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

Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 102 posts

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#31

Post by hopler »

zozbot123 wrote: post #8
ajb257 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst a free press is important, I would argue that 'a man and a woman have been held in connection with the Gatwick Airport drone incident' would suffice. Kudos to the BBC for recognising this. It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. Publishing their names and pictures before _even being charged_ does nothing but open potentially innocent…

> ... It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. ... On the contrary, the commonly-acknowledged right of habeas corpus essentially requires the government to make the fact that someone is being detained public, at least if the prisoner himself so chooses. Privacy is a red herring here - habeas corpus is about preserving basic freedoms.

> at least if the prisoner himself so chooses

is the missing part in most cases.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#32

Post by hopler »

Carpetsmoker wrote: post #6
Normal_gaussian wrote: post #2

I'm sure the two of them are enjoying having their faces plastered over the sunday news ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers ) and sorting through all the lovely messages they've received over the last day or so.

Being accused is the same as 100% guilty, and being guilty is always reason for pubic shaming and unlimited amounts of vitriol. Good ol' British press logic. I wonder where they get their journalists from. Is there an education to be a heartless bastard with no sense of ethics? Or do they train them in-house?

This is not a uniquely British phenomenon.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#33

Post by dahart »

zozbot123 wrote: post #8
ajb257 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst a free press is important, I would argue that 'a man and a woman have been held in connection with the Gatwick Airport drone incident' would suffice. Kudos to the BBC for recognising this. It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. Publishing their names and pictures before _even being charged_ does nothing but open potentially innocent…

> ... It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. ... On the contrary, the commonly-acknowledged right of habeas corpus essentially requires the government to make the fact that someone is being detained public, at least if the prisoner himself so chooses. Privacy is a red herring here - habeas corpus is about preserving basic freedoms.

What do you mean when you say habeas corpus essentially requires a detention to be made public? Habeas corpus provides for a review of the legality of a detention for the requester. How & when is any information given publicly under habeas corpus laws? What makes you think habeas corpus and privacy can’t co-exist?

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#34

Post by hopler »

pjc50 wrote: post #16
Carpetsmoker wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being accused is the same as 100% guilty, and being guilty is always reason for pubic shaming and unlimited amounts of vitriol. Good ol' British press logic. I wonder where they get their journalists from. Is there an education to be a heartless bastard with no sense of ethics? Or do they train them in-house?

"You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God! the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to." -- https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Humbert_Wolfe , 1930 The lack of ethics is definitely imposed from the top, by people like Rupert Murdoch and Piers Morgan.

Rupert Murdoch, the Australian-American?

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#35

Post by hopler »

setquk wrote: post #22
qrbLPHiKpiux wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of them death threats, others suggesting life prison and torture. Side note, this shows, in the lowest common denominator, the true nature of people on the internet.

Believe me it’s not just the internet. Those people are just as vocal about it among friends and family. If you think the average British person is nice, you’ve probably just been lucky so far.

Please stop with the chauvinist stereotyping. Brits aren't special in this regard.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#36

Post by hopler »

starbeast wrote: post #18
Carpetsmoker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that publishing the names at all isn't particularly news-worthy. The right to privacy exists, too. In the justice system it's the judge which rules a sentence. Years – or even decades – of public shaming doesn't seem fair to me. Committing a crime doesn't mean you're no longer dealing with a person with real feelings. Publishing names and photos strikes me as "2 minutes of hate", and not "news". Also no…

Even just being in a crime reconstruction video as an actor is apparently risky. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-342183...

That's horrid. The BBC producers admitted they knew they were putting him in harm's way by republishit the video, and they intentionally went ahead anyway instead of taking a few minutes to fix the video.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#37

Post by user5994461 »

knorker wrote: post #26
goodcanadian wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it is more likely to be a foreign nation proving a capability. They've just shown that with a team of a dozen people or so and some moderately sophisticated drones, they could shut down every major airport in the country more or less indefinitely.

I doubt it. That would be like burning a zero-day exploit. I think the airports have been absolutely asleep at the wheel because OF COURSE this was a risk. OF COURSE I would have set up TDoA equipment and had a company with anti-drone tech on speed dial (at the very least) if I were responsible for an airport bigger than a hobbyist field. I bet you could get cover for Gatwick with TDoA equipment for less than $10k ea…

No company in their right mind would sell anything like that for less than $10k. Try £100+ as a starting price for one unit. It's aerospace and defense equipment and the airport is losing a truckload of money.

One of the article was giving a £16M figure for a 6 pack of the Israel Dome system.

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#38

Post by scottmf »

starbeast wrote: post #20
Carpetsmoker wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being accused is the same as 100% guilty, and being guilty is always reason for pubic shaming and unlimited amounts of vitriol. Good ol' British press logic. I wonder where they get their journalists from. Is there an education to be a heartless bastard with no sense of ethics? Or do they train them in-house?

The Times, The Telegraph, The Sun and Transport Secretary Chris Grayling have already labelled any culprits as 'eco-warriors' and that was even before these two were arrested and then released. https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/12/21/comment-why-it-s-too-soo...

Ah, the perfect protest. Where no one knows what you're protesting!

Re: Gatwick drones pair 'no longer suspects'

#40

Post by jmull »

jstanley wrote: post #4

There must have been some motive for whoever did this. AFAIK, no environmental or terrorist groups have claimed responsibility. Is it possible that this has been done by someone within the police or intelligence community in order to create a pretext for pushing through drone licensing laws?

Is it possible? Maybe.

But it could also just be some random asshole. There are a lot of random assholes all over the place.

Post reply on HN