Hacker News Reader

Comment by stronglikedan | Hacker News Reader

It's a public place. If a separate law gave them a right to privacy then the police have to make accommodations to bring them into the station privately, like through a back door.

View on HN

My position is that it is good that everyone going into the precinct should be publicly noticed. Nobody goes in through "a back door". Nobody goes into police custody without the public knowing. Yes, this gets embarrassing. But it keeps people from silently "disappearing". If they're in police custody, everybody knows (or can find out).

Which is fine if you're being arrested, not great if you're trying to report domestic violence.

I get it, it's better like this, but it could have secondary side effects for some people.

Trying to report any crime where the victim fears repercussions. Organized crime, crime by an employer, etc.

Every law is a balance with some compromises toward or against personal and public good. Some of that balance should include alternate channels for reporting things with hazards like this.

What if a private organization set up cameras observing everyone walking every street and avenue, and stored facial eigenvectors of all the people walking there.

It could then set up shop as a service, and given a picture of someone's face, tell you when and where they went anywhere on foot in NYC.

It's all public, right?

That's what companies do with license plate scanners. I don't think faces would be substantially different in the eyes of the law.

I agree that it's an issue. In Europe there is some expectation of privacy even in public and what you describe would be illegal.

> In Europe there is some expectation of privacy even in public

which is reason #1367 why the UK had to leave the EU.

Thanks, I'll be here all week, until I die.

In thr US that is probably legal currently

It's being done for police, but I don't think there's any legal bar to selling this data to the public instead.

https://www.404media.co/fusus-ai-cameras-took-over-town-amer...

The scenario you're describing is already the status quo.

What if? What do you mean what if? You are obviously to reality bud

You can find that in London right now.

Are you asking if that's legal? Because yes it absolutely is.

What a simplistic view of the world. "It's a public place.". Do I want to be there? No. Do I have to be there? Yes. Oh, the back door, right. And don't forget to make the appointment.

Fact is, if I'm being there as a private citizen dealing with private matters, I don't want some person hanging around there filming me. And at least in Europe I have the right to expect this.

To echo the previous reply, it's a ridiculous stance to defend absolving of documentation of their presence when all these situations involved taxpayer money. Whether it's an officer, a congressman,Trump under subpoena, or a random drunk ... if they are being charged with something, they are in the public record. That public record includes public documentation of where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power.

Otherwise, we don't live in a functional democracy. This is a good decision. It's sad the PD is appealing it, but not unexpected.

People often go to police stations for reasons other than being charged with something.

> That public record includes public documentation of where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power.

The problem for the specific case of being charged with something, or even a step before when someone is brought in for questioning, is enough to tarnish the person's reputation for life.

If someone is brought in for questioning on suspicion of spousal battery, rape, or kiddie porn, that stink is not going to subside even if the officers or prosecutors later admit to being completely wrong.

That's a socio-cultural issue, not something related to what the law requires because it's the just thing to do.

Otherwise, we'd have no knowledge of anything. We fought so hard (US-specific) for the FOIA and that barely even works. Crawling backwards into a decades of state and police corruption isn't the answer.

I get what you're saying. There is an imbalance of power between the common citizen and state. Wanting transparency instead of the alternative because of abuse of power is precisely why this should be the norm.

> if they are being charged with something, they are in the public record. That public record includes public documentation of where they were taken, why, and sufficient documentation to allow both the public to be informed and for intervention in case of abuse of power.

> Otherwise, we don't live in a functional democracy.

I agree with all of that but I wonder if this has anything to do with living in a democracy.

Without those protections people can be disappeared or put in jail for no reason (perhaps to prevent their attendance somewhere else). It gets to the heart of habeais corpus

Exactly - we need transparency so the public does not feel threatened by unknowns, has trust in general governance, has trust in the economic system, political system, criminal system...

Democratic secular republics haven't been around for very long. Lest we forget, given how short our lifetime spans, nothing is written for us. We create history as we live it. Trying our best doesn't seem to cut it so far, but I'll take it over any alternative.

You can get arrested without being charged with something though.

Yet what? It's still public record, like anything should be when charged by the state. Transparency is key. Otherwise, we live in an Orwellian quasi-something.

Being arrested, even if it you were innocent and it doesn't lead to a trial or conviction, has very real and harmful consequences to you in the US.

So, it seems that things are Orwellian either way.

Most western democracies dont publicise arrests and mugshots like the US. Most of these countries are more free and have better functioning democracies than the USA. In fact, many coutries would consider publicising every minor arrest as an imposition on personal freedom and a massive overstep by the government.

I do agree that police should be filmable in almost all circumstances.

Ah, Europe loves its secret courts.

It's so lovely when HN discussions derail into USA vs Europe. Divisiveness, internet's favorite thing.

The parent comment was comparing the US to other western democracies.

I think there's room for protecting people's public image so long as they have not been convicted.

Are you saying that every crime punishment should automatically include loss of privacy? Cause that's what your statement sounds like.

That's a very bizarre reading of this thread of conversation.

I didn't read it well, I guess. "Protecting people's public image" sounds much broader than whether an arrest or conviction is public record.

Every crime conviction is a public record, so that ship has sailed.

I would say that we want to know what crimes our government is convicting people of. Otherwise, you can have the government arrest and convict some one of "secret" charges, perhaps in "secret" courts with "secret" evidence. The convicted just disappeared.

I think we had something like that happen before, it caused a bit of upset.

That is all a matter of public record. Anyone who doesn't want that can file a motion to have it concealed.

I mean pretty much that's a cornerstone of our legal system. There's a strong bias against hidden courts where someone may be convicted in secret and punished in secret.

The public place doctrine is uniquely weird (and American) in that regard. Being seen or heard by others in a public place should not mean that you, as a private person, also gets recorded.

I agree. I think that US law is actively harmful in this regard. It should be possible to be in public spaces without having to worry about being recorded, either by authorities or other people.

This reverses the subject, though: even if we grant that private civilians should have a (possibly limited) expectation of privacy in public, civilians acting in a public capacity, like the police, should not. Given the enormous power they have to act outside the law with impunity, removing the only check on that power— transparency into their conduct— would be a mistake. One only need to consider any of the many times police have been caught outright lying by video surfacing afterward to understand why.

I agree entirely. We give police extraordinary power over us, and it seems completely reasonable that they have little expectation of privacy when using those powers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com