Hacker News Reader

Comment by bell-cot | Hacker News Reader

Drone use by the creep state is a serious problem...but Wired did a crap job of picking their opening vignette. Screaming altercations at bus stops are not just free-speech exercises, and the patrolman who followed the drone was quickly rifling through the pockets of one of the screamers.

View on HN

Hi, I edited this story (I'm the security editor at WIRED). The goal of the opening anecdote wasn't intended to be about free speech, it was to show one of the ways the drones are used and what one of the people involved in the incident thought about it. The story as a whole is trying to convey what the reality is like living in a city policed in part through the use of drones.

Good article. It nicely illustrates the general lack of oversight and policy (and enforcement thereof) nationwide when adopting new tech by government. Police use of tech is very poorly and inconsistently regulated nationwide. Without better governance, abuse of such tech by cowboy cops will become routine. And without oversight and transparency, any constraints on that abuse become unenforceable. IMO, the story makes that case well.

What's the justification for rifling through someone's pockets because they were in a yelling match though? That seems like a 4th amendment violation. Not quite stop-and-frisk, but should any slightly abnormal behavior give justification for a search?

I guess that ship sailed a long time ago given that NYC is still doing stop and frisk, even after it was deemed unconstitutional

The guy was chronically homeless, probably used to being hassled by the cops, maybe consented to the search especially if he knew there was nothing to find.

Not that's it's right, but street people are targets of the cops. The involvement of the drone likely didn't have anything to do with it.

Officers have wide discretion to ensure their safety in an encounter. While this doesn't always result in a search, it could easily do so in cases where emotions are elevated.

And that would be illegal, for good reason.

"And that would be illegal"

Where would that be? Most states allow personal safety searches during investigations of other infractions. For example, police can ask you to step out of your car and search you for weapons if you're pulled over for a traffic infraction. They tend not to do it often, but they have the power to and the courts consistently support that (I most states).

They certainly do not have that power, legally. But they will just make something up in the report so no one questions the illegal search.

Your comment is gray. Isn't that because someone downvoted it? I don't think they voted correctly. I think your comment is meaningful and helps further discussion. Maybe they just don't know the rules of voting.

I might not like two people screaming at each other in public, but me calling the police says a lot more about my over sensitivity and lack of understanding / exposure to life, than whether there is something needing police intervention in public.

I could write a very long blog post showing how over sensitivity in society has become toxic to well being and trust.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com