Citizen app sparked a $30k manhunt for the wrong guy | Hacker News Reader

Citizen app sparked a $30k manhunt for the wrong guy

vox.com

45 pointsprostoalex23 comments

People have been offering rewards for 'information about' or 'arrest of' forever. But as soon as a tech company does it, it's evil.

The question we should be asking isn't 'what happens if they get it wrong' but 'what happens if they got it right'?

The line being crossed is that usually private citizens offer rewards for "information leading to the arrest" of someone. They don't put a bounty on actually arresting the guy because that's the job of the professional police departments.

And both of your questions regarding what if they get it wrong or right are quite interesting to think about.

"“With Vigilante, vital information is unlocked and everyone can do their part,” the company said in 2016, leaving it up to the readers’ imagination what that “part” should be."

Wow... glad they pivoted, but still, that's a dangerous perspective to take imo.

>“We’re a safety app. We want to keep people safe”

You’re a business. You want to turn a profit.

It's a free social networking app. They want to be able to cash out, not be profitable. Engagement, DAUs and MAUs are what matter most.

Isn't Amazon's Ring exactly that, or do I misunderstand something?

> OnAir is a new product with strict validation protocols, which we failed to follow.

Not sure that's how it works.

This and the neighborhood watch are just terrible for the society

Who the hell thought this would be a good idea?

The company has a retired NYPD commissioner on its board. Maybe people like that?

Like most "social" projects, this is about turning ordinary life into reality TV. In the second stage they make it more "interactive".

https://fnewsmagazine.com/2021/03/safety-or-surveillance-the...

Does anyone here also feel like this article was way too long for the content?

What’s the difference between this and Twitter mobs?

Being location specific provides a veneer of legitimacy.

I would come from a different angle. Twitter is worse because the target is way more abstract, removed, so the Twitter vigilantes are almost acting on a conceptual plane and don’t care about real life implications.

Probably not much, but the victim would have a better chance suing Citizen than Twitter. Twitter polices it’s platform, but Section 230 provides a good shield for them against user content. Citizen, OTOH, isn’t protected by Section 230 because the company itself issued the notification.

Disclaimer: IANAL

Not just a notification, a Livestream with repeated misinformation and aggressive goading.

Twitter mobs send words to famous/semi-famous people they have never met.

This on the other hand looks more like a bounty board for self-appointed neighborhood sheriffs.

Twitter trolls act like reeves themselves looking for the people they have an axe to grind with and ruining lives just the same.

Someone needs to sue these people into bankruptcy.

Is it illegal to call someone an arson suspect?

I imagine that wrongly calling someone an arsonist would be libel/slander, but I wonder if things change when you include the word suspect.

I don't think stuff changes that much based just on what words were said. The outcome matters a lot.

While it's not illegal to call someone a suspect, putting a bounty on someone's head might be. You're essentially endangering someone's life. If the person was harmed, they could easily win a massive lawsuit.

He wasn't actually an arson suspect, so it's defamation either way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com