
Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects - robg
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125046098403135197.html
======
patio11
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".)

~~~
jsteele
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.

~~~
patio11
_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.

~~~
jsteele
You didn't answer the question.

~~~
Semiapies
There's no intention of answering it, just demonizing "civil libertarians" -
i.e., anyone who disagrees with him and thinks this violates civil liberties -
in order to pretend to have the high ground.

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

~~~
calcnerd256
or if you have a spare openId lying around

------
jpwagner
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
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?

~~~
dkarl
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.

~~~
nonrecursive
I wouldn't say that it's designed for when police don't want to do their job.
There are many communities where there aren't enough police to do a good job.
Using techniques like this seems like it would allow them to use actual humans
where they're more needed.

The cases cited in the article were of neighbors asking the police to somehow
combat the unruly elements in their communities. It seems like you're under
the impression that this is a matter of "nervous prejudices" running wild,
like some Salem witch trials scenario. But what would you, personally, think
would be the best course of action if one of your neighbors (not you yourself)
was a drug dealer whose activities were a constant nuisance, if not a threat
to your well being? What would have the police do if they had tried every
other tactic at their disposal? I don't know if you have children, but if you
did - would you just stoically endure, put them in danger, on the basis that a
technique which works might one day be abused?

I know it's lame to say "think of the children!", but when you're talking
about drug dealers and the kind of trouble they bring I think it's
appropriate. In high school I worked with a lot of kids from bad neighborhoods
and saw the effects of living in an unstable environment. If something like
this helps out kids like them, I'm all for it.

/rambling

~~~
dkarl
As far as I'm concerned, nobody is a drug dealer until the police have caught
them dealing drugs. Gossip is not a good way to determine who the good guys
and bad guys are. In the cases described, what's freaking people out is their
neighbors being noisy and dirty and keeping odd hours. These are class and
cultural differences which, I will admit, are really annoying and (I assume)
strongly associated with criminal activity, but people should be held
responsible for behavior that is observed and documented, not serious criminal
behavior that is statistically inferred from violations of decorum. You can
easily make a neighborhood more pleasant and secure by running out all the
poor people, or all the black people, or all the straight people. Or the
Irish. That's stereotyping. (It works, bitches! But it's wrong.)

You want to raise the tenor of the neighborhood, broken-windows style? Then
use existing laws or HOA rules about trash and noise. Pass new and draconian
ones if necessary. Go wild! But the police shouldn't hold people responsible
for their neighbors' assumptions about them. We're supposed to be a liberal
society, in the classic sense of the word. If you want to treat someone as a
drug dealer, catch them dealing drugs.

~~~
pbhj
_"As far as I'm concerned, nobody is a drug dealer until the police have
caught them dealing drugs."_

Which is clearly false.

 _"Then use existing laws or HOA rules about trash and noise."_

How do you make a noise survey without surveilling people. How do you know
which house to surveille without listening to the neighbours?

------
movix
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?

~~~
Semiapies
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.

------
aplusbi
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](http://www.ny1.com/Default.aspx?ArID=64500&SecID=1000)

~~~
silentOpen
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?

------
bonsaitree
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".

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

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

~~~
Semiapies
_edited_

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

~~~
kragen
I'm sorry to hear it. There's some pretty ugly stuff coming out, for sure.

