7 ms·

>bypassed ban Broke the law is the phrase we want here. They did an illegal thing. They didn't just scoot past a barrier, they violated people's rights.

maeil 1y ago
Wanna go bypass some burglary laws to take expensive things out of people's houses? Assuming you're a cop of course, otherwise we'll go to jail.
- reverendsteveii 1y ago
  I'm not a cop. I'm a politician though, so while we're there lets murder them and traffick their kids. I love being a member of a class to whom the law very blatantly just does not apply.
gruez 1y ago
>They didn't just scoot past a barrier, they violated people's rights. Claiming that an administrative policy against using facial recognition as a "right" seems like a stretch.
- elashri 1y ago
  > Claiming that an administrative policy against using facial recognition as a "right" seems like a stretch. This is such strange way to describe "right for privacy".
  - gruez 1y ago
    But it's not really a "right". The next police commissioner/mayor could conceivably overturn it if they wanted to. That's not the same as most other "rights", free speech for instance. More importantly to this case, because the police only violated a policy and not a constitutional right, the defense can't apply to have the evidence tossed under the exclusionary rule.
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      I remember a case (in Eastern Europe) where someone who took a video of their colleagues sleeping during a night shift got in trouble for the usage of phone (which is known to be used BTW), and nothing happened to the ones sleeping through the night shift. We are talking about a facility full of people with dementia and are known to go back and forth the hospital for serious falls and all that (at night, too). So backwards.
      - tetromino_ 1y ago
        Which is in some ways similar to the case in this article. The police violated department policy to identify the student who hurled a rock at another student. And the article is somehow painting the rock-throwing attacker as a victim, even talking about the attacker's complaints that they were identified and are now receiving hate mail.
        actionfromafar 1y ago
        Yes?
        FireBeyond 1y ago
        Yes? The person hit by the rock is a victim of whomever threw it, be this person or another. And this person is the victim of the police department's policy violation. These things can coexist.
        zimpenfish 1y ago
        > The police violated department policy to identify the student who hurled a rock at another student. Allegedly. The article doesn't mention any evidence that he actually did. > "Per the record before this court, there is no additional evidence connecting the defendant to the alleged incident — no surveillance video to and from his home, no independent identification by others in attendance." No evidence. > "This case is premised on the complainant's word that he was the target of criminal actions by another person, and that other person was the defendant." Weak evidence (with potential bias.) > "The NYPD digitally altered the defendant's DMV photograph [...] never sought the metadata which would clearly indicate how, when, and perhaps by whom the photo was doctored." Manufactured evidence. > "That statement alone renders these medical records discoverable as possible impeachment material, necessitating their disclosure [...] Yet the People [...] have articulated no efforts to obtain these records" Withholding evidence from the defence. All in all, utter bullshit from the prosecution.
  - kazinator 1y ago
    Hurling a rock at someone is privacy now?
    - elashri 1y ago
      This is the classical problem of do the police have the right to violate rules and law in order to bring case or not? The problem is that this open the box of abuse of power and rights of people to become the norm.
    - reverendsteveii 1y ago
      It's really fortunate that no one is arguing that because you're right, it would be a pretty absurd stance to take. What we're saying is that not doing anything wrong entitles you to privacy and until you're tried and convicted you didn't do anything wrong. I dare say the fact that the case was dismissed with prejudice goes pretty strongly in our favor on this one.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - kazinator 1y ago
        This idea about it being a privacy issue is completely false. Firstly, if the police have probable cause, then your privacy can be invaded in order to search for evidence. For instance, Hans Reiser was not convicted at the time his Honda Civic was searched. Secondly, it is admissible to have an eyewitness identify you. Someone who knows you can testify that you were at a certain time and certain public place. Someone who doesn't know you can testify that someone who looks exactly like you was at a certain time and place. This is not a privacy violation. Public pictures are not private information. The reason we don't necessarily want police being able to match faces across databases of public images has nothing to do with privacy concerns. It's the concern that the ability gives too much power to the state, risking the rise of a surveillance state, which can use the technique to identify members of targeted groups. In other aspects it is a very good technique that can help bring wrongdoers to justice. In other words, it's about managing unintended consequences, not about privacy principles.
- reverendsteveii 1y ago
  If the police aren't bound by policies they create themselves and voluntarily agree as an organization to be bound by, what are they bound by?
- 93po 1y ago
  You have a right to due process, which means operating within their defined laws and systems That policy exists as a scape-goat to there not getting actual laws passed that would make it flatly illegal. This way they can prevent the real law, still break the rules, and get away with it
polarbear67 1y ago
[flagged]
- jen20 1y ago
  A secondary question: what rights do you have when someone else does that? What rights _should_ you have in that situation?
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    You should have the same rights as the underlying situation. If I photograph you in public, where you have no reasonable expectations of privacy, you should have no expectations of privacy over the photograph’s contents nor over my commentary about it. If I photograph you in a private setting, you should expect that privacy extends to the photographic record of it as well.

