Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmcollins | Hacker News Reader

why not give the suspect a choice? would you prefer your mugshot be published online, google-able for years, or would you rather not, and risk getting ‘disappeared’ by your local police dept without a trace. i know which one i’d choose.

View on HN

How do you verify that the convict made the choice, and that they weren't forced to or tortured?

This is a good reason to make it mandatory to publish mugshots.

You can make mugshots visible only to some trusted list of human right activist organizations. This is kind of a compromise between convict's safety and privacy.

> This is a good reason to make it mandatory to publish mugshots.

Is it really though? Doesn’t seem like a necessary practice anywhere else in the world.

I don't think this is as easy as we would like it to be.

If they are posting mugshots online, maybe they should also be required to post all police interaction's with the public online (including bodycam footage, etc).

Or maybe none of it should be posted online, and if you are interested in it, you have to go to the courthouse and get the record.

I think the problem really is deeper than that. I think all government actions should be public within a reasonable time.

Now we have to define reasonable time. Ughh.

That’s already the case. You can file a foia request.

I'm late to the party, but PDs frequently reject FOIA requests with the justification that there is an "ongoing investigation", particularly in the case of activists (since their ongoing activism is apparently considered justification for indefinite investigation).

What about a mugshot protects you?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-man-choked-smiling-mugshot/s...

That's actually worse than either option - if the police decide to disappear you they can now claim you opted out, while if they prefer to ruin you reputation, they can subtly (or not so subtly, if they expect to get away with that) pressure you to opt in.

That would provide no protection against being disappeared, and potentially make things more dangerous for people in that situation.

Assume police do disappear people. Opting for your record to be public would show police that you're willing to cause problems for them, making the prospect of getting rid of you more appealing. Further, if some associate of yours goes to find out what has happened to you, they can just lie and say you opted for a private record and send the person away.

> Assume police do disappear people.

Then it is also easy to imagine that the same police would not take mugshots of the people they want to disappear.

Meaning if you could prove police arrested someone and they could not produce a mugshot, something is wrong. Providing them a way to deny the mugshot without being suspicious gives them more options.

Couldn't the police just take a mugshot, confirm the arrest, and say "this person was later released without charge, none of our business where they are now"?

This happens, but between most people having friends/family and high profile cases having groups outside the station, this causes problems for the police. The proposed change gives them more time without needing to deal with those problems.

You can only protect people in general, not one specific person. If the police want to kill you they'll get away with it.

Still it's better to make it harder for them.

* Assume police do disappear people. *

Chicago PD says hello.

No assumption needed. American police do disappear people, at least temporarily.

Scariest f** to even have to talk like this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com