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

251–260 of 382 posts

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

#251

Post by ceejayoz »

lukan wrote: post #242
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…

"Don't talk to the police, without your attorney present, under any circumstances whatsoever." Oh but I did. Multiple times, without a lawyer ever, how shocking: "Hey, my bicycle was stolen, I need to file it so I get insurance payout" "Hey, this demonstration and the roadblock of yours for guarding it, will it be around for much longer?" "Hey, nice weather, isn't it?" (Misdirecting small talk, while they were search…

> I also don't live in the US

“Don’t talk to the cops” is not global advice. In some countries it harms your defense in court. In others it gets you beaten.

Most times you hear it it’s an American talking to Americans.

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

#252

Post by rcxdude »

watwut wrote: post #243
rcxdude wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but online is where you see this advice being most commonly posted and repeated. Second-most might be in lawyer's offices, but a) most people don't interact with lawyers, especially not in the context of criminal investigations, and b) the lawyers themselves have a distorted view of this system, because they are almost always dealing with people who, for one reason or another, should not talk to the police.

Using "terminally online" for "the advice layers consistently give both online and offline but people don't follow" is, imo, using that term incorrectly. "Terminally online" is derogatory term which involves you doing or thinking something insane. If literal layers give that advice in their literal offices and wherever they go around, it is simply "rarely followed advice". And I will also claim that layers have way l…

I will point out that the original poster did not say "terminally online", but "very online". (oh, and "extremely online"). I don't personally feel that has the same kind of connotations.

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

#253

Post by close04 »

kakacik wrote: post #228
ultrarunner wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle There are still quite a few people who think the police are the friendly government-provided customer service agents of life, although I've watched this viewpoint decline markedly over the last twenty years at least. Locally, a woman went on a hiking date with a Phoenix cop and wound up dead [0]. Notably, the woman was from New Eng…

A female high on meth gets disoriented and dies from heat exposure in the mountains. As per article she willingly separated from the guy whom she sent to the top of the peak "to continue to get pic for social media". He probably should have know better and just go down with her and call it a day, or not getting high on meth in dangerous environment in the first place but thats about it. Unless you have a better artic…

A trained police officer leaves his obviously high (police can always tell even on first contact and from far away, right?) and exhausted hiking partner to return alone, with no water, in blazing heat, on an unfamiliar trail, to eventually die alone.

Peak police.

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

#254

Post by AndrewOMartin »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #240
alexpotato wrote: post #141

Scott Adams' had a great line: "Whenever people have the opportunity to commit fraud and there is no monitoring, you can assume they are committing fraud."

I sometimes think of this from the other direction. Don't put people in situations of great temptation, like access to company cash with no oversight. They'll often fall for the temptation and ruin their lives in the process. It's a slightly different framing from the "evil people will take advantage and get away with it" but they both lead to putting some kind of process in place to prevent abuse.

This is like when store-bought locks are able to be picked by a novice, or broken with a hammer, or bypassed with a magnet. The phrase used is "it keeps good people honest", rather than "it keeps absolutely all bad guys out".

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

#255

Post by throwawayqqq11 »

lukan wrote: post #242
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…

"Don't talk to the police, without your attorney present, under any circumstances whatsoever." Oh but I did. Multiple times, without a lawyer ever, how shocking: "Hey, my bicycle was stolen, I need to file it so I get insurance payout" "Hey, this demonstration and the roadblock of yours for guarding it, will it be around for much longer?" "Hey, nice weather, isn't it?" (Misdirecting small talk, while they were search…

In all your cases, you wanted something from LE. The advice to stay shut is mainly for the other way around.

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

#256

Post by filup »

Manuel_D wrote: post #143
filup wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manual D, the flock system is still very new. Why are you confident a private companies monetization of public whereabouts will stay legal? There hasent really been any precedent set on this. And the system is wildly unpopular In the public eye?

In case you didn't read it, the 9th circuit upheld the use of Flock cameras. The precedence is as high as it gets, short of a supreme Court decision: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48636421 You're being exposed to a very specific group of people when you read Hacker News or Reddit. Plenty of people are happy to have Flock cameras in their neighborhood on account of the improved ability to investigate crime.

Are you referring to the IJ case?

https://ij.org/case/norfolk-virginia-camera-surveillance/

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

#257

Post by lukan »

throwawayqqq11 wrote: post #255
lukan wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Don't talk to the police, without your attorney present, under any circumstances whatsoever." Oh but I did. Multiple times, without a lawyer ever, how shocking: "Hey, my bicycle was stolen, I need to file it so I get insurance payout" "Hey, this demonstration and the roadblock of yours for guarding it, will it be around for much longer?" "Hey, nice weather, isn't it?" (Misdirecting small talk, while they were search…

In all your cases, you wanted something from LE. The advice to stay shut is mainly for the other way around.

Internet experts, also here on HN, tried to convince me otherwise.

Also no, in the drug search example I just wanted to be left alone (and not have them find the small bag of weed). So I answered, but talked about harmless things.

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

#259

Post by filup »

Manuel_D wrote: post #145
filup wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A cop and stand at an intersection and write down license plate numbers without a warrant. I dont believe you think the police force could replicate the injest of information these systems allow do you?

If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. The point is, the plain view doctrine means the police don't need a warrant to record observation that are in plain view. The licence plates of cars on the street are in plain view. I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private inf…

>If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible.

If the precedent was set based on this idea. It will fall apart with further scrutiny.

>I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By recording people's license plates. The whole reason why we mandate that cars display license plates to is to facilitate identifying vehicles.

I don't think that is where the crux of the issue lay.

Post reply on HN