3 ms·

Do you have any examples of someone getting thrown behind bars due to a GPS error on the order of ~30ft like you're claiming? That's all I'm asking. Really don'

Do you have any examples of someone getting thrown behind bars due to a GPS error on the order of ~30ft like you're claiming? That's all I'm asking. Really don't understand why you keep avoiding it. You've essentially claimed police/judges are doing something rather stupid and terrible. I'm asking you to show example(s) of what you claimed (~30ft error → thrown behind bars), not something significantly different (~1+ mi error → only-police-visit-but-not-thrown-behind-bars).

chaps 1mo ago
"You've essentially claimed police/judges are doing something rather stupid and terrible." Yes, yes I am. You really need to realize just how unbelievably fucking arbitrary the criminal courts are. At every level. They're not tech people. To answer your question, I have examples of motions by prosecutors to suspend people from the EM program where they specifically cite specific data points just barely out of their homes, where video footage provably shows they were inside the whole time. They're not mine to share. Btw, the courts are public and you should try some criminal courts watching. Pick a random day and just go.
- dataflow 1mo ago
  > To answer your question Looking forward! > motions by prosecutors Motion ≠ incarceration. So, not an answer (yet?)... Did defendants get incarcerated as a result of these motions, or no?
  - chaps 1mo ago
    They did, yes. I hope you have a better day.
    - dataflow 1mo ago
      Okay thanks, so here's what I don't understand. When there is video evidence that someone was in their house the whole time, and given that everyone who has used a GPS knows it can easily be inaccurate by 30ft, why in the world would the judge trust the ankle monitor accuracy over video footage they see with their own eyes that directly contradicts it? Something about this just doesn't seem very plausible, especially if this kind of thing is happening more than once in a blue moon. Either the video evidence is not as convincing as we're being led to assume (thus leaving more doubt in the judge's mind than ours, even if the person is innocent), or there should be some other explanation.
      - chaps 1mo ago
        I don't know what to tell you besides yes, it's really that bad. A lot of it is just people passing the buck down the road, a lot of it (at the time) was covid, a lot of it was the difficulty of people on EM to publicly talk about their situation. Defense attorneys just want to get their clients out of jail and a lot of the EM stuff is a distraction to that. It's very much a, "we'll put in a ticket" sort of situation across many moving parts. Lawyers began telling their clients to film themselves in their homes at all times so that they could prove to judges that they were in their homes when the devices went off. That's advice they give because the risks of not doing that are going back into jail. And to prove all that, you still have to go through all that process, filming yourself, etc. It's truly bad.
      - lazyasciiart 1mo ago
        Everyone knows video footage can be faked. Why would the judge ever trust video provided by the defendant over serious professional technology like GPS? Might as well just take their word for it! What’s funny here is that you are displaying misplaced trust in the justice system that exactly parallels my hypothetical judge’s misplaced trust in technology.
        GJim 1mo ago
        > Everyone knows video footage can be faked. Everyone also knows GPS can be spoofed. Your point?
        lazyasciiart 1mo ago
        No, most people don't know GPS can be spoofed, or at best think of it as a nation-state level action. I'd be surprised if you got less than 100% of non-tech people saying that if GPS contradicts a video then the video is faked.
        GJim 27d ago
        > No, most people don't know GPS can be spoofed LOL! Everybody who has played Pokemon Go knows it can be spoofed!
  - porksoda 1mo ago
    You've kind of spoiled my day with this. Its like an angry chess game when you've got momentum, you POUNCE! But nobody else here appears to have chosen violence. really I get that he "maybe snarked you". But you should be reminded of the beautiful rules of hn discussions.
    - dataflow 1mo ago
