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

321–330 of 382 posts

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

#321

Post by Hikikomori »

watwut wrote: post #310
Hikikomori wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 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…

>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.

Even without context, its good advice. By talking to them you might even be confessing to some crime that you didn't even know exist.

>That is egregious abuse of power. The layers I have in mind were not explicitly mentioning that high level of lawlessness from the police.

That's the entire point. This idealized version of the police you seem to have, maybe some European countries come close it due to their requirements on officers and training, is not reality. Departments allow officers that act like this to resign so they can move to a different department.

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

#322

Post by joquarky »

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…

> but then again I also don't live in the US

You could have said that up front and we would immediately know to skip the rest, as the advice is founded on the behavior of police in the US.

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

#324

Post by joquarky »

xigoi wrote: post #273
M95D wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't talk to the police - advice given to university students by a lawyer and then by a cop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE If this isn't trustworthy, I don't know what is.

If all cops are evil, why would you take advice from a cop?

Because reality doesn't work like board game rules.

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

#325

Post by filup »

Manuel_D wrote: post #296
filup wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you referring to the IJ case? https://ij.org/case/norfolk-virginia-camera-surveillance/

I'm referring to the case I linked.

Clearly a different situation considering the guy was in a rental vehical with GPS.

Of course their is no reasonable expectation of privacy here. It's not his car lol. The LEARN db query was auxillary to the precedent here.

I can't see the jump your making at all or how this precedent holds any would hold water in the case of a innocent party. Its probably just a matter of time until the perfect case is presented and new case law established. Precedents change you know?

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

#326

Post by shaftway »

FireBeyond wrote: post #161
gattr wrote: post #38

Remember that scene from "Men in Black" where K watches surveillance video feed of his ex? In the movie it was meant to be wistful and cute, I guess. Now that such systems are getting closer to reality, you realize the potential for abuse in enormous.

I mean at least in that situation, K was forbidden from ever making contact with his ex, with far greater consequences.

You mean the ex that he actually did make contact with?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czp6cXAsHj8

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

#327

Post by joquarky »

tptacek wrote: post #186
duld wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, you're stating that "Don't talk to the police" is an "extremely online belief"? Or were you referencing the dating portion of the comment?

Correct: "never talk to the police" is a very online belief. I watch people talk to police all the time . People go out of their way to do it. I don't even know what to do with the "never date police officers" thing. Most police officers are married. It's a shift-work job, so they have high divorce rates, but they just remarry.

This site attracts ivory tower residents. Your comment is a great example of this.

Try growing up poor and see how your perspective changes on the police.

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

#328

Post by Retric »

tptacek wrote: post #303
Retric wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The biggest complaint working class families on the west side of Chicago have about the police is that they're never around when they're needed.

Which is significantly less of a concern in wealthy areas. When fines are meaningless and police plentiful people’s attitude changes.

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

#329

Post by stickfigure »

chmod775 wrote: post #315
stickfigure wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if lots of murders happened in bathrooms? Then we would start putting cameras in bathrooms? Or start closing public bathrooms? Nobody wants to go into a bathroom and get murdered. We as a society are not going to just accept a high bathroom murder rate. Culture will adapt to reality, one way or another.

You know what... go ahead and build your panopticon somewhere. The rest of us are going to have an actual society somewhere else, the way it has worked for thousands of years. If you're so scared of your own shadow you'd tie a noose around your own neck and hand the other end to those in power in exchange for an illusion of safety, I won't stand in your way. Build that cage around yourself and hope the jailer will be…

You asked a 'what if' question, I gave you a reasonable answer. What solution would you propose for a hypothetical high bathroom murder rate?

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

#330

Post by nkrisc »

rose-knuckle17 wrote: post #113
nkrisc wrote: post #96

> He characterizes the behavior as rare. He simultaneously identifies it as the most common form of abuse. The tension between those two statements is the problem Flock has left unaddressed. I don’t see how there’s any tension between these statements. The overall occurrence of abuse can be rare while the most common form of the abuse that does occur is of officers tracking people they know.

The tension is that the abuse is far more likely than any value these cameras bring. And what is commonly rare in a country of 342 million? Prairie Grove, Illinois has 1930 people and he did this to at least 3 people according to the report. .15% of the population. If you extrapolate that out to the national population, its roughly 520k people. Or, the entire population of Sacramento, Ca, being victimized by law enfo…

I agree but I don’t think that was the point, or I’ve misunderstood the statement about the tension between those other two statements.
Post reply on HN