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

361–370 of 382 posts

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

#361

Post by aidenn0 »

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?

They are equally legal in the US (Schedule II). Label will usually say something like "Methamphetamine, generic for Desoxyn." It is, however, much harder to find a doctor that will give you a prescription as compared to other stimulants, and some pharmacies will refuse to fill it.

Believe it or not, marijuana (since 2018 only strains containing significant levels of delta-9 THC) is illegal in the US in almost all circumstances, but methamphetamine is legal with a prescription.

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

#362

Post by rcxdude »

picofarad wrote: post #347
rcxdude wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I dunno, I didn't make that claim, I'm just pointing out there seems to be two different conversations happening in different participant's heads.

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

#363

Post by Hikikomori »

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.

Yeah that is what I was getting at in my first reply. Amphetamine is a party drug, meth is what junkies on the street use. The guy I responded to said meth, which carries a lot more stigma, and together with all the other negatively charged statements he made is just abhorrent, basically calling her a junkie that deserved to die.

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

#364

Post by bingoMen »

Any man with that kind of power (would) do the same. Not just the police. The problem with patriarchy is that no one even considers the possibility that women and children might be harassed through technology. Because that perspective is missing. Google or Apple lenses, AI (Grok in particular), satellites, etc., etc., there’s no oversight or verification to ensure that this technology isn’t also being abused by men for personal desires, revenge, or whatever else. Maybe because it’s desired that there be no oversight.

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

#365

Post by tremon »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #319
watwut wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is first time I have seen the claim that firefighters have the same domestic violence rates as police. I have seen multiple studies on police vs regular citizens and police were more violent in all of them. I did not seen comparable numbers about firefighters. The factors police have and firemen dont are a.) victim not being able to go to police, cause those are his buddies b.) training teaches cops to take and…

Nobody said "the same". The question in my mind is what people are expecting? What do they think this proves? Policing is a conflict focused job that involves violence so I wouldnt expect it to be the same as baseline to begin with. I would caution against "just so" explainations. There are obviously lots of complex reasons and one can speculate a lot of stories one way or another.

> Policing is a conflict focused job that involves violence

Because of this, police officers should have plenty of experience (and training, but let's limit this to the US) with de-escalation and proportional response. The domestic violence rates should be lower among police wrt the general populace for that reason alone.

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

#366

Post by normalaccess »

xigoi wrote: post #281
normalaccess wrote: post #108

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." -- Cardinal Richelieu Privacy protects personal dignity, not just illicit behavior. We close bathroom doors, keep journals, and have intimate conversations not because we are breaking the law, but because we value personal modesty and boundaries. We are quickly approaching a time when we are al…

Nobody is installing surveillance cameras in you bathroom.

Nobody is installing surveillance cameras in you bathroom yet.

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

#367

Post by tptacek »

boring_twenties wrote: post #345
tptacek wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

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

#368

Post by [deleted] »

picofarad wrote: post #350
Manuel_D wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#369

Post by filup »

Manuel_D wrote: post #318
filup wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If the city hires enough police officers, yes. It'd almost certainly require an unfathomably large budget, but it's not impossible. If the precedent was set based on this idea. It will fall apart with further scrutiny. >I really don't understand how people got this idea in their head that their license plates are private information . How do red light cameras identify cars? How does parking enforcement work? By reco…

Why would it fall apart? The plain view doctrine holds that the police don't need a warrant to observe things in plain view. Like your car driving on the public roads. Privacy laws are generally about protecting what you do in private , not in public. In the US, anyone can film you in public, government or otherwise.

It hasn't been articulated in court. But what flock has essentially done is created a GPS system without satilites.

See Jones vs USA.

Sufficiently saturated ALPRs across the country give you the same capability of GPS. Without GPS.

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

#370

Post by filup »

Manuel_D wrote: post #334
filup wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy operating a car on public roads? 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.

Yes, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy while driving on public roads.

The expectation has been completely eroded by flock safety.

Post reply on HN