36 ms·
I don't see what's so bad about wanting to avoid an area where there's police activity going on. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're doing anything
by neither_color 1y ago
I don't see what's so bad about wanting to avoid an area where there's police activity going on. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're doing anything wrong, it's as simple as not wanting to get hassled at a DUI checkpoint or get stuck in traffic because they need 8 squad cars taking up a lane to k-9 search someone. As a more tan law-abiding US citizen, the possibility of some agent asking me for papers and then asking probing questions to "prove myself" anywhere that's not an airport is enough for me to want a heads up not to be in area where that might happen.
- hartator 1y ago> anywhere that's not an airport Why are we accepting this even at airport? Locking the doors of the cockpit made another 9/11 close to impossible.
- wvenable 1y agoMurdering all the passengers made another 9/11 impossible -- nobody is going to sit quietly while their plane is hijacked anymore.
- hayst4ck 1y agoHistory is filled with people who dug their own graves while a person with a gun pointed at them told them to do it. It takes an exceptional person to act before their fate is sealed and the majority of passengers, if not all of them, will be in a state of denial or shock at the situation they are in preventing them from action. Others who might want to act, but not having been in the situation before, will think about what to do or when the right moment to act is, and the right moment will never come, especially if the hijackers can guarantee the first person who acts dies.
- mh- 1y agoAs a frequent flyer who has thought about this scenario a bit, I agree with this. And I actually think that as long as the FAs kept making their inane announcements about credit cards and so forth, most pax wouldn't even notice a takeover at the front of the plane.
- wvenable 1y agoPrior to 9/11, hijackings occurred with mild frequency and the official policy was appeasement: get the plane safely landed and then negotiate with the hijackers. In any ways, 9/11 was possible due to exploiting that particular policy. Since 9/11 there have been attempts to disrupt planes and no shortage of people willing to tackle the person responsible.
- crote 1y agoYou do what the person with the gun says, because you believe they'll shoot if you don't. If you believe that they will shoot and kill you regardless, following their orders is (at best) going to give you a few more agonizing minutes to live. The threat becomes meaningless. Don't try to overpower the hijackers? You die. Try to overpower the hijackers and fail? You die. Try to overpower the hijackers and succeed? You live. It only takes one person to do the math and realize they are basically in a no-loss scenario.
- hayst4ck 1y agoYes, the math is the easy part, doing is the hard part. The difference between understanding and doing is large and denial, shock, rumination, and rationalization all fuel inaction and there is often a moment in which it becomes too late. People on death marches, in concentration camps, or other similar scenarios have the same math, and yet they get gassed or forced to dig their own graves after which they are shot and buried in them. So yes, rationally that all makes sense and we should celebrate anyone putting themselves at risk to fight for the benefit of a larger group, but reality is different, especially if the hijackers can guarantee at least one death. To say a hijack could never happen again is wrong. The doors are a much more reasonable explanation than the courage of men. History also gets forgotten, such as the history of secret police or mass deportation efforts as is quite clear in this thread.
- wvenable 1y agoAirport security has rendered passengers equal. There is no imbalance of power that exists in all the examples that you provided.
- hayst4ck 1y agoAssuming something is true doesn't make it true. Colluding airport employees as well as rural airports seem like clear vulnerabilities. When thinking about security problems you don't just assume your security measure always succeed and assuming that all passengers are "equal" seems like a poor assumption, especially for an exceptional case by highly motivated people, potentially with state backing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_West_Flight_612 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_West_Flight_612 Here is an example where a man got a gun on a plane in 2007, which directly disproves the 'equality' if passengers.
- csbrooks 1y ago[flagged]
- kennywinker 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nevrchanmge 1y ago[dead]
- kstrauser 1y agoYou can hold both of those opinions simultaneously. They pair nicely.
- kennywinker 1y agoYou definitely can. I was prompting the parent commenter to see if they had made that connection or not.
