301–310 of 382 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are different drugs in the sense that methamphetamine will cause more serotonin release and will act longer than amphetamine, but they will both cause increase in blood pressure, increase heart rate and increase internal temperature. The rest of your comment is right though.
Meth and amphetamine also have very different connotations.
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.
Within a decade, we ushered in CCTV and automated plate readers to a degree that would make the CCP blush.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom to use a network of cameras to take pictures of random people and track their behaviors and location without their consent?
Thankfully the founders of my country set up a system where we are allowed to watch whatever we want in public.
Even flock’s own employees (including the VP) accessed cameras stationed at a children’s gymnasium. They claim it was for a sales pitch but who knows. The names of the cameras imply they’re inside the facility, not on the street corner.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/flock-safety-employees-w...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom to use a network of cameras to take pictures of random people and track their behaviors and location without their consent?
Thankfully the founders of my country set up a system where we are allowed to watch whatever we want in public.
This is far more similar to stalking than just public viewing. If you followed somebody around and took pictures of their car and their person, just because, you'd likely end up with a restraining order or stalking charges.
I doubt the founders of your country predicted private companies being able to easily mass surveil citizens without their knowledge & sell this data to the highest bidder. You forget that this data isn't just sold to government agencies. It's also sold to.. Lowe's? Random HOAs (Home Owner Associations)? Your local big box retail store?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you would have to realize, it is not feasible for a car to be in location 1 thenbe in location 2 many miles away in a few minutes. You say that but just last week there was a post here about how LPR claimed that the same car was in two locations in a timeframe that would have required the car to have been traveling non-stop at 160mph for 20 minutes through suburban streets, and even then authorities and proponents…
i think i saw that post, i think we're both describing what happens when someone copies plates and doppelgangs people to throw off the surveillance. i think in this case the LPR was right, the same plate number was in two different places, the assumption of how many plates were involved needs review. 160mph for 20min through suburban streets, that kind of attracts attention, there would be a lot of complaints and wit…
Can I set up my own camera on the side of the road (in a public place) to scan people's faces and license plates, link them up to one of the many data brokers (or leaks) and use a big display to show the drivers' pictures and something like "Hey Rick Larsen, it's the 24th time we've seen you this week. We'll let our clients know there's no one home at 2930 Wetmore Avenue, Everett most weekdays between 8 and 4!", and…
Since when is Flock publicizing private information obtained through data leaks?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is very doable when what you're dealing with is a Major Crime That Gets Full Institutional and Individual Attention. What about a bike theft, a jacked car or a stolen parcel though? There is a price to having information easily available to the law enforcement. There is a price to not having this information easily available to the law enforcement too.
Doesn't matter, they should have to follow the same process. Cops, at least where I live, don't give af about any of those crimes though. Bike gets stolen? You'll be lucky if they even show up at all, let alone do anything about it, surveillance data available or not. They largely don't even get prosecuted when caught.
In my experience, the police will follow the leads if they have them. I had several bikes stolen by homeless so they hid them in some commercial property few blocks away. One bike had a tracker, which they found and disabled but they did it near where they ultimately hid the bikes. Using the last location from the tracker cops were able to find the bikes and return them. If there were cameras they might be able to also find the perps and put them to jail.
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.
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 ap…
Not true, the context I have seen it very much included being a witness who is not a person of interest to the police. It especially explicitly included that situation.
> 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.
That is egregious abuse of power. The layers I have in mind were not explicitly mentioning that high level of lawlessness from the police.