They have the super power of working within a judicial framework which forces them to be prove the suspects' guilt thoroughly before any kind of punishment can be dealt. This is not the case with vigilantes.
No, while obviously uncivilized and outside of civilized rules of justice, it is not the same. At the minimum, there are some named people responsible for this who you can sue or at least make a dent in their reputation if they abuse their power (see Ortiz case.) The internet crowd bears zero responsibility.
> They have the super power of working within a judicial framework which forces them to be prove the suspects' guilt thoroughly before any kind of punishment can be dealt.
The Presumption of Innocence is actually not directly enshrined in the US constitution, and has been relaxed or reversed by the government to serve "societal needs."
They have the super power of working within a judicial framework which forces them to be prove the suspects' guilt thoroughly before any kind of punishment can be dealt.
Yeah, how about those drug offenses? Or copyright issues? Or computer fraud and abuse? Or...
Or... a witch hunt. That is what public justice is. That's why we have police.
They also have the super power of getting a search warrant and going through your fucking house so that they can find real evidence not just some pictures or possibly innocent people on the internet.
I don't know why I'm so pissed about these photo's but it most have something to do with the hypocrisy of HN being a group of people who hate to be watched and yet... WE are watching YOU. Seriously how are these photos any different than the government having drones? They are public? The public doesn't need to do everything and the government shouldn't be 100% open. I think this demonstrates just how bad it would be if private citizens were given the launch codes to nuclear weapons.
Give me a break dude, there's a huge difference between taking photos at a huge public event and government drones. I can't believe this even has to be addressed.
You are at a public event, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy and could not argue so in court.
If you are in your backyard and your neighbor is videotaping you, then that's illegal if you have the expectation of privacy. The government can basically do the same with impunity with drones without it being illegal.
OK see you are arguing to a specific point on the drones issue. I.E. them being used in your back yard. I'm referring to the idea that the government (using your logic) could film and track you whenever you go out in public, period.
But that's not the point I'm trying to make, Someone took a photo (publicly available) and found someone without a backpack, then the put it up online and said, this guy is a suspect.
Now we have a crowd of people (here on Hacker news and if you follow the threads others on Reddit) who have seen this guys face. The law of idiots leads me to believe that someone is going to recognize him and this could adversely affect his life.
Is it illegal... no. Is it morally wrong to post something like this online, I believe so. Sure, he has no right to privacy, and I'm no lawyer, but to slander someone's name with a very limited amount of evidence seems fucked up. I said it in another area, but they should have privately released this information to the police and let them investigate.
So, reading your post, I just wondered something, I realize it may sound stupid. Most people don't have a backyard. As soon as they get away from under their roof, they are in a public space. Does this not affect them?
I used backyard as the sort of example that is always made in law school. Backyards are actually not entirely private. Say you have an illegal pool, if the cops see it from the air, you're still subject to prosecution. Or if you shared a backyard with a neighbor and were running around naked when they have free access to the backyard, it's still exposure.
What is true is that if you have a 12 foot fence and are in your backyard topless and your neighbor films you, then that's illegal because you had an expectation of privacy. Same goes if someone is being taped in a bathroom. You are in space that's not publicly accessible. I'm not 100% sure where the definitive case law on what is and is not private resides, but most of it is well defined in the physical world. So consider these three things: barriers (walls, space is not public), ownership (I own or are here with consent of who owns), and consent (I agreed to wave privacy rights explicity or de facto i.e. I'm walking down this street). These three things have to be ALL met or else you could tape people taking showers at your house legally.
With your apartment, things are even more gray because you don't have an absolute right to privacy there as your landlord can enter the premises under many pretenses.
