US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters' • Hacker News Board

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#41

Post by weberc2 » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 6:34 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #31

Karunamon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're going to disagree on that because the alternative is a breakdown in the rule of law. If you're going to block a major thoroughfare, you should expect police response (it's illegal for a good reason), and that response to escalate if you don't cooperate. You don't get an exception to law to harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon.

The United States was founded on the principle that yes, you can harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon. I think that even has been called the American revolution (With a little helping of the Civil War.) Not to mention that almost every form of social progress came at the cost of inconveniencing all those poor, poor people who want nothing to do with the struggle for ci…

1. This is a false dichotomy. Protesters can protest without shutting down infrastructure.

2. There is no conclusive evidence that anyone's "basic human and constitutional rights" are infringed upon.

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#42

Post by weberc2 » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 6:42 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #22

mason240 wrote: post #5

It seems reasonable at time when "protesting" means shutting down infrastructure.

If a protest doesn't inconvenience anyone, why would the powers that be pay attention to it? "Shut up, go home, you live in a democracy, so complain at the ballot box" isn't a civilized response to a protest issue. When it's used to justify tyranny of the majority, it is borderline fascism.

I'll take the "borderline fascism" of protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens over the actual anarchy of allowing protesters to infringe upon those rights with impunity. Democracy isn't perfect, but anarchy is worse. Further, would your tune change if the protesters were right-wing? Would you support their right to block critical infrastructure (not to mention the violence that characterizes so many of these "protests") in defense of what they perceive as their rights?

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#43

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 6:42 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #35

etherealmachine wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. > Why is it bad for a government to aggregate public data? In the past, this has been problematic. There are several examples of government agencies using their authority to suppress political dissent. The Stasi in Germany, the KGB, Hoover's FBI. True, they had private data as well, but the problem wasn't the source of the data - it was that they used it for political suppression. It's clear that the agenc…

While I can appreciate the slippery-slope argument against mass surveillance and bulk data collection, comparing municipal police with infamous clandestine federal investigative agencies borders on conspiracy theory. While I don't doubt that the police dislike like the criticism, it seems more likely that their strongest incentive is to keep the peace (specifically preventing the destruction, theft, assault, and murd…

[deleted]

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#44

Post by whybroke » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #35

etherealmachine wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. > Why is it bad for a government to aggregate public data? In the past, this has been problematic. There are several examples of government agencies using their authority to suppress political dissent. The Stasi in Germany, the KGB, Hoover's FBI. True, they had private data as well, but the problem wasn't the source of the data - it was that they used it for political suppression. It's clear that the agenc…

While I can appreciate the slippery-slope argument against mass surveillance and bulk data collection, comparing municipal police with infamous clandestine federal investigative agencies borders on conspiracy theory. While I don't doubt that the police dislike like the criticism, it seems more likely that their strongest incentive is to keep the peace (specifically preventing the destruction, theft, assault, and murd…

No doubt the vast majority of police departments have good intentions.

But when the group protesting police malfeasance is then monitored by those same police in order to keep what those police consider to be the peace over them. And then they must rely on those same police not to target individual participants after the protest for retaliation, then that monitoring is obviously a very serious problem if the protesters be correct.

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#45

Post by vkou » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #42

vkou wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a protest doesn't inconvenience anyone, why would the powers that be pay attention to it? "Shut up, go home, you live in a democracy, so complain at the ballot box" isn't a civilized response to a protest issue. When it's used to justify tyranny of the majority, it is borderline fascism.

I'll take the "borderline fascism" of protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens over the actual anarchy of allowing protesters to infringe upon those rights with impunity. Democracy isn't perfect, but anarchy is worse. Further, would your tune change if the protesters were right-wing? Would you support their right to block critical infrastructure (not to mention the violence that characterizes so many of these "p…

An abolitionist stealing a slave impedes on the rights of a law-abiding citizen to own another human being as chattel.

Is this really the hill you want to die on?

People turn to protest, violent, or otherwise, when other forms of petition have failed.

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#46

Post by Karunamon » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #38

Karunamon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So at what point does a cause become "serious" enough that you have special dispensation to ignore laws in its pursuit, and who decides that? What if I disagree? What if you disagree? What if a whole lot of people disagree? You're not going to like the result, because you've already excluded the rule of law from this equation.

> So at what point does a cause become "serious" enough that you have special dispensation to ignore laws in its pursuit, and who decides that? Historians do. The rule of law made slavery legal. The rule of law made apartheid legal. The rule of law made sending black people to the back of the bus legal. The rule of law made killing millions of Jews legal. The rule of law sent 15 million people to the Gulags. The rule…

Excellent job at evading the fairly direct question that was asked of you, and lumping it in with a bunch of irrelevant comparisons to slavery.

So, let's try this again.

What are your thoughts on those gentlemen in Oregon who took over an empty building on federal land?

What about the 2011 riots in Vancouver when their hockey team lost?

What about the Trump rally in California this year?

What about Ferguson a couple years back?

Your absolutist position would place all of these events under equal justification.

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#47

Post by moefogs » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 7:07 PM UTC

mason240 wrote: post #5

It seems reasonable at time when "protesting" means shutting down infrastructure.

Good news everybody. I found the one racist white guy on this site who doesn't give a single fuck about other people.

j/k: Paul Graham supports Peter Thiel's vendetta against women and minorities because Paul Graham is a GUTLESS COWARD who cares more about a cozy relationship with a billionaire than about any sort of morality.

WORSE: Paul Graham is a FUCKING LIAR who claims that it would be MCCARTHYISM just to clearly state that he and YC disagree with Thiel's bigotry. Yes. Paul Graham is such dog shit that he feels FREE to accuse people who are pro-equality of being McCarthists, but he is UNWILLING to assert that Peter Thiel is a bigot.

So good news... you found your people. This site is chock full of utterly worthless fat old rich white men who are fucking full of themselves and actively work to make the world far worse and evil... but have their heads so far up their asses that they pretend it's good instead.

What I'm saying is PAUL GRAHAM IS A FUCKING COWARD and PAUL GRAHAM is respected SOLELY because of his connections and money. HE IS A WORTHLESS FAT FUCK WITH A SHIT STARTUP WHO GOT LUCKY. HE IS GARBAGE.

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#48

Post by crazypyro » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 7:13 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #36

crazypyro wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society. How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors?

> There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society. What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics? > How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors? Why do you think police need justification to enf…

>What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics?

Original commenter specifically mentioned "at time..." which I took as an implication that there was something special about today's society.

>Why do you think police need justification to enforce the law without infringing on the rights of protesters?

Because you don't lose your rights when you protest, even if you break the law? The police don't have ultimate power to enforce the law. There are purposeful limits to the power of the police. That's the point of having certain rights enshrined into the legal system. Do you disagree?

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#49

Post by mwfunk » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 7:14 PM UTC

Based on this article at least, this doesn't sound like a big deal? It sounds like the service helped police discover when and where protests were happening. If bad cops used that information to illegally interfere with those protests (or the protesters themselves), that's obviously a bad thing, but that wasn't stated in the article.

I would expect good cops to also want that same information as part of doing their jobs. Protesting isn't illegal, but if a large group of people are legally gathering someplace to vent anger about something (anything really, it doesn't even have to be a political flashpoint), I would expect police would want to know about that too, for non-sinister reasons (like general awareness WRT potentially disruptive events happening in their city that day). To police who are just doing their (non-evil) jobs, protests are important to know about for the same reasons that it's important for them to know about any other potential sources of civic chaos that day (concerts, etc.).

It feels like the article presents the facts with an unstated assumption of "bad cops using intel for nefarious purposes", but if that's true, there wasn't any supporting evidence presented in the article.

Re: US startup Geofeedia 'allowed police to track protesters'

#50

Post by pavel_lishin » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 7:16 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #35

etherealmachine wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bite. > Why is it bad for a government to aggregate public data? In the past, this has been problematic. There are several examples of government agencies using their authority to suppress political dissent. The Stasi in Germany, the KGB, Hoover's FBI. True, they had private data as well, but the problem wasn't the source of the data - it was that they used it for political suppression. It's clear that the agenc…

While I can appreciate the slippery-slope argument against mass surveillance and bulk data collection, comparing municipal police with infamous clandestine federal investigative agencies borders on conspiracy theory. While I don't doubt that the police dislike like the criticism, it seems more likely that their strongest incentive is to keep the peace (specifically preventing the destruction, theft, assault, and murd…

> comparing municipal police with infamous clandestine federal investigative agencies borders on conspiracy theory

And yet: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/19/homan-square...

Hoover's FBI is infamous because its practices were exposed. As we begin to look more closely at police departments around the country, we begin to see that there are many that end up using terrible tactics, and the only significant difference is that they're limited to their city and county borders.