- siliconc0w 1y agoThey've abducted US citizens, it's perfectly reasonable to want to avoid them.
- xdennis 1y ago[flagged]
- whstl 1y agoArrest my ass. If they don’t mirandize, give you a phone call and immediate and consistent access to a lawyer, then it’s abduction.
- jahewson 1y agoNeither of these claims are true. Miranda rights apply to criminal arrests but immigration arrests are typically civil. The 6th Amendment guarantees the right to a lawyer during critical stages such as interrogation and court proceedings only, e.g. in California the window in which arraignment is guaranteed is 48 hours (this is where the court will offer defendants the opportunity for a court-appointed lawyer).
- CamperBob2 1y agoIf the end result is that people are forcibly abducted, extradited, and thrown into an El Salvadoran prison without due process, I really don't give a shit what the law says. It can't be described as "civil." Due process is ultimately what keeps this from happening to YOU.
- jahewson 1y ago[flagged]
- CamperBob2 1y agoI don't know the law, and didn't say I did. I know the difference between right and wrong, though. I was responding to the GP comment where you basically argued that, "Well, actshually, nothing Trump's doing is illegal." I also know that the courts are turning into wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Trump Organization. Not all of them, of course. But as for the rest, if there is no way for them to enforce their rulings -- and it seems there is not -- then they have no more power than random commenters on Hacker News, and deserve no more consideration.
- kstrauser 1y agoYou're so right. I'm not afraid of the cops, especially not ICE flunkies, but interactions with law enforcement has never made my day more convenient and pleasant. It's not that I'd hide anything from them, as much as for me it's a bureaucratic hassle I'd just as soon not have to deal with. Out of curiosity, does anyone know, officially, how much a multi-generation born-in-America person is actually obligated to cooperate with or answer to ICE?
- leptons 1y ago[flagged]
- aerostable_slug 1y ago[flagged]
- mooooooooooooo 1y agoSo debunk it??
- mh- 1y agoHave we reached a place on HN now where we're asking people to prove negatives, just because it aligns with our collective politics?
- bee_rider 1y agoIt is fine to say there isn’t evidence for something. For some reason the poster decided to invite this challenge by calling it “easily debunked” instead. A debunking is specifically a claim that there’s evidence that the original claim was wrong.
- mh- 1y agoThis is just a form of gish galloping [0]. Like I alluded to, it's disappointing that discourse on HN is at a place where enough of the participants are supportive of this as long as it's happening to the "other team." > During a typical Gish gallop, the galloper confronts an opponent with a rapid series of specious arguments, half-truths, misrepresentations and outright lies, making it impossible for the opponent to refute all of them within the format of the debate. See also Brandolini's law [1] if this feels familiar: > The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
- dadjoker 1y ago[dead]
- bryanrasmussen 1y agoI've considered making a similar app for Denmark's train and bus ticket checkers, but I expect it would get rule illegal and blocked. https://www.thelocal.dk/20240529/what-happens-if-you-board-a-danish-train-metro-or-bus-without-a-ticket https://www.thelocal.dk/20240529/what-happens-if-you-board-a...
- ericmay 1y agoThis is anti-social behavior and it leads to lawlessness and society sometimes having rather overbearing response to the increase (see ICE in the United States). Paying for public services is a duty of the public. Otherwise you won’t have public services anymore. It’s morally equivalent to being a tax cheat, in my view.
- bryanrasmussen 1y agoYeah, sometimes people develop an antipathy to certain social structures, and then that antipathy is defined as anti-social I guess, but there's probably no amount of Jantelov you can lay on that will make them change their minds.
