What to do if a cop tries to scan your face during a traffic stop
gizmodo.com
gizmodo.com
You do not move, you do not pout, you do not cover your face, you do not duck down into the car, you do not roll up your window. You LET THEM SCAN YOUR FACE. If you are feeling particularly privileged, you may gently, at-most-once, convey (ORALLY ONLY) that you do not wish to be scanned/photographed.
Then you fight it like hell with the police department's grievance process, with your local courts, and with your local city/municipal council, who should have budget oversight to the police force.
Headlines like this get people killed. Seriously.
The only recommendations in the article are to "verbally tell an officer that they do not consent to have their biometrics collected." and "People also have the legal right to record a police officer with their own phone".
People have been shot dead for reaching into their center console or glovebox. So you'd better think very carefully about how you're getting your phone out.
If you want to improve your odds get a dash cam that records the road and yourself, with audio. Have the cop on video, and preferably some way to upload video footage so they can't just confiscate your SD card when their bodycams 'fail' as they violate your rights.
in your scenario this is where i guess they pull out their dual wielded grenade launchers and kill your family but in reality this is likely to be the part where they decide its not worth it unless they are on very firm ground and write you a ticket and drive off.
I find this whole attitude to be bizarre and kind of creepy.
It's amazing we have gotten to this point where any wrong move in front of a cop is more dangerous to the public than any danger the perpetrator of a traffic violation could impose.
Honest question, statistically who is more likely to die in a traffic stop? Police or the suspect?
I have, as a lawyer, and as a regular civilian interacting with the police. You do not have to let the cops scan your face. Refusing to be searched, or scanned, or taken to the station will not get you killed. It will not get you beat up. It will not get you sent to jail.
In fact, if you consent to letting them scan your face, (or search you or your belongings, etc) there won't be a "grievance process," there won't be a pot of gold, there won't be a voided conviction (if they found anything)...because you consented.
Comments like the OPs get people in trouble. Seriously.
This is simply FUD being spread by someone who knows absolutely nothing about what he's talking about. Police in the U.S. aren't all like the ones you "see on TV." That's the 0.1% of the bad cops being used to define all cops.
Unless you're okay with everyone thinking that all programmers are sacks of shit because of the 0.1% that are cryptocurrency scam artists?
Also, please record everything. Put a voice activated recorder on your phone so you don't get shot when reaching for it (didn't Siri have that built in at some point) and have recordings synced to the cloud, have a dashcam or better a 360° cam always running, hide a digital audio recorder in the dash - or even better use an old smartphone on a modest data plan...
I know not everyone can afford to do that, but if you can, you should. Especially if you're in a group that gets targeted often, this is the best thing you can do to make sure these fuckers are held accountable if they do something illegal or worse.
Mostly. There's been a sizeable blip up during the pandemic (it's unknown if that's the cause) and that's led to talking heads talking about "the greatest rise in crime in 50 years", but that's talking about the percent increase year-over-year, and it's been trending down for a while. It's still below the rates it was at in the 1990s, which was lower than the rates in the 1970's and 1980's.
The analogy would be if you owned MySpace stock (I know, it's not public) since 1999. Sure, maybe it shot up 20% this year, but who cares you're still out most of your money.
Current trend last the few years is to be soft on crime. So now crime rates are rising.
There is also increasing shift away from the mindset that one has the right to defend oneself. Both as a private citizen and as a police officer.
If someone comes up and pulls a knife on you, and you pull a gun out. The results can be anywhere from being treated as hero to a villain. For sides of the confrontation.
But isn't the more interesting question how and why the crime rate is the way it is? Anyone who is actually interested in changing the impact crime has on a society has to look long and hard at those questions. Of course many also just take the topic as a political vehicle to reach other goals, that have nothing to do with actually making things better.
This is why the date of legalization of abortion did not seem to have an impact in Europe and also why restrictions on abortion in some countries did not have an impact.
People who decide to get kids will always be more likely to do so when they can actually support them.
People who get kids by accident (or even against their will) will be more likely to put kids into unstable environments.
Kids in unstable environments are more likely to grow into adults that do crime.