      Thanks for the feedback, but I think you're missing something. This is not about us, it's about everything and everyone else implicated in the discussion. About the fact that we're essentially being demanded to assume - without clear evidence - that the vast majority of those with power over us are categorically incredibly incompetent or malicious. That is not only incredibly insulting toward the good subset of humans who have dedicated and even risked their lives for the public good, but it goes further and sows deep distrust and resentment, continuing to tear apart the very fabric of society. If you/we want to do that, be my guest. It is HN after all. But we damn better be able to justify it with rock-solid evidence, not just go "trust me bro, they're all stupid, they're not techies like us." Throughout this entire chain of comments, there has not been one shred of evidence that this has actually even happened once, never mind that it is a repeating phenomenon as they claimed. All we have been given is repeated attempts to make us believe those claims were true, supported by claims of existence of (not actual) evidence that - even if existent - would not remotely imply the claim is true. If we want to believe things without evidence and damn other who disagree to hell based purely on beliefs, we certainly can - that's what freedom of religion is for. However, I hope the irony isn't lost on anyone that it's quite literally the diametric opposite of what we're expecting from the justice system. Whether the claim is ultimately accurate or not, that is what what should be spoiling your day before anything I wrote. It certainly did mine. It should absolutely spoil your day to watch the integrity of huge swathes of people running your society get smeared without clear evidence, with more nails being hammered into the coffin that is the trust holding your society together. Either you're watching something unjustified, in which case that should make you upset on its own, or it's justified, in which case it's even sadder. Either way, I would think that seeing evidence should be at the bedrock of it all, not the last straw whose demand finally spoils your day.
      - 1mo ago
- Dylan16807 1mo ago
  > Btw, the courts are public and you should try some criminal courts watching. Pick a random day and just go. So you could find an example easily but you don't want to? Or you're suggesting court watching in general and not to find an example? "I have an example I won't share" is better than nothing, I guess. But you were being snarky before you even said that much, when you were just linking your article and not saying if examples existed at all. I'm curious why they're not yours to share, though. Did someone give them to you under private circumstances, or can people get there from public information but you think you shouldn't spread the word?
  - chaps 1mo ago
    It wasn't easy to find, heh. Lots of FOIA requests to even get to a point of where I could go through court records at the Clerk of Courts. Obstinate lawyers for months and months. But after all that, I can find the court documents at the Clerk of Courts. I printed them there and I don't have them anymore. I would need to redact even if I had them. But they were all the same form, but with the actual violations largely hand-written notes written by a prosecutor in a hurry. It was usually a list of like, ten instances that they seemingly picked from random of the GPS rlogs. The best glance I had into what was by FOIA'ing the GPS records of someone who died much later but had a lawyer who fought tooth and nail to show he didn't leave his home. GPS is truly all over the place in these logs. I validate a lot of that against call center records that themselves took months to get but show when alarms and calls are made to the devices, plus when dispatch is done. A lot of this stuff is hard to talk about because it's about real people in real pending (at the time) cases.. and I'm also not a criminal defense attorney by any means. There's a reason the first article I posted had their identity completely removed. There's weird liability and believe me I want to say more. Very honestly, I wish I could have done more reporting on how fucked up those devices were. I put a lot of time and effort into reporting that couldn't make it to print, largely because I was doing freelance work at the time. The first offer I got for that piece was $50. Wasn't sustainable. Do you have any questions about these EM programs?
    - prepend 1mo ago
      If you FOIA’d them, then why would you need to redact? If you can’t show evidence, then it’s probably best not to cite that evidence. At that point it seems to me that you’re asking people to just trust your claim. You seem like a nice person, but what sort of rational reader trusts an internet stranger. This is an important issue and you seem interested in the topic.