- potato3732842 1y ago[flagged]
- ericmay 1y agoCommunism is a failed ideology and we should be on guard to extinguish it wherever we find it. We know that state ownership of the means of production leads to poor economic results at the nation state level. With that out of the way, if we (and I personally do) want to support transit for the masses and even make sure that those who are struggling financially have a means to use transit to maintain their qualify of life and dignity, we should do so through publicly supported programs and funding instead of "yea go ahead and jump the queue" because that leads to other problems, perhaps chief of all is the perception of anti-social behavior. You can't have public programs or support a strong community when people perceive that there is injustice taking place, and when they see someone cutting line and seeing no repercussions, you will lose broad support for public works. In other words, the bad apple spoils the bunch.
- ljf 1y agoAnd I grew up believing that America was 'land of the free'. I've never had to prove my ID to a police-person here in the UK - once or twice they've asked me who I was, but they didn't check the answer I gave them and no ID was shown. I never carry photo ID unless I'm flying, so I wouldn't have been able to prove who I was anyway.
- triyambakam 1y ago[flagged]
- whstl 1y agoI’m a latino in Germany of all places and for years I didn’t carry any identification because the only one I had was my passport, the german work permit was just a sticker in one of the pages. I am obviously not gonna risk losing my passport, so it was home. Police never stopped me, but when I asked “what should I do?” they were more than understanding of the situation and just said that in the worst case I gotta go home grab it. Only recently I got a German Personalausweis in the shape of a card.
- riedel 1y agoI am a white German with no migration background and i believe it is not all that beautiful here and I have been checked on various places. The reason is, that it really also depends where you are, because police has the right to check IDs e.g. in places where migration crimes are more likely like railway stations or in a buffet zone close to the border. In other places law requires far more actual reasons or a far more concrete suspicion. But I have also been checked in the middle of the night on a flixbus that got pulled out from the highway at the border between Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, which IMHO clearly violated German police law.
- whstl 1y agoOh, definitely. I'm not saying there's no police checks, I'm just saying according to the police officer it was ok to not have with me at all times and leave at home. Also, when I was outside of the city I live I would bring the passport, and now the Personalausweis...
- marssaxman 1y agoNavigation apps have long been reporting police activity along with other aspects of traffic you might want to avoid. Interacting with cops will never make your day better, so it's only sensible to avoid them if you can.
- datpuz 1y agoConsider yourself lucky that you've never had to call the cops as a victim. People forget that cops also save lives.
- dmkolobov 1y agoConsider yourself lucky that you've never called the cops as a victim and then been further victimized by the police.
- datpuz 1y ago[flagged]
- dmkolobov 1y agoYeah no. This happens in my city and to my friends. You're making a lot of assumptions about people's experiences here.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- thot_experiment 1y agolmao, I haven't had a single good interaction with cops and I'm not a minority and I most of the interactions I've had were not as a result of me doing crimes, and the ones that were "crimes" were for things like "being in a park shortly after sundown". I have never once had a reason to view them as anything other than shitty powertripping bullies.
- 1y ago
- mschuster91 1y ago> As a more tan law-abiding US citizen, the possibility of some agent asking me for papers and then asking probing questions to "prove myself" anywhere that's not an airport is enough for me to want a heads up not to be in area where that might happen. No matter if you are a law-abiding citizen, the cops have too many rights to annoy people. At least in Western nations, anyone should have the right to not answer the police or any other agent of the state about what one is doing or has done without repercussions. Always remember "three felonies a day"! In practice, we all know that if you do not do what the cop wants (or, frankly, if you have the wrong skin color), the cop finds a way to make your life difficult - from submitting one to the litany of shit they can legally do (like a full roadworthiness check of your vehicle or, if near a border, a full inspection for contraband) down to stuff that should be outright illegal (like civil forfeiture) or is actually illegal (like a lot of the current actions of ICE).
- goopypoop 1y ago> As a more tan law-abiding US citizen At first I misread this and thought you must be a vigilante
- afavour 1y agoThere's barely any point examining the app on its merits. The mere existence of the app shows resistance to the government's attempts at establishing something approaching a police state. They are against the app for that reason. They don't really care about what it does or does not do. It could be an app where you press a button and the phone says "boo ICE" and they'd still happily claim it endangers officers lives. (the fact that they're also able to attack independent media at the same time just makes it all the more alluring target)
- jumpman_miya 1y ago[dead]
- cmurf 1y agoIf the existence of the app is evidence of nascent police state, what does increasing the budget of ICE by 13x suggest?