maeil 1y ago

Wanna go bypass some burglary laws to take expensive things out of people's houses? Assuming you're a cop of course, otherwise we'll go to jail.

reverendsteveii 1y ago
I'm not a cop. I'm a politician though, so while we're there lets murder them and traffick their kids. I love being a member of a class to whom the law very blatantly just does not apply.

gruez 1y ago

>They didn't just scoot past a barrier, they violated people's rights. Claiming that an administrative policy against using facial recognition as a "right" seems like a stretch.

elashri 1y ago
> Claiming that an administrative policy against using facial recognition as a "right" seems like a stretch. This is such strange way to describe "right for privacy".
- gruez 1y ago
  But it's not really a "right". The next police commissioner/mayor could conceivably overturn it if they wanted to. That's not the same as most other "rights", free speech for instance. More importantly to this case, because the police only violated a policy and not a constitutional right, the defense can't apply to have the evidence tossed under the exclusionary rule.
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    I remember a case (in Eastern Europe) where someone who took a video of their colleagues sleeping during a night shift got in trouble for the usage of phone (which is known to be used BTW), and nothing happened to the ones sleeping through the night shift. We are talking about a facility full of people with dementia and are known to go back and forth the hospital for serious falls and all that (at night, too). So backwards.
    - tetromino_ 1y ago
      Which is in some ways similar to the case in this article. The police violated department policy to identify the student who hurled a rock at another student. And the article is somehow painting the rock-throwing attacker as a victim, even talking about the attacker's complaints that they were identified and are now receiving hate mail.
      - actionfromafar 1y ago
        Yes?
      - FireBeyond 1y ago
        Yes? The person hit by the rock is a victim of whomever threw it, be this person or another. And this person is the victim of the police department's policy violation. These things can coexist.
      - zimpenfish 1y ago
        > The police violated department policy to identify the student who hurled a rock at another student. Allegedly. The article doesn't mention any evidence that he actually did. > "Per the record before this court, there is no additional evidence connecting the defendant to the alleged incident — no surveillance video to and from his home, no independent identification by others in attendance." No evidence. > "This case is premised on the complainant's word that he was the target of criminal actions by another person, and that other person was the defendant." Weak evidence (with potential bias.) > "The NYPD digitally altered the defendant's DMV photograph [...] never sought the metadata which would clearly indicate how, when, and perhaps by whom the photo was doctored." Manufactured evidence. > "That statement alone renders these medical records discoverable as possible impeachment material, necessitating their disclosure [...] Yet the People [...] have articulated no efforts to obtain these records" Withholding evidence from the defence. All in all, utter bullshit from the prosecution.
- kazinator 1y ago
  Hurling a rock at someone is privacy now?
  - elashri 1y ago
    This is the classical problem of do the police have the right to violate rules and law in order to bring case or not? The problem is that this open the box of abuse of power and rights of people to become the norm.
  - reverendsteveii 1y ago
    It's really fortunate that no one is arguing that because you're right, it would be a pretty absurd stance to take. What we're saying is that not doing anything wrong entitles you to privacy and until you're tried and convicted you didn't do anything wrong. I dare say the fact that the case was dismissed with prejudice goes pretty strongly in our favor on this one.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - kazinator 1y ago
      This idea about it being a privacy issue is completely false. Firstly, if the police have probable cause, then your privacy can be invaded in order to search for evidence. For instance, Hans Reiser was not convicted at the time his Honda Civic was searched. Secondly, it is admissible to have an eyewitness identify you. Someone who knows you can testify that you were at a certain time and certain public place. Someone who doesn't know you can testify that someone who looks exactly like you was at a certain time and place. This is not a privacy violation. Public pictures are not private information. The reason we don't necessarily want police being able to match faces across databases of public images has nothing to do with privacy concerns. It's the concern that the ability gives too much power to the state, risking the rise of a surveillance state, which can use the technique to identify members of targeted groups. In other aspects it is a very good technique that can help bring wrongdoers to justice. In other words, it's about managing unintended consequences, not about privacy principles.
reverendsteveii 1y ago
If the police aren't bound by policies they create themselves and voluntarily agree as an organization to be bound by, what are they bound by?
93po 1y ago
You have a right to due process, which means operating within their defined laws and systems That policy exists as a scape-goat to there not getting actual laws passed that would make it flatly illegal. This way they can prevent the real law, still break the rules, and get away with it

polarbear67 1y ago

[flagged]

jen20 1y ago
A secondary question: what rights do you have when someone else does that? What rights _should_ you have in that situation?
- sokoloff 1y ago
  You should have the same rights as the underlying situation. If I photograph you in public, where you have no reasonable expectations of privacy, you should have no expectations of privacy over the photograph’s contents nor over my commentary about it. If I photograph you in a private setting, you should expect that privacy extends to the photographic record of it as well.