331–340 of 382 posts
Misogyny in government is a bellwether for authoritarianism. If a man doesn't respect women, you can bet they won't respect men or minorities either, although they may be less inclined to admit such in public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All flock cameras are privately owned, by flock. They install them at a charge per the jurisdiction that orders them and pays the subscription costs… those subscription fees allow Mr Local Law Abuser to lookup any license plate it has read, when, where, with a picture of the vehicle. https://deflock.org You’d be surprised how many there are.
The point is, some of flock's customers are private businesses. E.g. the Home Depot by me uses them. No amount of pressure by voters can take those cameras down.
Misogyny in government is a bellwether for authoritarianism. If a man doesn't respect women, you can bet they won't respect men or minorities either, although they may be less inclined to admit such in public.
Would love to see the same attitude extended to everyone, e.g. “respect all people”, but I guess if we don’t put the pussy on a pedestal we’re all authoritarians. If you keep pushing that narrative, you will be disappointed in what happens.
The sexist undertones of your response aside, you seem to have very poor reading comprehension.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
People generally don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. That's why you can record and photograph people in public whether or not they agree to be recorded. It's the same logic that makes red light cameras and parking license plate scanners legal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the government is allowed to track people's license plates. There's nothing against the law for a police officer to stand at an intersection writing down all passing car's license plates with a pen and paper. Flock is the same thing, just much more cost efficient.
This is not that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you need video evidence for prosecution, those who want it prosecuted will produce video cameras. If you make warrants impossible to produce in a timely manner, the camera search will be warrant exempted. That's the legislator's fallacy. "Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do this." Suppose you address the problem in other ways, e.g. improve the economy and reduce poverty so there is le…
> Suppose you address the problem in other ways, e.g. improve the economy and reduce poverty so there is less crime The idea that reducing poverty will entirely eliminate crime is laughable.
If you disagree with what they said, address it directly instead of addressing an exaggeration of what they said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that most people believe it's not good advice doesn't mean it actually is not good advice.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
No, it is just one HNer's random comment
It gives insight into how some people think, and like I said I feel third-party embarrassment for them.
A cop could literally be a Jeffrey Dahmer copycat, and it wouldnt be generalizable.
In this specific case there is zero evidence of criminal wrongdoing
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…
No, it doesn't, that's absurd. Does wearing a seatbelt assume that you're going to crash every single time you drive?