Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125046098403135197.html

by robg • 17 years ago

34 92 17 years ago

online.wsj.com

patio112• 17 years ago

Seems that it is probably less to shame and more to threaten the suspects with surveillance of their criminal activities. I don't have any particular issue with it, but I suspect civil libertarians might. (In particular, "We pretend to watch them, to scare them into thinking we really are watching them, and thus to control them without exerting effort" is called the "panopticon" in academic literature, and is widely despised by anybody who has ever said the word "panopticon".)

jsteele5• 17 years ago

Who are "civil libertarians"? People who value their civil liberties? People who are willing to do something to protect them? Whatever they are, you say you're not one. Interesting.

calcnerd2568• 17 years ago

I think the label suggests that they self-identify about it in an obnoxious way. Kind of like how "card-carrying member of the ACLU" is sometimes used as an insult, even though everyone wants their own civil liberties defended.

patio112• 17 years ago

Who are "civil libertarians"? People who value their civil liberties?

People who value civil liberties are civil libertarians in the same sense that people who value women are feminists.

Whatever they are, you say you're not one.

Correct. I am also not a feminist.

calcnerd2568• 17 years ago

There's a difference between all-else-equal and uber-alles when it comes to a positive thing. This is why the abortion debate has cute euphemisms that are both pro-something-the-other-side-is-also-in-favor-of.

Kadin• 17 years ago

I consider myself a "civil libertarian," in the sense of caring about the preservation of liberty -- but I don't have a problem with this.

Well-placed targeted enforcement and surveillance are good things; without them, as people start to feel more and more threatened by crime, you start to get more demands for everpresent surveillance and UK-style CCTV. Using targeted surveillance on a case-by-case basis seems like an excellent way to head that off.

Also, I think it's good that having cameras pointed at your house still carries a strongly negative connotation. When people stop caring that they're being watched all the time, that's when you know you're heading down the road to a surveillance society.

grandalf13• 17 years ago

I do have a bit of a problem with it.

Suppose if rather than a truck it were a giant scarecrow with cameras, placed facing the house of people suspected of having committed a crime.

Is the average person allowed to own a vehicle with cameras and park it outside the home of someone they don't like?

It seems like blatant harassment.

Semiapies11• 17 years ago

"as people start to feel more and more threatened by crime"

Yes, despite crime rates in a long-term decline in the US, at least there are folks like you to push the idea that people should feel more and more "threatened" so as to accept measures like this.

absconditus• 17 years ago

My main issue with this is that drugs are illegal.

jpwagner2• 17 years ago

So they shame people before they've proven they've committed a crime?

They are putting the neighborhood under surveillance?

I appreciate the ingenuity, but this is big brother-ish.

pbhjpbhj• 17 years ago

Yeah, if there are reports of criminal activities the cops should stay away and not look at what's going on, dam those meddling cops stopping criminals from doing their deals. </sarcasm>

Presumably you'd like patroling officers to be fitted with blindfolds to avoid them surveilling people from the street?

erso• 17 years ago

The surveillance footage is rarely reviewed by the police and is saved for just a short time before it is erased.

dkarl3• 17 years ago

The problem is that this is designed specifically for when police don't want to do their job. They believe the people are "bad" and engaged in undesirable activity, but they can't be bothered to investigate and gather evidence of criminal activity. Instead, they want to make their lives miserable, on the principle that the threat of surveillance bothers the guilty, but not the innocent. And any sweet old lady can tag someone as a "bad element" who needs to be driven out of town.

If that's what we want, then we don't need police in the first place. We just need close-knit communities where good old boys are eager to enforce the nervous prejudices of the community using violence and intimidation.

Don't get me wrong; I'm a quiet, boring person who detests littering. I wouldn't be a target for this kind of operation. But we already know the hazards of this kind of justice. We've been there, done that, and moved on.

bonsaitree2• 17 years ago

Technically speaking, the residence is being accused of an infraction, not a crime. It's akin to a parking ticket.

As I've noted in my earlier comment, the "jig" is up with this procedure the minute the infraction is fought in court and a single precedent is established in case law.

jsteele5• 17 years ago

The residence is being accused? Residences can commit crimes/infractions?

Semiapies11• 17 years ago

Which is why they'd never use it anywhere they'd expect the targets to have a reaction beyond helpless apprehension at the cops parking in front of their house - ie, no white suburbs.

kqr2• 17 years ago

Yes, I wouldn't want to live in a surveillance society either, however, that may be preferable to rampant crime -- especially if it's the crime where you fear for your safety. At that point, though, moving is probably the better alternative.

Perhaps public surveillance needs to be conducted like a search warrant and subject to public discussion. It should automatically expire after a certain amount of time.

