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

US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 76 posts

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#31

Post by vkou »

Karunamon wrote: post #26
CoryG89 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that protestors have no right to destroy property that doesn't belong to them. I don't agree that the police should be expected to confront protestors just because they shut down an interstate. You have no basic human right to not be inconvenienced at all by non-violent protestors. Non-violent protests that happen to shut down an interstate at some point should not be met with riot shields and swat teams.

We're going to disagree on that because the alternative is a breakdown in the rule of law. If you're going to block a major thoroughfare, you should expect police response (it's illegal for a good reason), and that response to escalate if you don't cooperate. You don't get an exception to law to harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon.

The United States was founded on the principle that yes, you can harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon. I think that even has been called the American revolution (With a little helping of the Civil War.)

Not to mention that almost every form of social progress came at the cost of inconveniencing all those poor, poor people who want nothing to do with the struggle for civil rights, universal suffrage, etc...

When you put convenience and order over basic human and constitutional rights, yes, you bloody well should be inconvenienced. The status quo 'inconveniences' these people every day - far worse then a blocked freeway. Perhaps you should channel your inconvenience at the oppressor, rather then the victim.

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#32

Post by etherealmachine »

Paul-ish wrote: post #25

What is special about these feeds? The Facebook data was only publicly available data; ie stuff I could get by going to the right page in by browser. Was it the same with twitter? Why is it bad for a government to aggregate public data? Not just public data, but messages I assume the writers intend to be broadcast to the world. Were not talking about private emails or messages here. I'm not trying to defend what is h…

I'll bite.

> Why is it bad for a government to aggregate public data?

In the past, this has been problematic. There are several examples of government agencies using their authority to suppress political dissent. The Stasi in Germany, the KGB, Hoover's FBI. True, they had private data as well, but the problem wasn't the source of the data - it was that they used it for political suppression. It's clear that the agencies involved with Geofeedia would prefer the protesters just "go away" - they have no incentive to be supportive of their goals. Given the power imbalance and incentive misalignment, gathering information on them has an inherent smell to it, just from past experience.

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#33

Post by tajen »

slucidi wrote: post #29
Twirrim wrote: post #28

Unless I'm missing something, and I may be, this is relying on the geotagging information you include in tweets, something you can control. I'm not sure I see much advantage in having your location broadcast every time you tweet.

Geotagging is something that tends to be on by default, and lots of people aren't aware they can shut it off. (or that it's happening in the first place)

The Twitter app properly communicates when you're geotagging your tweets or not, and allows deactivation using a simple click before you submit. If that's all it takes for privacy, then I'm ok with this. Facebook is much more sneaky. I would be curious to know how many protesters shared their location without wanting to. Witnessing my family of tech-unaware people, privacy leaks is a monster they're all afraid of, thanks to headlines of media, and they often ask "Not to be tagged on fb" or "How can I be sure that ...". Protesters are probably even more conscious of this.

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#34

Post by Karunamon »

vkou wrote: post #31
Karunamon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're going to disagree on that because the alternative is a breakdown in the rule of law. If you're going to block a major thoroughfare, you should expect police response (it's illegal for a good reason), and that response to escalate if you don't cooperate. You don't get an exception to law to harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon.

The United States was founded on the principle that yes, you can harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon. I think that even has been called the American revolution (With a little helping of the Civil War.) Not to mention that almost every form of social progress came at the cost of inconveniencing all those poor, poor people who want nothing to do with the struggle for ci…

So at what point does a cause become "serious" enough that you have special dispensation to ignore laws in its pursuit, and who decides that?

What if I disagree? What if you disagree? What if a whole lot of people disagree? You're not going to like the result, because you've already excluded the rule of law from this equation.

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#35

Post by weberc2 »

etherealmachine wrote: post #32
Paul-ish wrote: post #25

What is special about these feeds? The Facebook data was only publicly available data; ie stuff I could get by going to the right page in by browser. Was it the same with twitter? Why is it bad for a government to aggregate public data? Not just public data, but messages I assume the writers intend to be broadcast to the world. Were not talking about private emails or messages here. I'm not trying to defend what is h…

I'll bite. > Why is it bad for a government to aggregate public data? In the past, this has been problematic. There are several examples of government agencies using their authority to suppress political dissent. The Stasi in Germany, the KGB, Hoover's FBI. True, they had private data as well, but the problem wasn't the source of the data - it was that they used it for political suppression. It's clear that the agenc…

While I can appreciate the slippery-slope argument against mass surveillance and bulk data collection, comparing municipal police with infamous clandestine federal investigative agencies borders on conspiracy theory. While I don't doubt that the police dislike like the criticism, it seems more likely that their strongest incentive is to keep the peace (specifically preventing the destruction, theft, assault, and murder that characterize so many of these "protests").

