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

371–380 of 382 posts

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

#371

Post by ultrarunner »

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

Well, I mean, Phoenix PD was under federal investigation for years. Maricopa was found to be violating civil rights for years, Sheriff Arpaio was famous on HN for years for using police against his political adversaries. And on and on and on. I realize that when I don't write an essay there will be latitude for interpretation (which I generally find interesting), but there will always be one HN commenter who takes a pejorative reductionist approach despite the site guidelines.

So no, obviously, woman goes on date with a cop and ends up dead isn't evidence of all cops being of a particular demeanor, any more than a police chief misusing a camera is evidence of cameras being bad for freedom. But Flock cameras are bad for freedom, having a huge potential for misuse. And cops have a huge propensity for domestic violence and dangerous behavior towards their partners. Ample evidence exists if you care to look.

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

#372

Post by hollerith »

tremon wrote: post #365
s1artibartfast wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True, and also DV rates should be higher for the type of person who chooses a job where one of the requirements is to run towards danger.

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

#373

Post by handoflixue »

picofarad wrote: post #349
handoflixue wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Gotta start somewhere, right? And then, if things go to court, those audit records can also be used so the judicial department can police them. Forcing people to leave a paper trail has a lot of uses

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

#374

Post by s1artibartfast »

tremon wrote: post #365
s1artibartfast wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Police arent just trained to de-escalate. They are also trained to kill humans. This too has an influence who becomes a cop. You cant just cherry pick the factors you think would lead to lower DV and ignore the others.

do you mean they should be lower as a normative claim or postive claim? It is clearly flase as a positive claim, if the police domestic violence studies done in the 90's are still accurate.

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

#375

Post by tremon »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #374
tremon wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Police arent just trained to de-escalate. They are also trained to kill humans. This too has an influence who becomes a cop. You cant just cherry pick the factors you think would lead to lower DV and ignore the others. do you mean they should be lower as a normative claim or postive claim? It is clearly flase as a positive claim, if the police domestic violence studies done in the 90's are still accurate.

> They are also trained to kill humans

Police are not soldiers nor executioners. Where does this fantasy come from that they are somehow "trained to kill"? Copaganda shows, I guess?

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

#376

Post by mingus88 »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #119
mingus88 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s really beside the point. It doesn’t matter what the 9th circuit or any other court says. Our country is no longer a country of laws. Laws are only as good as they are enforced. The SCOTUS, the DOJ, the FBI, and congress have openly abdicated any constitutional responsibility to provide checks and balances to reign in the abuses we see posted to HN every day.

I believe they would all argue that they haven't. They would argue that the current administration is operating within the law towards ends supported, repeatedly, by their constituents. I disagree with them, but that isn't relevant.

When scotus rules that the president can break any law he sees fit, that argument is circular.

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

#377

Post by ultrarunner »

kakacik wrote: post #228
ultrarunner wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle There are still quite a few people who think the police are the friendly government-provided customer service agents of life, although I've watched this viewpoint decline markedly over the last twenty years at least. Locally, a woman went on a hiking date with a Phoenix cop and wound up dead [0]. Notably, the woman was from New Eng…

A female high on meth gets disoriented and dies from heat exposure in the mountains. As per article she willingly separated from the guy whom she sent to the top of the peak "to continue to get pic for social media". He probably should have know better and just go down with her and call it a day, or not getting high on meth in dangerous environment in the first place but thats about it. Unless you have a better artic…

She had low levels of amphetamines in her blood, consistent with her Adderall prescription. The only one bringing up meth is you. The guy was on the Brady list and the department never investigated his involvement.

Regardless, the point is that cops are very rarely models of good decision making or representatives of safety anymore. They shouldn't have access to blanket surveillance.

[0] https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/valley/autopsy-rel...

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

#378

Post by FireBeyond »

picofarad wrote: post #353
hansvm wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Right? I’ve driven at 120mph a couple of times on a road that where it was legal and well maintained in a car that could do so easily enough (a new Audi RS 5), even then that was work.

On a suburban street, even arterial, no chance.

And even then, even my car is electronically limited at 155 unless you’re at a track because if nothing else, that’s the highest street tire rating!

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

#379

Post by Manuel_D »

asveikau wrote: post #354
Manuel_D wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When did I ever mention small towns?

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

#380

Post by Manuel_D »

filup wrote: post #370
Manuel_D wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy whole driving on public roads. This was the case even before Flock. ALPRs were invented in the 70s and started getting widely deployed in the 90s. It's remarkable how many people don't realize this technology decades old.
Post reply on HN