chaps 1mo ago

"You've essentially claimed police/judges are doing something rather stupid and terrible." Yes, yes I am. You really need to realize just how unbelievably fucking arbitrary the criminal courts are. At every level. They're not tech people. To answer your question, I have examples of motions by prosecutors to suspend people from the EM program where they specifically cite specific data points just barely out of their homes, where video footage provably shows they were inside the whole time. They're not mine to share. Btw, the courts are public and you should try some criminal courts watching. Pick a random day and just go.

dataflow 1mo ago
> To answer your question Looking forward! > motions by prosecutors Motion ≠ incarceration. So, not an answer (yet?)... Did defendants get incarcerated as a result of these motions, or no?
- chaps 1mo ago
  They did, yes. I hope you have a better day.
  - dataflow 1mo ago
    Okay thanks, so here's what I don't understand. When there is video evidence that someone was in their house the whole time, and given that everyone who has used a GPS knows it can easily be inaccurate by 30ft, why in the world would the judge trust the ankle monitor accuracy over video footage they see with their own eyes that directly contradicts it? Something about this just doesn't seem very plausible, especially if this kind of thing is happening more than once in a blue moon. Either the video evidence is not as convincing as we're being led to assume (thus leaving more doubt in the judge's mind than ours, even if the person is innocent), or there should be some other explanation.
    - chaps 1mo ago
      I don't know what to tell you besides yes, it's really that bad. A lot of it is just people passing the buck down the road, a lot of it (at the time) was covid, a lot of it was the difficulty of people on EM to publicly talk about their situation. Defense attorneys just want to get their clients out of jail and a lot of the EM stuff is a distraction to that. It's very much a, "we'll put in a ticket" sort of situation across many moving parts. Lawyers began telling their clients to film themselves in their homes at all times so that they could prove to judges that they were in their homes when the devices went off. That's advice they give because the risks of not doing that are going back into jail. And to prove all that, you still have to go through all that process, filming yourself, etc. It's truly bad.
    - lazyasciiart 1mo ago
      Everyone knows video footage can be faked. Why would the judge ever trust video provided by the defendant over serious professional technology like GPS? Might as well just take their word for it! What’s funny here is that you are displaying misplaced trust in the justice system that exactly parallels my hypothetical judge’s misplaced trust in technology.
      - GJim 1mo ago
        > Everyone knows video footage can be faked. Everyone also knows GPS can be spoofed. Your point?
        lazyasciiart 1mo ago
        No, most people don't know GPS can be spoofed, or at best think of it as a nation-state level action. I'd be surprised if you got less than 100% of non-tech people saying that if GPS contradicts a video then the video is faked.
        GJim 27d ago
        > No, most people don't know GPS can be spoofed LOL! Everybody who has played Pokemon Go knows it can be spoofed!
- porksoda 1mo ago
  You've kind of spoiled my day with this. Its like an angry chess game when you've got momentum, you POUNCE! But nobody else here appears to have chosen violence. really I get that he "maybe snarked you". But you should be reminded of the beautiful rules of hn discussions.
  - dataflow 1mo ago
    Thanks for the feedback, but I think you're missing something. This is not about us, it's about everything and everyone else implicated in the discussion. About the fact that we're essentially being demanded to assume - without clear evidence - that the vast majority of those with power over us are categorically incredibly incompetent or malicious. That is not only incredibly insulting toward the good subset of humans who have dedicated and even risked their lives for the public good, but it goes further and sows deep distrust and resentment, continuing to tear apart the very fabric of society. If you/we want to do that, be my guest. It is HN after all. But we damn better be able to justify it with rock-solid evidence, not just go "trust me bro, they're all stupid, they're not techies like us." Throughout this entire chain of comments, there has not been one shred of evidence that this has actually even happened once, never mind that it is a repeating phenomenon as they claimed. All we have been given is repeated attempts to make us believe those claims were true, supported by claims of existence of (not actual) evidence that - even if existent - would not remotely imply the claim is true. If we want to believe things without evidence and damn other who disagree to hell based purely on beliefs, we certainly can - that's what freedom of religion is for. However, I hope the irony isn't lost on anyone that it's quite literally the diametric opposite of what we're expecting from the justice system. Whether the claim is ultimately accurate or not, that is what what should be spoiling your day before anything I wrote. It certainly did mine. It should absolutely spoil your day to watch the integrity of huge swathes of people running your society get smeared without clear evidence, with more nails being hammered into the coffin that is the trust holding your society together. Either you're watching something unjustified, in which case that should make you upset on its own, or it's justified, in which case it's even sadder. Either way, I would think that seeing evidence should be at the bedrock of it all, not the last straw whose demand finally spoils your day.
    - 1mo ago
Dylan16807 1mo ago
> Btw, the courts are public and you should try some criminal courts watching. Pick a random day and just go. So you could find an example easily but you don't want to? Or you're suggesting court watching in general and not to find an example? "I have an example I won't share" is better than nothing, I guess. But you were being snarky before you even said that much, when you were just linking your article and not saying if examples existed at all. I'm curious why they're not yours to share, though. Did someone give them to you under private circumstances, or can people get there from public information but you think you shouldn't spread the word?
- chaps 1mo ago
  It wasn't easy to find, heh. Lots of FOIA requests to even get to a point of where I could go through court records at the Clerk of Courts. Obstinate lawyers for months and months. But after all that, I can find the court documents at the Clerk of Courts. I printed them there and I don't have them anymore. I would need to redact even if I had them. But they were all the same form, but with the actual violations largely hand-written notes written by a prosecutor in a hurry. It was usually a list of like, ten instances that they seemingly picked from random of the GPS rlogs. The best glance I had into what was by FOIA'ing the GPS records of someone who died much later but had a lawyer who fought tooth and nail to show he didn't leave his home. GPS is truly all over the place in these logs. I validate a lot of that against call center records that themselves took months to get but show when alarms and calls are made to the devices, plus when dispatch is done. A lot of this stuff is hard to talk about because it's about real people in real pending (at the time) cases.. and I'm also not a criminal defense attorney by any means. There's a reason the first article I posted had their identity completely removed. There's weird liability and believe me I want to say more. Very honestly, I wish I could have done more reporting on how fucked up those devices were. I put a lot of time and effort into reporting that couldn't make it to print, largely because I was doing freelance work at the time. The first offer I got for that piece was $50. Wasn't sustainable. Do you have any questions about these EM programs?
  - prepend 1mo ago
    If you FOIA’d them, then why would you need to redact? If you can’t show evidence, then it’s probably best not to cite that evidence. At that point it seems to me that you’re asking people to just trust your claim. You seem like a nice person, but what sort of rational reader trusts an internet stranger. This is an important issue and you seem interested in the topic.