- amarcheschi 1y agoThat reinforces the idea of police state
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- analognoise 1y agoCivil war, obviously.
- jackmottatx 1y ago[flagged]
- giraffe_lady 1y agoThey are officers and they are racist mercenaries. This is not a new force, they have no new powers. They didn't need to hire new people willing to perform these actions nor train them how to do so. If you haven't considered this before it should hit you like a hammer to the forehead: where are the resignations? Where are the "good cops" we keep hearing about, what are they doing? The other federal, state, and local law enforcement officers that are assisting in these actions, where is their principled refusal to violate their oath to uphold the constitution? What statements are their powerful and normally very vocal unions making about all this?
- mariodiana 1y agoUnless I'm mistaken, I remember some years ago the Apple Store blocked a DUI Checkpoint app. Has that changed?
- clocker 1y ago[flagged]
- Jtsummers 1y agoIn the US, we're not ordinarily required to keep any sort of ID on our person. There are some exceptions, such as the mentioned airports, crossing federal borders (as in to Canada or Mexico), some federal facilities, maybe some state/local government facilities, and (state dependent I've learned) when operating a car. Otherwise, you're pretty much free to leave your home in nothing but shorts and maybe a shirt (public decency laws and all) and go almost anywhere without issue. Real ID is irrelevant to this. The issue is that now they can demand that people prove their citizenship almost anywhere and anytime beyond the few places it was permitted before.
- OkayPhysicist 1y agoThe shorts and shirt is state dependent, too. If you're in California, the shorts and shirts are optional (indecent exposure requires "intent to arose or offend")
- crote 1y agoNo, why would it? I live in a country with the equivalent of a Real ID and a law requiring you to present it when asked. Officially they are supposed to have a good reason for it, but in practice they'll happily do it just because they can. And they'll continue "just asking questions" if they feel like it. You're not under arrest of course, but they are happy to waste a few hours of your time when you "refuse to cooperate". After all, as a law-abiding citizen you don't have anything to hide, do you?
- Rebelgecko 1y agoMy understanding is that Real ID isn't considered proof that someone is legally in the US, because in some cases a non citizen can get one while they're here legally and then overstay their welcome. And that's also ignoring the whole "papers please" of how allegedly Americans aren't required to carry ID if they're just walking around
- dzhiurgis 1y ago> not wanting to get hassled at a DUI checkpoint We don’t get this in NZ. Waze has removed this feature after threats. I don’t like cops either, but it is super fair and logical to me.
- account42 1y agoReporting traffic cameras/stops is illegal in many countries but not the US. That however does not mean that reporting police activity is automatically always legal there. Similar to how taking along a hitchhiker is legal but driving a getaway car for a crime is not.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoIn essence it's no different from users being able to report a speed check on Apple/Google Maps
- account42 1y agoIntent matters.
- jollyllama 1y agoI'm not arguing against anything you've said, but this isn't as popular of a sentiment as you think it is. For example, people who post information about DUI checkpoints in local social media forums are typically pilloried in comments sections.
- nashashmi 1y agoICE has quota requirements to meet. And this makes it difficult for them to meet it. They don’t want to work so hard. It is a big problem.
- amy214 1y agoSpeaking as a resident of the United States who does not happen to possess paperwork related to my residency, I think this ICE stuff is terrible. I do want to stay here in the US, I do have needs that require welfare for myself and my children. Food, housing, medicine, these are human rights, we all deserve them it's as simple as that. I thought the US supported human rights so that I could stay here and raise a family on the taxpayer dime because someone threatened me one time in my home country. Sadly, that is not the case, for shame.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]