Hacker News Reader

Comment by leorocky | Hacker News Reader

Why shouldn't law enforcement use drones? Law enforcement are bound by the same laws any citizen is and they are the tool what we as a society use to insure security in our lives. Why wouldn't we want to make their jobs easier?

The worse I could imagine is that drones are used to catch people smoking pot in their backyards. The people who officiate over the police are elected officials and all their practices, including data retention from surveillance is subject to judicial review and the laws our representatives write.

Use of technology like this is inevitable anyway. It seems pointless to fight it, and if you do oppose it how would you fight it anyway? Write to you congress representative? Protest? Is that really going to work?

View on HN

Your post isn't self-consistent.

First you say that democracy means we have nothing to fear from police with drones, then you imply it's pointless to resist because the democratic methods don't work.

I made no claims about democracy at all. I made a comment about police being accountable to elected officials and another about the futility of protests in this particular instance.

The police are accountable to elected officials. If there is the sort of significant abuse this comment thread is full of, there will be popular outcry.

The futility of protests and outraged posts on social news sites is nought to do with democracy. The police are popular with the majority of Americans (This is a post about a US city), and so if a minority of people object to tools police use it is futile.

HN is rife with police hate and outrage but we have a very professional police force filled with good people who do a good job protecting our security. If you doubt it, try other countries that don't have what we have.

It's the libertarian streak of the average HN reader. If there's anything inconsistent it's the libertarian who wants personal freedom to the extreme but also a quality of life they are used to in a western democracy.

The police are excused from a great many things, specifically harm to others when they raid a home or even the wrong home. Down in my state we have this nice story about them lobbing a flash bang into a house because they had a no knock warrant.

NO KNOCK. Tell me what laws are they bound too when those are nearly freely given out and for drug offenses? If they break down your door because they got the address wrong in most jurisdictions all they have to do is apologize if that.

I have friends that are cops and on but damn if I do not like the liberties they get over us.

The flashbangs and middle-of-the-night no-knock raids are standard practice now. And they have consequences:

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/toddler-critically-burn...

Incredibly sad. How much is America willing to give up for the War on Drugs? I suppose it is a similar situation to the boiling frog, they ratchet up the intensity bit by bit.

In this case of the toddler, the police are at least claiming that they used a battering ram on the door and it did not work. They claim that the door was blocked by the playpen.[1] As if that makes it ok.

It surprises me how no-knock can be legal. In some places, you cannot even respond with force. Or if you do, you cannot claim self-defense, as police get special privileges.

I don't even see how knock and notice is legal, as you have no timely way to authenticate someone claiming to be police. Why would an attacker simply not yell "police!" and scream orders at his victim? How would a victim possibly differentiate in this scenario?

A friend was just robbed in the middle of the night. His reaction was to yell at the intruders, claiming to have a gun. Had the intruders simply yelled back they were LE, my friend would have ceased resisting and voluntarily given into being tied up.

1: http://pix11.com/2014/05/30/toddler-injured-after-swat-team-...

And the LAPD has NEVER shown itself to be in contempt of the laws that govern them. I mean it is a paragon of virtuous conduct that can be trusted with advanced technology like this.

Many jurisdictions tried to introduce speed trap cameras decades ago. But they failed to gain wide acceptance mainly due to public outrage. Hopefully, the LAPD will seek a compromise between utility and public image.

I always wondered if any tickets got challenged on constitutional grounds that there exists on human accuser. A machine cannot testify in court.

Nah. "I, Officer So-and-So, have reviewed the footage and it shows a violation of <statute>."

No different than reporting a blood alcohol content reading off a machine, really.

Yes, let's do nothing and let the governments of the world do whatever they want to us. What's the worst that could happen?

pervasive surveillance has a toxic effect on the human mind. it's the same reason mass surveillance by the nsa is disturbing, even if you have "nothing to hide"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com