61–70 of 102 posts
Considering how well organized the attack seems to have been, I assume those behind it know a lot about airports/drones. I wonder if it could be a government researcher worried about a lack of funding/preparation for this kind of attack (similar to the FBI's conclusion regarding the anthrax attacks)? It doesn't seem like a protest, so unless it's economic terrorism or a state-backed attack, what else is it likely to…
I'm sure the two of them are enjoying having their faces plastered over the sunday news ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers ) and sorting through all the lovely messages they've received over the last day or so.
Whilst a free press is important, I would argue that 'a man and a woman have been held in connection with the Gatwick Airport drone incident' would suffice. Kudos to the BBC for recognising this. It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. Publishing their names and pictures before _even being charged_ does nothing but open potentially innocent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe, but that's not what I asked. Don't habeas corpus laws provide public access to a (perhaps private) legal review? When do laws require sharing results with the public, as the GP comment claimed? Can there be checks on authoritarian abuse that don't require public dissemination? Is the threat of publicity exactly the same thing as a requirement for publicity?
Imagine a country where the police arrest people and they vanish in the middle of the night, with no way to determine what their status is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. The press always say that naming people who've been arrested is an important measure against authoritarian regimes. It allows the public to know whether police powers of arrest are being misused or not. They appear to have lost this argument, because this is in tension with people's right to privacy…
There is a simple way to have both. Give people the right to anonymity and also give them personally the right to wave that right. This protects people both ways.
Not really. If the cops want to drag you off and detain you secretly for indefinite amount of time (what the law is trying to prevent), then all they have to do is charge you with some embarrassing crime like "sex with underage minor", to force you to waive that right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that publishing the names at all isn't particularly news-worthy. The right to privacy exists, too. In the justice system it's the judge which rules a sentence. Years – or even decades – of public shaming doesn't seem fair to me. Committing a crime doesn't mean you're no longer dealing with a person with real feelings. Publishing names and photos strikes me as "2 minutes of hate", and not "news". Also no…
Even just being in a crime reconstruction video as an actor is apparently risky. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-342183...
I will never seize to be amazed at the capacity of some people to not think for themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being accused is the same as 100% guilty, and being guilty is always reason for pubic shaming and unlimited amounts of vitriol. Good ol' British press logic. I wonder where they get their journalists from. Is there an education to be a heartless bastard with no sense of ethics? Or do they train them in-house?
The Times, The Telegraph, The Sun and Transport Secretary Chris Grayling have already labelled any culprits as 'eco-warriors' and that was even before these two were arrested and then released. https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/12/21/comment-why-it-s-too-soo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not in the public interest for us to know exactly who they are unless they're actually found guilty of a crime. The press always say that naming people who've been arrested is an important measure against authoritarian regimes. It allows the public to know whether police powers of arrest are being misused or not. They appear to have lost this argument, because this is in tension with people's right to privacy…
There is an obvious difference between protecting people by tracking their identities in captivity vs harming people by publicly shaming them by immediately parroting the authority'sallegations.
Your distinction still places the trust in the discretion of the police/press. If they don't disclose the name, then it's harder for character witnesses to come forward (e.g. the couple's neighbors in this case).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe me it’s not just the internet. Those people are just as vocal about it among friends and family. If you think the average British person is nice, you’ve probably just been lucky so far.
Please keep nationalistic or ethnic or whatever-this-is slurs off HN. We're trying for better than that here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt it. That would be like burning a zero-day exploit. I think the airports have been absolutely asleep at the wheel because OF COURSE this was a risk. OF COURSE I would have set up TDoA equipment and had a company with anti-drone tech on speed dial (at the very least) if I were responsible for an airport bigger than a hobbyist field. I bet you could get cover for Gatwick with TDoA equipment for less than $10k ea…
I see your point. However, if they were some kind of activists, we would have heard their manifesto by now. If they were simply trouble makers, I would have expected them to get bored (and maybe scared) a lot sooner. The list of reasonable candidates is a bit short. I wouldn't put it past the Russians (for example, I don't mean to point fingers) to cause trouble just for the sake of causing trouble. Also, even if thi…