Also, the evidence can only be used for intended purposes. Police should not be allowed to spy on people indiscriminately.

moscoso• 17 years ago

Seems another version of the "caveirão" we have here in Rio.

kragen2• 17 years ago

I think there's a big difference between killing people indiscriminately and putting a camera in front of their house.

Semiapies11• 17 years ago

edited

Retracted - I'm just too disgusted reading this thread, today.

aplusbi• 17 years ago

Reminds me of the NYPD SkyTowers, which from what I've read are generally unmanned and the footage is never reviewed: http://www.ny1.com/Default.aspx?ArID=64500&SecID=1000

silentOpen• 17 years ago

Government CCTVs everywhere, now! Deterrence, hooray!

The Armadillo is somehow less offensive as its range is lower and it operates in a lower density area. On the flip side, the SkyTowers don't target anyone whereas the Armadillo is very targeted. Is it fair to publicly shame a person or group of people for a crime they are still presumed innocent of? What about mistakes? What about the police chief's daughter's boyfriend?

movix• 17 years ago

More than 900 people have been followed and filmed by Greater Manchester Police as part of a pilot project to prevent crime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8164697.stm

They can arrest you before you've even THOUGHT of committing a crime.

Not as a 'civil libitarian' but as an ordinary human I find this disturbing.

I don't know how you solve the problem of these mostly 'low level' criminal activities, but maybe they should park those trucks on the doorstep of some major international banks. Isn't this where the real harm to society is being done?

Semiapies11• 17 years ago

Judging by the comments here, a lot of HN commentors would welcome surveillance, especially if targeted at poor, minority neighborhoods.

The kindest thing I can think to say is that when the cops get the address wrong, they only intimidate the Hell out of the people inside and maybe scare them into moving, as opposed to the usual practice of smashing down their doors, assaulting them, and sometimes shooting them.

Considering the ridiculously flimsy pretenses narcotics officers can use to get warrants to raid homes, the fact that police would resort to something like this when they can't justify arresting someone should be a waving, neon-red flag.

pbhj3• 17 years ago

"They can arrest you before you've even THOUGHT of committing a crime."

You arrest (halt people from continuing in their normal activity) in order to determine if a crime has been committed or to determine if the person halted is prima facie guilty and accessory or privy to information about a known crime.

It's almost a truism that the police should arrest those who are not able to be proven guilty or are not guilty of any crime.

When I've been stopped, yes it makes me nervous, but it also affirms to me that the police are actually taking part in tracing criminals and attempting to reduce crime.

mrshoe• 17 years ago

My college roommate's dad worked with microfinance companies in India. Every month, a representative from the company would go from town to town collecting monthly payments from the borrowers.

Sometimes the borrower would claim that they could not pay. In that case, the collector was instructed to just sit down and wait for them to pay. The shame of having the collector sitting in their village was overwhelming, and payments were usually made within the hour.

A lot of people try to get away with bad stuff because nobody they know is watching. I'm glad that there are no Anonymous Cowards on HN. It's always interesting to see how differently people behave when their peers' focus is turned on them.

dan_the_welder• 17 years ago

You can still be an Anonymous Coward here if there is nothing in your user:about.

calcnerd2568• 17 years ago

or if you have a spare openId lying around

electromagnetic3• 17 years ago

That doesn't just work with debters, I've done it to electronics retailers who've jerked me around. I was told my phone had water damage when it was in fact over heating, and then they somehow managed to lose it when I asked for it to be returned. I sat in the phone store for about 3 hours watching the guy, and the store front was about 20sqft with a bench. I got a brand new replacement phone out of that one.

I've also sat on the line with my cell phone operator for near an hour because they wiped my credit early. I got a full refund and they extended my top-up time by two weeks.

People willingly stress themselves out, staying relaxed and using this to your advantage can help you anywhere.

Semiapies11• 17 years ago

A thoughtless person might think there's a difference between being harmlessly stubborn with someone who owes you money and the cops parking a brightly marked armored vehicle in front of someone's house because of supposed offenses.

bonsaitree2• 17 years ago

It's a nice niche solution for non-violent "nuisance" issues, but it will only scale to the point where the cost of temporary criminal activity shutdown and/or location movement is less than the risk/cost of dirt-cheap anti-materiel sabotage actions against the truck. A very, very low bar to hurtle.

Examples: Thermite + Firecracker Ignition against an axle, Short-range "spray painting" of camera portals w/ heat-set epoxy, Long-range shooting of camera portals with suppressed sub-sonic ammo or high-powered air rifles.

Additionally, the very minute a reasonably well-educated/funded home-owner brings a case against the "nuisance" claim to court, any further use of the truck would be limited to the local municipality's statutory limits on mere infractions (non-crimes)--typically no more than 24 hours.

To enable the truck to loiter any longer, the local prosecutor would have to file formal criminal charges and declare the particular residence a "crime zone".

Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

Related Stories