Hacker News Reader

Comment by schwartzworld | Hacker News Reader

A heartwarming piece about how a police dog did it's duty and found something unexpected. Cute, right?

Let's not forget that drug-sniffing dogs are trained to give positive indicators. They don't sniff for drugs, they just give cops probable cause to search your luggage if they want to.

This piece doesn't have the typical copaganda headline, but it's copaganda for sure. Just saying.

View on HN

>copaganda

Your points may be valid (immaterial to my comment), but you're not doing yourself any favors by using such words. It's a red flag for "ideologically-driven zealot".

Cops work is often refered to as duty or service, obviously inflated terms but no one would accuse you of being an ideological zealot for using them. Agenda seems neutral by comparison.

This is absurd. It's called duty and service because it falls under the category (and I'm being technical here) of a public service for which there are legally-assigned duties (e.g.: assistance to endangered persons).

Am I not supposed to be driven by ideology?

You're supposed to be reasonable. Phrases like "copaganda" suggest you're not.

I'm telling you this to help you be more convincing.

> that drug-sniffing dogs are trained to give positive indicators

...in America.

Do you have any evidence this happens elsewhere?

I disagree. The dogs would help reducing random searches or mass searching. So it increases privacy. As far as I know, the dogs can't sit randomly or can't count every tenth person to indicate.

The personnel in the airport have limited searching capability. So if dogs are sending some people, it reduces your probability of getting searched.

I'm not sure about that. I've seen that police dogs are capable of picking up the bias of the officer(s) they accompany or are trained by due to body language signals and training bias[0]. This can be worked against as the article points out, but the fact that it is a problem has me uncertain that I support their usage without widespread training and protocol that prevents this issue (instead of limited training). Because the personnel in the airport have limited searching capability that fact reduces your probability of being searched, the dogs then increase your probability of being searched if you are a victim of bias expressed by the officer and dog.

[0]: https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-b...

This is true in principle, but the parent poster's point is that canine units are intentionally abused to legally justify searches that are otherwise unjustified.

I mean, it's not just my opinion https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/04/...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/01/07/132738250...

Dogs are not complex animals, and they are rewarded for positive indications regardless of whether the person who is searched actually HAS drugs or not. Since you have a constitutional right not to have someone just point at you and say "Hey, lemme search your bag because I don't like your face", they are basically an excuse to search whoever the cops want.

Yeah it would - if they weren't effectively four legged probable cause generators which changes in incentives greatly. They sell the same comforting illusion as profiling - don't worry you won't be bothered by our secutity you are good people right?". That message should disturb any student of 20th century history.

Also privacy is one area that demonstrates Jevon's paradox but in reverse because you are the resource. Increasing expenses can be the best protection for privacy as it forces attackers to give up.

Well, for traffic stops they use drug dogs as probable cause to warrant a search.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com