Live data from Hacker News

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

ipvm.com

261–270 of 382 posts

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

#261
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…

> 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.

"some countries it harms your defense in court. "

In all countries it harms your defence if you confess something wrong. But itnis not a general rule that it always hurts.

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

#262

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…

> 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…

IDK, In my town that is what they are, they come when called, they are respectful, they live in the town they service.

I only see problems with police [generally speaking] in two scenarios.

1) Very large cities like NYC where police don't [cannot afford] to live in the area they work in.

2) Very small citie where the mayor, judge and sherrif are all related.

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

#263

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…

Meth and amphetamine are very different drugs, but a bootlicker wouldn't know the difference. She could also have been spiked and left to die by the cop, can't really know without a proper investigation, which the police never subject themselves to.

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

#264
No, it shows that we have a destructive, trust undermining security industry that sells abusive surveillance software that by spirit of the law would be clearly illegal in any country that pretends to be a free and open society and has a constitution in the direction.

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

#265
post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"some countries it harms your defense in court. " In all countries it harms your defence if you confess something wrong. But itnis not a general rule that it always hurts.

I'm referring to things like the UK's right to remain silent, where the Miranda-style warning is:

> You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

Basically, your alibi is considered much less credible if your first mention of it is at trial.

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

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Meth and amphetamine are very different drugs, but a bootlicker wouldn't know the difference. She could also have been spiked and left to die by the cop, can't really know without a proper investigation, which the police never subject themselves to.

Her source of trust was instagram. The cop’s instagram led her to travel to Arizona and be with him. She was convinced by his instagram that she agreed to do all of this. That’s really dumb and it’s what you get playing stupid games with strangers on the internet.

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

#267
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people simply don't see themselves as being in zero-sum contests with the police. Yes, that is why they don't do it. It does not mean the advice is "terminally online". It is the advice coming from layers that deal with the system. Layers saying those things, online and offline, are not terminally online.

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.

The context they make these statements is when you are a person of interest to the police, if you are just a witness to an event unrelated to you its different. But people mostly just say 'never' without regard of the situation.

Not that its always benign to do in cases like this, you can easily talk yourself into becoming a person of interest. Especially true if the officer happens to have a 'bad day' or is a bad apple, you can't really tell because the police keeps employing these people. An example I saw a woman went into the station to provide a video from their phone as evidence of some event and ending up getting taken to the ground in the lobby and arrested for resisting arrest or some bullshit. All because the officer tried to snatch the phone out of her hand without saying anything and then used her keeping hold of the phone as a reason for assaulting her.

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

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

The irony here being that we are so beyond healthy that the vast majority of people are well beyond even realizing or recognizing that the very need for locks everywhere is self-evident of an unhealthy society.

Imagining a condition where you had to lock away your valuables in your own home out of concern for them being taken by people in your own home probably makes it a bit more apparent to some people who can mentally model alternatives.

If you were ever to go to places where the rich are in what are effectively little oasis, kind of like “green zones” where they hide away from the chaos and misery they cause the wider society, no one locks their doors even though the homes are all full of stuff that is worth more than the average person will ever even earn in their whole lifetime and they walk around with jewelry and clothing multiple times more expensive than the average house price. They literally, by various mechanisms and methods “keep absolute all bad guys out”, effectively, without locks on every door.

What we’ve long lost was systematic secure systems architecture and we replaced it with extremely costly, expensive and risky brute force, hard coded illusion of saver of the kind you refer to that is ironically not even necessary in most cases either. Locks don’t keep good people out at all, good people aren’t emoted and wouldn’t enter a place that isn’t locked without permission in the first place; hence my above point of locks being a good indicator of the health of a society and the failure of a government, i.e., the cluster and quality of the people left in control of things.

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

#269
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t know, as someone firmly in the top 0.1% of taxpayers, most cops seem gleefully unaware of their place in life.

But perhaps that just reflects the public/private split when it comes to quality of services

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

#270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The city's scope is smaller than Flock's - it's a city, not a multi-national corporation. Yes, I'm aware of what "expectation of privacy" means. I've been a photographer for ~25 years. > People seem to struggle to wrap their head around the fact that privacy laws don't prevent people from recording them in public. You can be recorded at any time in public, by the government or another private person. This isn't about…

And how are they building that dataset? By recording in public. Yes it is about recording in public.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN