Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Find SF parking cops

walzr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 498 posts

Re: Find SF parking cops

#401

Post by W0lfEagle »

jkubicek wrote: post #355
Spivak wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brother in law is a firefighter, gleefully is exactly the correct term here. According to him getting to bust windows to run the hose is literally their favorite thing to do. To the point where even if they don't actually need to, or it would be slower, they'll still do it. It's apparently a matter of principle.

If my bike were capable of messing up a car I 100% would ram every jerk parked in a bike lane. So I can see where your BIL is coming from.

Oh if you haven't seen it you're gonna love this.

https://youtu.be/bzE-IMaegzQ?feature=shared

Re: Find SF parking cops

#402

Post by truncate »

hopelite wrote: post #372
truncate wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fines are big source of revenue for MTA. Citation would be $110 something, and if it gets towed its additional $700 for first X hours and then more later.

The OP example ticket in his info is for something like $480

There is citation fine + tow fee + administrative fee + storage fee.

https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/drive-park/towed-vehicl...

Re: Find SF parking cops

#403

Post by e_y_ »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #395
varenc wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There should be no expectation of privacy for any public officer It's worth noting that SF Parking Control Officers aren't "police" by most any definition. They're not sworn, and they don't qualify as peace officers under California law. They can't execute warrants, make arrests, or carry firearms, etc. They work under the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), not the SFPD. Their enforcement powers…

> tracking USPS employees ... that actually also sounds useful i don't see why they shouldnt be tracked while working

If we're talking about public tracking: package theft

Re: Find SF parking cops

#404

Post by consp »

nielsole wrote: post #346
xvedejas wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In college we discovered everyone's ID number was evenly divisible by 13. Presumably it's because that's the smallest number you'd need so that you could detect any one digit being incorrect, or two adjacent digits being swapped (I think?). Or that it's just very easy to implement the increment when assigning new numbers.

Isn't 11 the smallest divisor that gives those guarantees?

It's what quite a few banks used to use as a check digit, maybe that where you remember it from. But it depends on the size of the number you want to verify and exactly what system is employed. Lots of banks used 9 or 10 digit numbers which worked with a "11 check". Nine was also often used on smaller numbers.

You can use any prime afaik for this example but your number space will be limited.

Re: Find SF parking cops

#405

Post by abduhl »

Wurdan wrote: post #399
itake wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are operating in public. They shouldn't have expectations of privacy. Are you against ICE agent tracking apps as well?

If you don't think this tool poses any risk to these people let's try walk through a scenario. Let's say someone sees a parking warden they find physically attractive. They follow them for a bit and when they write up their next ticket, the stalker pulls up this app to get the officer's ID. The next day they pull up the app to see where the warden is working that day - they drive over there, and it takes them maybe h…

This is a wild hypothetical that tries to blame a tool for the problem of a user. Won’t anyone think of the children?

Let’s modify your post to highlight the absurdity:

Let's say someone sees a parking warden they find physically attractive. They follow them for a bit in their car and when they write up their last ticket, the stalker gets in their car and follows the officer back to the station and then to their home. The next day they pull up to the warden’s house and follow them to see where the warden is working that day - they drive over there. They strike up a creepy conversation and the parking warden eventually leaves, disturbed. The next day, the parking warden is working a night shift - they've been told to patrol a dark neighborhood where there are plenty of alleyways that nobody can see into...

See where I'm going with this?

Anything which allows someone to follow a person in a vehicle who they've just come across on the street is inherently a danger to the surveilled person.

Re: Find SF parking cops

#406

Post by Epa095 »

hopelite wrote: post #363
crazygringo wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between being in public and being tracked. Of course they don't have expectations of privacy in terms of people being able to e.g. take photos or videos of them. The same way people can take photos of you or me. But broadcasting someone's real-time location to the whole world all day long, in real time, is something else entirely. That has never been considered part of being in public. That's tar…

How do you think these public officials with massive paychecks and life long massive pensions operate; they drive around in the most noticeable little vehicles that you can spot from a mile away. If you needed to track them for some reason you would just follow them, and most likely people in the neighborhood probably already know their routes anyways. It seems you are fixated on something you just can’t let go, as i…

Massive paycheck? Feel free to apply yourself https://careers.sf.gov/classifications/?classCode=8214

I dont know how far 70-100k goes in SF, but accoriding to https://www.livingwage-sf.org/living-wage-calculator/ it is barely enough for a single adult, but you better not have a child!

Re: Find SF parking cops

#407

Post by andruby »

consp wrote: post #404
nielsole wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't 11 the smallest divisor that gives those guarantees?

It's what quite a few banks used to use as a check digit, maybe that where you remember it from. But it depends on the size of the number you want to verify and exactly what system is employed. Lots of banks used 9 or 10 digit numbers which worked with a "11 check". Nine was also often used on smaller numbers. You can use any prime afaik for this example but your number space will be limited.

For 2 digit checks it's often mod 97 (largest prime Used in IBAN bank account numbers, EU VAT numbers (UK, FR, BE), etc

Re: Find SF parking cops

#408

Post by Wurdan »

abduhl wrote: post #405
Wurdan wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't think this tool poses any risk to these people let's try walk through a scenario. Let's say someone sees a parking warden they find physically attractive. They follow them for a bit and when they write up their next ticket, the stalker pulls up this app to get the officer's ID. The next day they pull up the app to see where the warden is working that day - they drive over there, and it takes them maybe h…

This is a wild hypothetical that tries to blame a tool for the problem of a user. Won’t anyone think of the children? Let’s modify your post to highlight the absurdity: Let's say someone sees a parking warden they find physically attractive. They follow them for a bit in their car and when they write up their last ticket, the stalker gets in their car and follows the officer back to the station and then to their home…

There's a gigantic difference in the ability of the surveilled person to protect themselves in the scenario you sketch versus the one that I sketch. In your scenario the surveilled person has a chance of noticing the fact that somebody is physically following them. And when they have eyes on the stalker, they can call the police to come and address the situation when they predict the stalker might escalate.

In the scenario that I sketch, the stalker runs zero risk while obtaining the information. Hell, they don't even have to log in to this tool, so there's zero record of who accessed location information for which parking warden.

And yes, it is absolutely incumbent upon the creators of tools to take into account how they might be misused. To pretend that all humans are of right mind and incapable of doing harm and only design for the case of ethical use is laughably naive.

Re: Find SF parking cops

#409

Post by eru »

notatoad wrote: post #342
RS-232 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. There should be no expectation of privacy for any public officer. Things like this website, body cameras, and FOIA requests are all for the public good. Expose corruption and keep everyone safer with a little accountability.

there is no public good afforded by violating parking restrictions. the public good comes from enforcing them, so that parking spaces turn over quickly and remain as available as possible. circumvention of the rules for a priveleged few (like those who know how to surveil the enforcement officers) is actual corruption. this service doesn't expose corruption, it enables it.

I have some sympathies for your argument, but I suspect you are trying to prove too much: your argument could more or less justify an infinitely large fee for parking violations (or even imprisonment). Most people seem happier with small, finite amounts for these things?

As a second point, I don't think parking and public goods have anything in common. Parking is _not_ a public good, and shouldn't be treated as such. Parking spaces are rivalrous and excludable. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good for the background.) They should be provided by the private market just as any other good and service, instead of being heavily regulated and partially being provided free-to-the-user at the cost of tax payers and business owners.

Post reply on HN