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

351–360 of 382 posts

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

#351

Post by picofarad »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #107
Avshalom wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what that says though. >technology and professional analysts with helping detectives make arrests in 53% "technology and analysts" "help" "make arrests" not surveillance, not convictions and only the implication that they wouldn't have made the arrest otherwise. Like look at the example: somebody calls in an OD and a guy sees that the dude ODing matches (the clothing of) a suspect in some other crime and s…

Even better, they saw a guy who was nearby the dude ODing.

Is that considered exigent or like well we just noticed it anyway because I know that there's case law that says like if the cops barged into your house and you have drugs on the table they can arrest you even if they didn't have a warrant to enter your house.

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

#352

Post by picofarad »

xigoi wrote: post #277
conception wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if the police had the names and faces of every marcher in every protest. They too would be (are) 100% sold on the results.

Why would you go to a protest if you don’t want people to know that you are there?

I don't understand the question, and I'm not who you asked, but I think that those are two completely different things. It is our right to protest, and it says nothing about having to give up our anonymity to do so.

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

#353

Post by picofarad »

hansvm wrote: post #307
rolph wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's also very likely not physically possible for that car, and unless they're referring to straight-line stroads, many suburban routes can't sustain an average of 160mph with any current car.

I have driven that fast twice, and, yeah, you're right. There's no way, the roads in the United States, and I'm sure wherever that is, are not good enough to go 160 for any length of time. I'm hard-pressed to think of a road I could do a quarter-mile or half-mile on!

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

#354

Post by asveikau »

Manuel_D wrote: post #183
asveikau wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if what if what if? That whole premise of "what if lots of crime happens" -- already false. Did you know that most places in America are at historically low crime rates in most of our lifetimes? It is garbage to say this needs deep societal focus right now. I don't give a shit about the hypothetical hurt feelings of small town cops whining that they don't have always-on spy equipment.

Historically low American crime rates are still several times higher than most of the developed world.

Look how much you've moved the goalposts.

First Seattle.

Then it's: what about small towns?

Now we suddenly have an additional requirement of matching stats from a different country.

Narrower and narrower the scope gets, before you admit that you're thinking about this the wrong way.

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

#355

Post by wil421 »

picofarad wrote: post #352
xigoi wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you go to a protest if you don’t want people to know that you are there?

I don't understand the question, and I'm not who you asked, but I think that those are two completely different things. It is our right to protest, and it says nothing about having to give up our anonymity to do so.

You’re sadly mistaken. Anything you do in public is public.

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

#356

Post by wil421 »

superultra wrote: post #131
wil421 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Prior to flock, my city trialed LPRs attached to the local power company’s poles. In the first month, they recovered more stolen cars than any prior years total recoveries. I’ve got mixed feelings about Flock, LPRs, and what it allows people and governments to do. I’m 100% sold on the results.

So, ends justifies the means. Got it. I guess I’m old enough to remember when 99.9% of us on hacker news were…well, hackers. We valued privacy and freedom over surveillance and “results.” I miss those days.

This is a SV startup forum more than a hacker forum.

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

#357

Post by wahnfrieden »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #339
wahnfrieden wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is just one HNer's random comment

Well yeah, that is the evidence one random thinks is compelling. 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

Have you tried to find systemic patterns of wrongdoings?

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

#358

Post by s1artibartfast »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #357
s1artibartfast wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah, that is the evidence one random thinks is compelling. 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

Have you tried to find systemic patterns of wrongdoings?

I dont think systemic patterns are sufficient to prove universal truths? Yes, some cops beat their wives, some abuse their power, some murder people.

None of that by itself means I should judge a given cop, let all of them, or not talk to them.

Replace "cop" with "black" or "white" and you see how absurd this binary thinking is.

The actual world operates on scales of grey.

There are a million cops in the USA. Some are good and some are bad. Dont talk to cops if you are holding drugs. Do talk to cops if someone is breaking into your house or sexually abusing your child.

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

#359

Post by SR2Z »

picofarad wrote: post #342
trehalose wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean, yeah. Their point is that the substances are extremely chemically similar to the point where they can be treated as different intensities of the same drug.

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

#360

Post by picofarad »

jimt1234 wrote: post #52
connort459 wrote: post #45

The fact police can go in and just look at camera footage without warrant proves your point precisely, officers have used it to stalk family members, etc.

This type of thing is definitely real. A friend of mine went on a date with an NYPD cop back in the 90s. She refused a second date, and the stalking began. It wasn't 'tech stalking', like today, but the cop started asking interrogating questions to her landlord and co-workers; she started getting weird/false parking tickets, etc. The only way she made it stop was that her cousin was a veteran with NYPD, and well, he…

Imagine what would happen if the NYC attorney actually prosecuted cops that stalked.
Post reply on HN