10 ms·
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
by RS-232 1y ago
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.
- jcalvinowens 1y agoThat's a false dichotomy. There is a world difference between everything you mentioned, and publishing the real time locations of officers by their actual name (initials) on a website anybody can visit.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> There should be no expectation of privacy for any public officer. So live public webcams in the employee restrooms in all government buildings? I would argue that public officers would retain personal privacy, but that such privacy cannot be a shield against the public for the government concealing substantive operations, and that the identity of public officers and the substantive means by which they are engaged in the exercise of public functions, are therefore not within the space of their personal privacy.
- RS-232 1y agoWhile personal privacy may be preserved outside the scope of public acts, an individual who, in the execution of official duties, operates vehicles displaying lights or sirens and wears official identification inherently waives any claim to geospatial privacy.
- hn_go_brrrrr 1y agoI dunno, I don't think we should publish the real-time location of guards protecting sensitive government locations.
- ceejayoz 1y agoOh, there's no need. They leak that themselves! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracking-app-gives-away-location-of-secret-us-army-bases https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracki... https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-macron-bodyguards-security-strava-0a48afca09c7aa74d703e72833dcaf72 https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-macron-bodyguards-sec...
- crazygringo 1y agoAccountability in terms of what has happened in the past, yes. But the idea that current public locations of identifiable public officers is not justifiable at all. That would be allowing individuals to be stalked in real time. That's not OK.
- itake 1y agoThey are operating in public. They shouldn't have expectations of privacy. Are you against ICE agent tracking apps as well?
- hereme888 1y ago[flagged]
- Spivak 1y agoI mean it's only fair, I would prefer that both ordinary people and public officials were granted privacy in public spaces, but we don't so they don't. Citizens can't hold public officials accountable when they're only accountable to other public officials.
- crazygringo 1y agoThere'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 targeted surveillance, which is very, very different.
- greyface- 1y agoIt should be noted that SFMTA, the alleged victim of this website, uses a network of 400+ Flock ALPR cameras to track the movement of every vehicle in the region. They're able to do this not because of some special agency authority, but because it's legal for anyone to surveil public areas.
- notatoad 1y agothere 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.
- eru 1y agoI 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 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.
- ARandomerDude 1y agoHow did you go from an argument for enforcing parking laws to infinite fees and imprisonment? Where is there such a parking law?
- eru 1y ago> there is no public good afforded by violating parking restrictions. Apparently there must be some upside to allowing parking violations, if the perpetrator values it more than whatever low 'punishment' fee is set. Otherwise society would increase the fee to get the right behaviour.
- notatoad 1y agofrom context, it should be clear that we're talking about "good" meaning benefit, not good meaning product.
- bobanrocky 1y agoThats a silly observation. Reasonable privacy is a reasonable expectation for anyone in the US.
- throwmeaway222 1y agoThen you should also have no problem with an app that helps people spot and identify people that break into cars, imo a much larger problem in SF than parking spot thieves.
- varenc 1y ago> 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 are limited to issuing parking citations, ordering tows, and directing traffic. About the only thing they share with actual police is the word "Officer" in the job title. Tracking these folks is about equivalent to tracking individual USPS employees.
- contrarian1234 1y ago> tracking USPS employees ... that actually also sounds useful i don't see why they shouldnt be tracked while working
- varenc 1y agoTracking the location of the truck delivering your package sounds pretty useful. And UPS/Amazon already do this. But publishing the individual personal location of each of the 500,000 USPS employees in real-time while they're working... is a bit different.
- e_y_ 1y agoIf we're talking about public tracking: package theft
- contrarian1234 1y agoUhhh... Seems like the problem to address is crime? It's kinda crazy what kind of third world shit people just accept as normal now
- Leszek 1y agoOk, person with anonymous account name.
- Aachen 1y agoAny public officer, so also the spies you have in Russia, the investigators on murder cases, really everyone should have no privacy whatsoever in your mind?
- bumseltagbaerbi 1y agoEveryone, just not officers? As soon as the bodycams oh so requested by the Left were worn, it became slowly clear who the majority of perpetrators are in Cops vs. Blacks, Antifa, white liberal women... Now the Left's opinion seems to turn against these.
- elfonfire 1y agochat, is this bait?