Hacker News Reader

Comment by iugtmkbdfil834 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

To "surveil" a law enforcement agency is usually described as journalism or public accountability in democracies.

No, it's not. Which newspaper or news network would continuously track the physical location of cops - or of anybody for that matter?

Here are three examples involving physical surveillance, mining public data, and using data collected by a third party, respectively.

https://www.fox8live.com/2026/08/07/unchecked-overtime-nopd-...

https://niemanreports.org/mining-the-data/

https://gijn.org/stories/investigations-using-strava-fitness...

I expect a "but this case is different" type reply; it's almost always possible to make an argument like that.

They would do that as part of their journalistic investigations. Just like a private eye would also track people. The difference is motive.

But it's a big grey zone between some clear cut "black" and "white" cases. I don't know if prosecutors are using or will use the fact of surveilling law enforcement as a crime itself or as evidence for intent to commit other crimes.

Again, but if you kick a beehive do you expect not to get stung?

In any reasonable way non totalitarian state you expect law enforcement to be limited in their capabilities tho not be a beehive retaliating against accountability

I expect law enforcement agencies to act like professional public services, not venomous insects.

Of course, but it is a _crime_ for the bee to sting in this case and I’m (rightly) angry about it. What’s the probable cause in posting public data?

It is a fascinating question. I was going to give you a canned response, but.. I think..as a society we may be coming to an interesting moment, when we kinda have to decide, which part of the equation is more important.

I agree, we are going to have to make some choices because it’s clear that we now have technology where anyone can track anyone else in public with some cheap hardware (e.g. ESP cams) and a Claude subscription.

I’d actually be OK with a symmetric response to this, in fact, I WOULD LOVE a symmetric response: law enforcement can’t use AI to track citizens and we can’t use AI to track them.

… but there is a lot of 1st and 4th amendment shenanigans going on with all of this and I can’t even guess where it will land.

I agree something will have to give. Current situation is a clear indicator of a major change in power balance. I know it was discussed on HN before, but just being able to generate actual online profiles with a dose of confidence based on known various personal fingerprints is enough to make most of us hesitate ( just the other day I put the method to the test on persona HN analyzer thing -- it gets crazy fast; I stopped, but I suspect a lot of people have built an equivalent that just happens to run behind various closer doors ).

Interesting times man.

In a functioning, pro-democracy country: yes.

I get the angle you're coming from, but I feel like it's missing the point.

The problem is we have a beehive full of ICE/HSI agents that are going around in plain clothes, yelling "trust me bro" in place of warrants/badges/names, and demanding full obedience to anyone they approach.

The same people will injure, sometimes gravely, and refuse medical treatment while holding them in terrible conditions. The party line is that anyone who is arrested by these people are "criminals", which is just a direct contradiction to the bill of rights.

At the end of the day, your comments are saying "I don't care about the bill of rights, all that matters is authority regardless of the legitimacy."

I disagree and your characterization of my argument seems inaccurate. Still, at least you can muster appropriate counter. Thank you.

Appreciate the response. The characterization is purposefully blunt. IMO we don't have the time or luxury to play around with debates over how people act towards agents of the state, when agents of the state ultimately answer to the constitution.

Perhaps it's a problem that our supposed public servants can aptly be compared to a dangerous swarm of bees?

Like, in a non-dystopian world, they'd not be hiding their activities and not be attacking people who observe them, but would instead be behaving legally and ethically and therefor not be concerned.

Sure, but even if you expect to get stung, will you not yell and curse when it happens?

“they are surprised LEOs can compel paid service to produce records”

I’m not surprised, but this is not how it’s supposed to be in the US.

The fourth amendment is supposed to force a high bar for collecting evidence in this way but we’ve been slowly eroding those rights away over the last 50 years.

Well the issue is private corporations selling data willingly is not bound by the fourth amendment. So just assume whatever any US corporation knows about you is also known by the US government because they will sell your data for a penny.

Including ssh logs sounds like a warrant to me. I doubt fly.io would sell customers’ ssh logs.

What's wrong with surveilling LEO? If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.

What is good for the goose and whatnot. What I am saying is that when you do things that are bound to get attention is not to assume that you won't get attention.

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-alarms-law-f...

You may think you have nothing to hide but See NSPM-7. National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 that directs the federal government to disrupt groups “before” they result in violent political acts. In other words, pre-crime.

The DOJ/FBI etc. can now investigate and unilaterally DECIDE if you have something to hide if they believe you hold views "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity, government overthrow, race/gender/migration extremism, and hostility toward traditional views on family, religion, or morality"

The DOJ/FBI can DECIDE this for any reason they want -- the shoes you bought yesterday, a Reddit comment from 5 years ago, a rainbow sticker on your water bottle. I have everything to fear just opening my Mac or stepping out my door.

I thought for sure you’d be exaggerating or just being sensationalist

Much to my dismay this is real

I just looked this up and all I can say is wow. Legit reminds me of some of the stuff I read about as a kid about the Cold War, communism, etc

Wild that this stuff doesn’t even make the news anymore

Your stance of LEO being an antagonistic force belies a deeper moral corruption that I find gross and incompatible with a liberal (free) society. Wilhoit’s Law and all that.

I am genuinely intrigued. Please elaborate.

Not sure what there is to elaborate upon.

Allowing law enforcement to maintain a default stance of antagonism - “us vs them” - can only lead to law enforcement being leveraged by those in power (political or capital power) to define who the “them” is.

I’d much rather have law enforcement have a default cooperative stance with their communities and society at large. You know, if “protect and serve” wasn’t just a marketing gimmick but an actual principle applied during process and procedures.

In essence: thin blue line is an illiberal aesthetic that has 19th century American leaders rolling in their graves - at least the ones who weren’t chasing down slaves to return to the South.

Hmm. Interesting. Function may be an emergent quality of the organization itself ( as human I have two hands, as octopus I have more appendages to play with ). In other words, the question is not really on what you personally would rather have, but what a given body type bestows upon a given organizational type.

Your body determines your function oversimplification for the purposes of this argument.

See also “Peelian principles”: <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peelian_principle...>

Reply on news.ycombinator.com