as a cop, you'd damn well assume they were armed every time. That's one in three traffic stops, and you probably do a lot more than three as a cop. Keep in mind that number will be a lot higher depending on your locality. If I'm ever elected God Emperor of the United States I'm going to make beating XCOM 2 a high school graduation requirement just to imp…

> Uh, if you had a 30% chance of encountering an armed individual as a cop, you'd damn well assume they were armed every time. I understand that thinking (see also 'would you play Russian roulette with those odds?'), but the "(>)1:1" comments hides the underlying distribution, which I think colours how people think about the (alleged) pervasiveness of firearms in the US. As another example of perception versus realit…

> but the "(>)1:1" comments hides the underlying distribution, which I think colours how people think about the (alleged) pervasiveness of firearms in the US.

GGParent commentator here. My point is: let's role-play as a police officer pulling over a car in the average US State vs. the average EU country.

In both of those continents, we cops have guns. However, what are the chances that the driver has one? In the EU, would you ever have your hand on your holster while just approaching the pulled-over speeder? Only in very special cases. Meanwhile, you better in the USA, right? I mean, you have your owns kids at home, and there is a decent chance whoever you just pulled over has a gun, right?

---

crosschecked stats: (please confirm)

"While about 32% of US adults personally own a firearm, the individual gun ownership rate across the EU sits much lower at roughly ~5% of the total population."

However, due to gun availability, concealed carry, and handguns...

"A person in the United States is roughly 200 times more likely to have a loaded, accessible gun in their car cabin compared to a person in the European Union."

So, as a police officer in the USA pulling over a car, I should be around 200x more worried about making it home to my family. Two hundred freaking x.

No wonder US police officers are freaked the fuck out. I would be as well.

(200x is a guesstimate. However, a sanity check using US carry surveys and EU carry-permit numbers lands somewhere in the 60x–400x range)

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#215

Post by [deleted] »

sophacles wrote: post #78
RajT88 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to know some govvies who were FBI analysts. There are more foiled terrorism plots than get reported for sure. That is the word at least at the FBI as of maybe 15 years ago.

Equally likely is that your friends were trying to make themselves sound more important and made unverifiable statements and let your existing trust relationship do the lifting. That kid in middle school didn't have a girlfriend in Canada, and the FBI (documented on multiple occasions to have fabricated and entrapped people into "terror plots") didn't quietly stop a ton of terrorist plots.

[deleted]

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#216

Post by cwillu »

stickfigure wrote: post #204
cwillu wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd have a point if any other western country had police work in their top-10 most dangerous fields, but they don't.

Like Mexico, our immediate neighbor to the south? Policing in Mexico is ~100 deaths per 100,000 compared to 11.3 deaths per 100,000 in the US. 100 deaths/100,000 is on par with logging workers in the US, which is the #1 most dangerous field. Do better research.

Congrats on finding the outlier.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#218

Post by duxup »

Animats wrote: post #19

That's not a Flock error. That's a law enforcement error. Flock isn't responsible for a bogus warrant in the system. The woman probably has a good case for damages from the police department for doing it twice. That's sloppy police work.

Her car was flagged as being involved with a homicide.

What should the cops have done? Ignored it?

I'd argue Flock making that incorrect association is similar to a false accusation and the consequences should be on Flock.

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#219

Post by iamnothere »

genewitch wrote: post #178
kittoes wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fairy tale? The UK, Australia, and Brazil all have something to say about that claim. In developed countries, the United States is an extreme outlier so why pretend this is a completely unapproachable problem? Our constitution itself gives us a blueprint because it states, in no uncertain terms, a "well-regulated militia"; not "each individual citizen".

I notice you put a semicolon there. You forgot to put the rest: > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. what does "the people" mean to you?

Not the OP, but if I had to guess, they probably imagine that it means the nation as a whole, embodied by its government. You know, as in “The People’s Republic of North Korea.”

(If anyone wants to alter the 2nd so it’s more in line with their views, there’s a clear legal path. Pass an Amendment or call a Constitutional convention.)

Re: Woman pulled over twice after Flock-linked software connected her to homicide

#220

Post by kittoes »

genewitch wrote: post #178
kittoes wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fairy tale? The UK, Australia, and Brazil all have something to say about that claim. In developed countries, the United States is an extreme outlier so why pretend this is a completely unapproachable problem? Our constitution itself gives us a blueprint because it states, in no uncertain terms, a "well-regulated militia"; not "each individual citizen".

I notice you put a semicolon there. You forgot to put the rest: > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. what does "the people" mean to you?

You know, the human beings eligible to join the previously mentioned militia. The idea wasn't "everyone has the right to openly carry", the way it has been perverted recently, it was that you were individually responsible for the acquisition and maintenance of your own armaments. The militia act of 1792 was passed almost immediately after the second amendment was ratified, codifying what I just claimed.
Post reply on HN