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

341–350 of 382 posts

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

#341

Post by xboxnolifes »

xigoi wrote: post #272
ceejayoz wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I also don't live in the US “Don’t talk to the cops” is not global advice. In some countries it harms your defense in court. In others it gets you beaten. Most times you hear it it’s an American talking to Americans.

> “Don’t talk to the cops” is not global advice. I’ve seen the advice several times on HN (a global site) and it never claimed to be USA-only.

And when people say "the government" on HN they arent usually talking about every government or even a world government. Frequently, its a specific government. The US one.

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

#342

Post by picofarad »

trehalose wrote: post #301
Hikikomori wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meth and amphetamine also have very different connotations.

Connotations are by far the biggest difference between these two substances.

One is routinely prescribed and the other is illegal, so yeah, I guess that's connotation, right?

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

#343

Post by boring_twenties »

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?

No one said or implied that "all" cops are evil, or anything remotely close to that.

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

#344

Post by tptacek »

Retric wrote: post #328
tptacek wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not talking about wealthy areas. I'm talking about working class areas, where residents complain (loudly and often) that there aren't enough police. There's a common online meme --- you didn't say it but you can feel it in the air on this thread --- that working class people see themselves in solidarity with people who commit property crime. That idea is really quite offensive, in addition to being dead wrong: in fact, the logic you're using here is much more potent with respect to crime, because working class people can't absorb e.g. the loss of their car with the ease that you and I can.

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

#345

Post by boring_twenties »

tptacek wrote: post #313
watwut wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using "terminally online" for "the advice layers consistently give both online and offline but people don't follow" is, imo, using that term incorrectly. "Terminally online" is derogatory term which involves you doing or thinking something insane. If literal layers give that advice in their literal offices and wherever they go around, it is simply "rarely followed advice". And I will also claim that layers have way l…

Category error. Points can be valid and salient mostly online at the same time. Though: the validity of "nobody should ever talk to the police" is highly disputable. It assumes the only objective anybody would have in a police encounter is not being prosecuted. Prosecution is unlikely, and there are other important objectives.

No, that's not what it assumes at all. For example, another objective would be avoiding the situation described in the article the rest of us are commenting on.

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

#346

Post by Retric »

tptacek wrote: post #344
Retric wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not talking about wealthy areas. I'm talking about working class areas, where residents complain (loudly and often) that there aren't enough police. There's a common online meme --- you didn't say it but you can feel it in the air on this thread --- that working class people see themselves in solidarity with people who commit property crime. That idea is really quite offensive, in addition to being dead wrong: in…

Complaining about not enough police is still people being unhappy with the police force. I’ve heard people complaining about them eating donuts in such environments, you don’t hear that as much in rich areas because they have plenty of police and you see them everywhere. I remember talking with a friend about how many cops there where and then at the next 4 way intersection and seeing a cop car going in every direction.

Thus the line from poor < working < middle < upper classes with satisfaction generally increasing with wealth.

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

#347

Post by picofarad »

rcxdude wrote: post #236
Teever wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely there's more interesting conversation to be had here than just "your opinions about interacting with law enforcement are moot because I know people in my Chicago neighbourhood who disagree with them."

The main contention seems to be 'surely everyone knows you shouldn't talk to the police' and 'no, quite a lot of people believe the opposite, but it's not as common to see that belief online', with a bit of this being conflated with whether this belief is accurate or not.

What's your source for the "no, quite a lot of people believe the opposite."? Is it a Chicago suburb?

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

#348

Post by picofarad »

alexpotato wrote: post #141

Scott Adams' had a great line: "Whenever people have the opportunity to commit fraud and there is no monitoring, you can assume they are committing fraud."

Adam Carolla says that people aren't evil, but if you wave some money in front of them, they'll do things they wouldn't normally

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

#349

Post by picofarad »

handoflixue wrote: post #271
calgoo wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will just find some other creepy friend that will sign off without looking, in exchange for them getting the same treatment. It needs to go to a different system, with different priorities, but even then we know of corrupt judges rubber stamping warrants. Why dont we have a AI verify that each search is tied to a real case, and if its not block their access and they now have to go before a judge to explain why t…

You could easily just do both - peer review gives you immediate access, then a supervisor audits it on a slightly slower time scale. Make anyone who signed off on access an accomplice to the crime so that peers and supervisors have an incentive not to rubber-stamp everything

So you want the police to police the police is what you're saying?

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

#350

Post by picofarad »

Manuel_D wrote: post #163
Ancapistani wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The city's scope is smaller than Flock's - it's a city, not a multi-national corporation. Yes, I'm aware of what "expectation of privacy" means. I've been a photographer for ~25 years. > People seem to struggle to wrap their head around the fact that privacy laws don't prevent people from recording them in public. You can be recorded at any time in public, by the government or another private person. This isn't about…

And how are they building that dataset? By recording in public. Yes it is about recording in public.

Oh, well that settles it then. There's no point in arguing about it. It's okay to record in public, right? So it's fine. We should all be fine with Flock. What they're doing is perfectly fine and okay. Because it's okay to record in public.
Post reply on HN