One way of avoiding these kids is abortions. But you could also provide stable environments for kids that are actually born (which is very much what we in Europe did). Allowing abortions won't change a lot in a society that already does what it can to support all children and their parents — it however will change a lot in societies without social security.
I am not saying abortion doesn't have an impact, but Roe vs Wade did not. There were a lot of abortions prior to the legalization in the US. I am not positive, but it may have been legal in some states just not nationally (didn't want to look it up to confirm).
This is why the date of legalization of abortion did not seem to have an impact in Europe and also why restrictions on abortion in some countries did not have an impact.
> documented abortions rose sharply in the wake of Roe, from under 750,000 in 1973 (when live births totaled 3.1 million) to over 1.6 million in 1980 (when live births totaled 3.6 million). If illegal abortions were already being performed in equivalent numbers, one would not expect a seven-year lag in reaching a steady state. Moreover, the costs of an abortion — financial and otherwise —dropped considerably after legalization.
You are correct some states were legal earlier. Donohue and Levitt have a section on that in a 2019 follow up paper [2]. Claim: Crime dropped earlier in those states that legalized earlier.
[1] http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittT...
[2] https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_201975.pd...
If you have evidence I'd be happy to evaluate it.
The relationship between leaded gasoline and crime has been found consistent in every country that's been looked at, based on when leaded gasoline was legalized and then banned.
Not in anything like the quantities it used to be when it's use wasn't as restricted as it is now (and, with use dropping, so did blood levels; this has been extensively studied.)
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/27/what-we-kno...
https://heyjackass.com/2022-homicide-trend/
More interesting info on the main page:
1) Officers name
2) Employment history
3) Current Salary
That's all public information. Not violating any officer's privacy.
Which will unfortunately be paid by the taxpayer.
Your perceptions differ from my own. I used to idolize SV until I moved here. I have never met a more entitled group in my life, and I grew up with multiple billionaires' children.
Or try to fight it on the street with the officer, get hit with a bunch of charges, and then you and your property get damaged and you end up settling it in court.
This has never been litigated but the act of verbally resisting might give you some legal grounds for recourse.
And perhaps in the face. Or with worse outcomes I don't need to go into detail about.
Edit: Weighing the short-term, personal best outcome against the long-term, public best outcome with any kind of objectivity is usually impossible, due to the highly unpredictable nature of the latter.
How does this actually work? Presumably being wanted means that there's an arrest warrant or summons issued by a judge for a specific, previously identified person. Did the police somehow lose the person the first time?
Or is this some sort of James-Bond-like fantasy where one gets to scan a face and conveniently match a facial profile to some supposed well-known but elusive enemy of state from some intelligence database without any ambiguities?
I would imagine usually its because they skip bail or violate probation. They can issue a warrant if you don't pay a ticket, fine, etc.
They may not have had evidence to arrest them previously.
IMHO, if I had to guess at the probability of this scenario being realistically, my Occam razor sensor would say it's most likely a manufactured scenario that isn't actually grounded in reality. </two-cents>
Yes. The police often show up after a crime has been committed and the suspect is long gone. If their investigation turns up clear evidence (a witness who knows the person, surveillance footage, etc) then they might be able to issue a warrant for that person.
Instead we need a system which actively recognizes and regulates new technology as it becomes available.
That's really stupid. It's as bad as when the government wanted to classify cryptographic algorithms as munitions. To make the argument I think it's best to fall back to a right to privacy under the 4th amendment, and to the fact that it's just math which anyone can do.
That law was written at a time where it was believed humans don't have databases in their heads. That is still true, but the effect can now be simulated with a mobile device, which brings new threats to agency as a free citizen of a nation.
This is not to say that I am on board with the face scanning. Just a related point.
I'm from the UK and I'd say it is the opposite. The majority of people have never been stopped by the police.
I imagine you probably are acquainted with such people but you merely don't know this fact about them... unless I guess you ask "have you ever been stopped by police?" every time you introduce yourself to someone.
That is after sitting in court all day for the judge to send you to traffic school on a different day.
I think most drivers change their behavior after this experience a few times.
If you don't speed, come to a full stop at stop signs, don't run red lights and don't use your phone while driving you won't be pulled over but you will do one of those when you start.
