←back to thread

291 points dataflow | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.415s | source
Show context
reverendsteveii ◴[] No.44604806[source]
>bypassed ban

Broke the law is the phrase we want here. They did an illegal thing. They didn't just scoot past a barrier, they violated people's rights.

replies(3): >>44604863 #>>44604877 #>>44605090 #
gruez ◴[] No.44604863[source]
>They didn't just scoot past a barrier, they violated people's rights.

Claiming that an administrative policy against using facial recognition as a "right" seems like a stretch.

replies(3): >>44604915 #>>44609713 #>>44614857 #
elashri ◴[] No.44604915[source]
> Claiming that an administrative policy against using facial recognition as a "right" seems like a stretch.

This is such strange way to describe "right for privacy".

replies(2): >>44604959 #>>44605173 #
gruez ◴[] No.44604959[source]
But it's not really a "right". The next police commissioner/mayor could conceivably overturn it if they wanted to. That's not the same as most other "rights", free speech for instance. More importantly to this case, because the police only violated a policy and not a constitutional right, the defense can't apply to have the evidence tossed under the exclusionary rule.
replies(1): >>44605014 #
johnisgood ◴[] No.44605014[source]
I remember a case (in Eastern Europe) where someone who took a video of their colleagues sleeping during a night shift got in trouble for the usage of phone (which is known to be used BTW), and nothing happened to the ones sleeping through the night shift. We are talking about a facility full of people with dementia and are known to go back and forth the hospital for serious falls and all that (at night, too). So backwards.
replies(1): >>44605182 #
tetromino_ ◴[] No.44605182[source]
Which is in some ways similar to the case in this article. The police violated department policy to identify the student who hurled a rock at another student. And the article is somehow painting the rock-throwing attacker as a victim, even talking about the attacker's complaints that they were identified and are now receiving hate mail.
replies(4): >>44605206 #>>44605646 #>>44605767 #>>44609724 #
1. zimpenfish ◴[] No.44605767[source]
> The police violated department policy to identify the student who hurled a rock at another student.

Allegedly. The article doesn't mention any evidence that he actually did.

> "Per the record before this court, there is no additional evidence connecting the defendant to the alleged incident — no surveillance video to and from his home, no independent identification by others in attendance."

No evidence.

> "This case is premised on the complainant's word that he was the target of criminal actions by another person, and that other person was the defendant."

Weak evidence (with potential bias.)

> "The NYPD digitally altered the defendant's DMV photograph [...] never sought the metadata which would clearly indicate how, when, and perhaps by whom the photo was doctored."

Manufactured evidence.

> "That statement alone renders these medical records discoverable as possible impeachment material, necessitating their disclosure [...] Yet the People [...] have articulated no efforts to obtain these records"

Withholding evidence from the defence.

All in all, utter bullshit from the prosecution.