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#36

Post by weberc2 »

crazypyro wrote: post #10
mason240 wrote: post #5

It seems reasonable at time when "protesting" means shutting down infrastructure.

There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society. How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors?

> There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society.

What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics?

> How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors?

Why do you think police need justification to enforce the law without infringing on the rights of protesters?

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#37

Post by Karunamon »

throwawayReply wrote: post #20
ryandrake wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only there was some way to not voluntarily post all one's personal data and activities online.

Much of it isn't voluntary. People are sold a phone to which they provide some details including social media logins and install some apps. They then carry their phone around with them not realizing that the phone is automatically uploading it's location to various services. If you were to poll people, "Does having Facebook installed imply your location will be broadcast to Facebook 24/7?", I think you might be surpr…

Much of it is. Facebook claims that the data Geofeedia was accessing was publicly shared, as in, not related to the location pings used by the service to find nearby friends.

That means pictures and posts with GPS data attached (read: willfully created by the user), unless there's some kind of proof that this company had a level of API access that goes beyond the level any other developer can access.

People oversharing is a huge problem.

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#38

Post by vkou »

Karunamon wrote: post #34
vkou wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States was founded on the principle that yes, you can harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon. I think that even has been called the American revolution (With a little helping of the Civil War.) Not to mention that almost every form of social progress came at the cost of inconveniencing all those poor, poor people who want nothing to do with the struggle for ci…

So at what point does a cause become "serious" enough that you have special dispensation to ignore laws in its pursuit, and who decides that? What if I disagree? What if you disagree? What if a whole lot of people disagree? You're not going to like the result, because you've already excluded the rule of law from this equation.

> So at what point does a cause become "serious" enough that you have special dispensation to ignore laws in its pursuit, and who decides that?

Historians do.

The rule of law made slavery legal. The rule of law made apartheid legal. The rule of law made sending black people to the back of the bus legal. The rule of law made killing millions of Jews legal. The rule of law sent 15 million people to the Gulags. The rule of law made the Divine Right of Kings part of the equation. The rule of law made human sacrifice in Central America part of society.

The rule of law is ephemeral, and has nothing whatsoever to do with justice. The rule of law is so often a fig leaf for barbarism.

160 years ago, an abolitionist stealing a slave away from a slaveowner was violating the rule of law. They were also damaging the property, finances, and livelyhood of an innocent person - all because their pet cause wasn't getting as much attention as they liked.

Read A Letter from a Birmingham Jail. [1] Martin Luther King puts this across far better than I can. (And he is only half of the story - the work of Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and the NAACP, which could not be described as non-violent protest was a vital catalyst for civil rights.)

> You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

[1] https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham....

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#39

Post by weberc2 »

CoryG89 wrote: post #24
mason240 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its used as a tactic because its effective. So are armed mobs that murder political opponents. Might does not equal right. People have a right to protest. They don't have a right to destroy property that doesn't belong them. They don't have the right to circumvent democracy and infringing upon the rights of everyone else by shutting down infrastructure that belongs to the all people.

I agree that protestors have no right to destroy property that doesn't belong to them. I don't agree that the police should be expected to confront protestors just because they shut down an interstate. You have no basic human right to not be inconvenienced at all by non-violent protestors. Non-violent protests that happen to shut down an interstate at some point should not be met with riot shields and swat teams.

> You have no basic human right to not be inconvenienced at all by non-violent protestors.

I absolutely have a right not to be held hostage. I also have a right to use public infrastructure, especially when that infrastructure is used by emergency vehicles. Such protests should be met with the minimal necessary force to quickly restore order. Most importantly, these protests are often turn violent, so I'm thankful the police take (non-infringing) precautions to protect themselves and the safety and property of law-abiding citizens.

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#40

Post by mason240 »

vkou wrote: post #31
Karunamon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're going to disagree on that because the alternative is a breakdown in the rule of law. If you're going to block a major thoroughfare, you should expect police response (it's illegal for a good reason), and that response to escalate if you don't cooperate. You don't get an exception to law to harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon.

The United States was founded on the principle that yes, you can harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon. I think that even has been called the American revolution (With a little helping of the Civil War.) Not to mention that almost every form of social progress came at the cost of inconveniencing all those poor, poor people who want nothing to do with the struggle for ci…

I can only assume that supported the right-wing protesters who took up occupying that piece of Federal land in Oregon.
Post reply on HN