4 ms·

Reported by something that has <90% accuracy? Less than 99%? It matters...

by mentat 11y ago

manyxcxi 11y ago
What if it was only 51% accurate? It's still more likely than not that the address is correct. Assuming the police respond in a way that doesn't result in injury (financial, property, or person) I think it's reasonable for them to check it out. Go get the warrant and see if the person or phone are in there. No warrant? Piss off. In this particular case, why can't the local PD/Sherrif/agency see the damn pattern, record the note, and proceed with meaningful caution? That's what would annoy me the most.
nanofortnight 11y ago
'Probable cause' doesn't require 99% accuracy. It's a legal term with a well-defined definition. 'Probable cause' is slightly higher that 'reasonable suspicion' but much lower than 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Essentially, it boils down to: Would a 'reasonable man' (another technical term) suspect that something is the case? If yes, one has reasonable suspicion.
- mentat 11y ago
  Reasonability breaks when the implementation requires technical knowledge to assess and has specific undisclosed issues in cases that matter.
  - true_religion 11y ago
    The law isn't written to allow for a perfect implementation to exist. It's there so on average, most people will agree that the police did the right thing. If most people have no knowledge of the implementation details of technology, they'll happily allow said searches to continue. On the whole, many laws are like this. They are made so we can all live together and nothing more.
pjc50 11y ago
"Reported by entirely fallible human beings" is usually enough.
Houshalter 11y ago
I would guess that the find my phone apps have greater than 99% accuracy. Just not 100%. I'm disturbed by how anti-police HN is. Like even searching for a missing person is now some great abuse of power.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  > I'm disturbed by how anti-police HN is. Like even searching for a missing person is now some great abuse of power. Because police, be it in the US or anywhere else, has time and again proven that they are not to be trusted and any power the legislation grants them can and will be exploited or illegaly expanded. Add to this that police (and most legislators, as well as most judges) don't have a fucking clue how computers work on a technical level, or at least not enough to be viewed as "reasonable".
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    That's fine, and has absolutely nothing to do with this case. The police were just doing their job searching for a missing girl and had strong evidence that her phone was in the house. And people here are outraged. It's absurd. The point of the fourth amendment is to stop excessive or abusive searches, not all searches ever. Second I think some of the police hate is just availability bias. If you read nothing but articles on the Internet about police somewhere doing something bad, of course you will think they are all terrible. Like people that watch the news and think air travel is more dangerous than driving.
    - mschuster91 11y ago
      > The point of the fourth amendment is to stop excessive or abusive searches, not all searches ever. "Stop and frisk" and "asset forfeiture" means anything to you? And it's not just the US where police commonly fabricates evidence, in particular when it comes to drug or gun "offenses".
      - Houshalter 11y ago

Reported by something that has <90% accuracy? Less than 99%? It matters...

by mentat 11y ago

Reported by something that has <90% accuracy? Less than 99%? It matters...

What if it was only 51% accurate? It's still more likely than not that the address is correct. Assuming the police respond in a way that doesn't result in injury (financial, property, or person) I think it's reasonable for them to check it out. Go get the warrant and see if the person or phone are in there. No warrant? Piss off. In this particular case, why can't the local PD/Sherrif/agency see the damn pattern, record the note, and proceed with meaningful caution? That's what would annoy me the most.

nanofortnight 11y ago

'Probable cause' doesn't require 99% accuracy. It's a legal term with a well-defined definition. 'Probable cause' is slightly higher that 'reasonable suspicion' but much lower than 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Essentially, it boils down to: Would a 'reasonable man' (another technical term) suspect that something is the case? If yes, one has reasonable suspicion.

mentat 11y ago
Reasonability breaks when the implementation requires technical knowledge to assess and has specific undisclosed issues in cases that matter.
- true_religion 11y ago
  The law isn't written to allow for a perfect implementation to exist. It's there so on average, most people will agree that the police did the right thing. If most people have no knowledge of the implementation details of technology, they'll happily allow said searches to continue. On the whole, many laws are like this. They are made so we can all live together and nothing more.

pjc50 11y ago

"Reported by entirely fallible human beings" is usually enough.

Houshalter 11y ago

I would guess that the find my phone apps have greater than 99% accuracy. Just not 100%. I'm disturbed by how anti-police HN is. Like even searching for a missing person is now some great abuse of power.

mschuster91 11y ago
> I'm disturbed by how anti-police HN is. Like even searching for a missing person is now some great abuse of power. Because police, be it in the US or anywhere else, has time and again proven that they are not to be trusted and any power the legislation grants them can and will be exploited or illegaly expanded. Add to this that police (and most legislators, as well as most judges) don't have a fucking clue how computers work on a technical level, or at least not enough to be viewed as "reasonable".
- Houshalter 11y ago
  That's fine, and has absolutely nothing to do with this case. The police were just doing their job searching for a missing girl and had strong evidence that her phone was in the house. And people here are outraged. It's absurd. The point of the fourth amendment is to stop excessive or abusive searches, not all searches ever. Second I think some of the police hate is just availability bias. If you read nothing but articles on the Internet about police somewhere doing something bad, of course you will think they are all terrible. Like people that watch the news and think air travel is more dangerous than driving.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    > The point of the fourth amendment is to stop excessive or abusive searches, not all searches ever. "Stop and frisk" and "asset forfeiture" means anything to you? And it's not just the US where police commonly fabricates evidence, in particular when it comes to drug or gun "offenses".
    - Houshalter 11y ago