I would say every time I drive I see at least one driver doing something that would get them pulled over so for that person it is just a matter of time.
Doesn't seem to me that a face scan would be against the fourth amendment, unless the situation in the article happens, a officer makes an arrest based solely off a face scan. In practice, it'll play out like drug dogs. A "hit" will give the officer reasonable suspicion to search the vehicle or pull the passengers out.
Not saying I know how to do that but I wonder if it'd make a difference.
A few random ideas:
* fewer armed police, and being armed requires a higher level of experience/training/psych evaluation
* 100% public access to all police body cam footage.
* require police officers to maintain their own liability insurance, and have rates based on the a number of KPIs related to public safety and ethics
Body cams might be an example of something that is good on paper but actually just distracts people from things that actually address a problem.
Parent comment was dismissing reform as a path forward though.
And, do you have a working example?
Another step would be to recognize that you cannot reform american police departments' roles in non-violent crime cases and offload some or all of those entirely to other agencies that don't carry guns. This doesn't fix everything, but it removes many opportunities for things to go wrong while also enabling armed police to focus on the threats that really need them.
Wouldn't it be better to just fire complete departments and clear them out from top to bottom? This would let you re-hire as necessary but with new rules in play. You might end up with some of the same old people but they now know the trapdoor can open.
Most of the problems with police are at the top. Not the bottom. This includes the laws they use like civil forfeiture and other silliness. That's your real target. Why aren't the abolish people going after that?
You don't abolish police -- you abolish policing. In order to do this society needs to identify and eliminate the reasons for crime in the first place--i.e., ensuring access to basic needs like food and housing, for one thing. Abolition necessarily involves a transformation of our entire society, and may take more than one generation.
Plenty of wealthy people still commit crime.
From what I have heard, there is still quite a lot of domestic violence going on there, not to mention raping of female servants. And it has zilch to do with material insecurity.
Genghis Khan didn't build towers out of severed heads because he lacked gold and silver. Some people are just, sorry for saying that, sick fucks.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.6610...
"The prevalence of psychopathy in the general adult population can be estimated at 4.5%." Remember: it's much more frequent in males, where that number can be 2-3x of that, can be close to 1 in 10 in males.
"prevalence of psychopathy among university students is significantly higher than among people from the general community". I'd guess increased affluence and better childrearing will result in more university students as well.
I'd go as far as to say that "boundless affluence" and "perfect childrearing" may in fact produce even more psychopaths, not less, as it is not quite a pathology many assume. Many traits are actually more adaptive vs general population.
It's probably important to point that there is further nuance. in primary(as in born that way) psychopathy the hallmark is total absence of anxiety and remorse. In secondary (upbringing, trauma, etc) psychopathy, anxiety can often be fairly high.
You might reduce some secondary cases of psychopathy with your proposed measures, but boundless affluence will also result in higher SSRI usage to prevent unwanted anxiety or stress (the rich tend to use antidepressants more, don't have the reference handy now, but its fairly obvious the rich have fewer problems with access to mental health services), and SSRIs tend to increase some psychopathic traits (charm+boldness), which perhaps can push some borderline cases into the proper psychopathic territory: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3202964
Also, not everywhere is America. Sweden had a fairly nasty eugenic program, for example.
>Five judges out of nine go a long way.
It sounds like you have some hidden assumptions. To me, it looks like you're casting aspersions on people who advocate progressive social change. But I'm sure that's not your aim, so why not just state outright what you really think and clear up my misunderstanding.
… Which is? What, exactly, is coming to your mind?
Because it looks like you’ve drawn the conclusion that seeking to improve our society in any way is a slippery slope toward eugenics.
And I don’t see how that follows, so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt to correct my misunderstanding, requesting for you to elaborate on your point.
The best outcome here is for cops to get bored, ask the city to offer a tax incentive to businesses to scan for known criminal faces & report 10 seconds CCTV before + after a hit is found, and now the police have a statistic they can use for policing. The big scandal is when "known criminal faces" start to contain "just alleged that X did Y", at which point it's merely political. If you are X, wait for the arrest and sue the city when you're proven innocent.