Obama Administration supports journalist who was arrested after recording cops | Hacker News Reader

Obama Administration supports journalist who was arrested after recording cops

arstechnica.com

19 pointswglb25 comments

The Holder DOJ has been sending notices to state AG's and LEO's informing them that laws restricting the recording of police officers are unconstitutional. Good for them.

I'm not sure what this has to do with HN, though, so I flagged it. Sorry, Bill! :|

Bad bad tptacek. I'm surprised by your comment. Initially I though, this guy has to be a newbie, we discuss this kinds of things all the time here, which is one of the main reasons I come to this place.

Hacker News is notorious for loving this kind of stuff so I'm not so sure why something like this is not relevant. Specially since Obama and Holder have many times not been on the same side as us. i.e. copyright, Is kind of surprising to see them protecting civil liberties when lately I've felt they have not been doing a very good job.

You can't even argue for this story being germane without trying to start a political argument, which I'm going to call case- in- point. I unflagged, and then flagged again.

>> You can't even argue for this story being germane without trying to start a political argument

Which is fine in my view. Is a lot of fun to read the political points and counter-points of a lot of people. You really learn a lot.

edit: I guess you could say this is not the right forum to discuss politics. Not all the time, maybe. Some of the time I think is fine since politics affects all of us. Unfortunately, right now there is no better place to have intelligent discussion in all types of topics so I do enjoy it when we analyze stories like this. We need to have a diverse diet, I believe.

I suspect you haven't read the site guidelines yet.

Uh, if you're going to cite the guidelines, please make sure you're not opening the comment thread by violating them.

Specifically: "Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."

More to the point, the story wasn't about politics per se (at least not about partisan disagreement). It was about a policy shift (not the same thing) that can have real implications for technology (i.e. Glass, which could be technically illegal in jurisdictions that have misapplied wiretapping laws to limit counter-survailence of the police).

More amusingly, this is a story about over-agressive policing and the push-back it's attracted. You respond with over-agressive policing and get angry with push-back it attracts. See the irony?

No, I do not see the irony. Posting on HN isn't a constitutionally protected civil liberty.

As Lessig (among others) has noted, "code is law", which makes politics and technology inseparable (case in point: PIPA/SOPA).

What worries me are technologists who not only don't understand this, but think it's appropriate to "flag" discussion about this reality. Seriously, this is like creationists sticking fingers in ears and saying "lalalalala" every time someone whispers "Darwin."

Oh, look, we managed to work creationism into the thread! And this is what happens when the Obama administration does something good.

I'm not sure what this has to do with HN, though, so I flagged it. Sorry, Bill! :|

HN Guidelines:

"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."

Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, for an old hand, tptacek, not impressed...

I am prepared to sacrifice 1000 karma points for every comment I write saying I flagged a story. Please feel free to petition Paul Graham to make that happen.

I can see your point, but I have seen useful discussions about what is legal to do with technology in this particular public space, so we disagree a bit on this.

Whenever I hear of the police reaction to being recorded, I find myself wondering if they are thinking of Rodney King. Keep in mind that the whole Rodney King thing would not have happened without a video recorder.

I find the discussion on this topic interesting--law and technology, but I can see why many might not.

I would suggest that if the White House was really concerned that these police officers had violated the Constitution, that the President should order the National Guards to arrest the officers involved (including their supervisors all the way to the chief of police for failure to properly supervise) and deliver them to a Federal Grand Jury and charge them with sedition against the United States. Then other police officers around the country would think twice before violating the law.

Right now they're just washing their hands of their responsibility and essentially saying that the US constitution is not law.

Problem: Civil liberties concerns.

Solution: Re-introduce enforcement of seditious conspiracy statutes.

This is creative legal problem solving a caliber only found on HN political threads.

> I would suggest that if the White House was really concerned that these police officers had violated the Constitution, that the President should order the National Guards to arrest the officers involved (including their supervisors all the way to the chief of police for failure to properly supervise) and deliver them to a Federal Grand Jury and charge them with sedition against the United States.

You cannot possibly be serious. The President is supposed to mobilize military assets and compel a grand jury to issue his chosen indictment? You're completely missing the forest for the trees here, not to mention knowledge of the Posse Comitatus Act.

So then who is supposed to enforce violations of the constitution?

The courts. Failing that, the people.

How lame would it be to attempt to uphold the Constitution by blatantly breaching it?

If the courts fail to uphold the constitution, how exactly are the people supposed to? By armed rebellion? By voting different people in office? I see a problem with that line of reasoning, when candidates and parties cater to the needs of monied corporations rather than the demands of the people...

Rather, the President, elected by the People, has a solemn duty to the Constitution, as evidenced by the oath of office they must take upon taking office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (from wikipedia)

Well, if a police officer in a small town violates the Constitutional right of a United States Citizen, does not the President of the Unites States have the right, even the obligation, to come to the aid of such citizen, and counter the actions of the police officer?

Yikes, you guys read your history?

American history says that we are not very fond of Kings.

Oh, but there are plenty of Royalists in America. Lots of them want the Jewish carpenter to Rule All.

I see this as no different than President Johnson using the Alabama National Guards to protect the marchers in 1963, to protect their constitutional rights.

Well that's part of your problem right there, is that you see no difference at all between protecting citizens from the oppression of a racist state, and using the Department of Defense to usurp the powers of the DoJ and the judiciary.

These would hardly be the first cops to have done something wrong in the U.S., and we've not needed to use military before. Let the system work as it was intended to work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com