Re:How the F.B.I. Can Detain, Render and Threaten Without Risk
by kbenson on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @02:32PM
(#10501929)
If you think you are being targeted as a suspect, that's one thing. If they are asking you simple questions (which is what a lot of this is about, people think they are helping law enforcement, when really they are being targeted) and you believe the law enforcement officers you are speaking of are willing to break the law on little provocation, your decision as to whether to cooperate or not should be more nuanced. Try not to say much without a witness of some sort, preferably a lawyer, but also try not to upset them. At that point are basically the same as mobsters, so act accordingly.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:How the F.B.I. Can Detain, Render and Threaten Without Risk
by Johnny555 on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @02:43PM
(#10502008)
So basically, you're screwed because the fox is guarding the henhouse.
This is one place where ubiquitous surveillance can be a good thing - police cameras (body cams, dash cams, and police station cams) should be unalterable (with footage signed by a neutral 3rd party with civilian oversight) and non-disablable, if a police camera is turned off or is blocked, it should send out an "officer assistance" signal by radio, and courts should view police actions skeptically when they happen outside of camera view.
Release of footage can still be governed by the courts to protect suspect privacy, but there's no reason that a police officer's official actions should be kept from the public.