Privacy and civil liberties are immensely important to the technology entrepreneur. We need to be aware of the legal pitfalls of technology, and be sensitive to the privacy risks we can create. I find this story very relevant to HN.
For example, if you are creating an app that records sound or images, you would want to be aware of the risks to camera users. Especially if that camera is less obvious than the camera used by the photographer in this story. The law seems to be on the side of the photographer but the realities are complex.
This is covered under the HN guidelines, as the intersection between technology, privacy, and civil liberties is definitely an interesting new and ongoing phenomenon.
There's no new technology intersection here. If someone got beaten up and jailed for refusing to disclose the password to an encrypted hard drive, that would be an example of what you're talking about. Full disk encryption is new. This is not. We've had photography and cops beating up photographers for a long time.
Let's be honest: this story is here because it makes people angry. It's the kind of story that you'd get as an email forward from your aunt. It gets attention and stirs up emotion. It does not gratify one's intellectual curiosity.
I agree with you on the lack of technology focus, but I didn't vote it up out of anger. Instead, I was astonished to find that the photographer was able to offer an even-handed account of the difficulties of his job and the need for balance:
CJ: Do you feel your rights were violated?
RS: Of course, but you have to realize that each situation each different. Just because we have this constitutional right doesn’t give us a complete right to do whatever we feel like doing. This needs to be understood. You can’t just stand your ground, in the middle of a police scene, and say, “Its my right to shoot this.” You have to walk carefully every time you show up to a [police] scene. There’s a lot involved. These police officers are trying to do a job too. Everyone needs to understand that. I always try to respect that.
CJ: For the benefit of those photographers up in arms about your situation, can you explain what you mean by “respect”?
RS: You want to be respectful of the police officers space as well. We need to be conscious of our surroundings. Even as we’re protected by our constitutional rights – this is important [as photographers] to remember. However, in this case, there is no question that what I was doing was right. I’m never the one to say the picture is more important than everything else on the scene. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for “standing my ground”, and an officer is in the middle of doing his job and [because of interfering] and an officer gets injured as a result of what I chose to do. Just because I have the “right” do take photos. I would never do that. And that is kind of what the police are saying about me. That they have the “right” to charge me with obstruction of government administration. They are using that to say, ‘we can do whatever we want.’ It’s unfortunate because I’m the one who was totally abused.
I'm scared of slippery slopes of Mount Reddit as well, but this is an article worth reading.
Every civil liberties story ever posted to HN has been accompanied by that justification, and, were it to be taken seriously, there would be nothing but social justice stories on HN, there being no dearth of important social justice stories to find on any given day.
If we included every Rails internals article, that'd push everything else off the front page too. HN catches the highlights, and I like that that includes a lot of different stuff.
"were it to be taken seriously, there would be nothing but social justice stories"
Total non-sequitur. I'm not saying I think this is a good HN article to upvote but the idea that this is somehow going to exclude everything else is bizarre.
I think you misread (or, equally likely, I wrote unclearly). I'm not saying "if you take the article seriously, we'll have nothing but social justice stories". I'm saying that if you take the premise that social justice is inherently interesting to hackers, then we'll end up with nothing but those stories.
Many people here, myself very much included, get their social justice stories in a different section of their RSS readers. It's not that those stories aren't interesting; it's that they simply aren't Hacker News, any more than updates about Girl Talk albums are Hacker News because hackers are so likely to listen to them.
I completely understand you don't want this type of article on HN. But, you don't need to worry the site will only be articles on social justice if hackers find the topic "inherently interesting." Most people here are inherently interested in a variety of topics and that's why the community makes room for a few these "off-topic" stories.
Broken window theory. The rate of civil rights outrages worldwide is more than high enough to overwhelm the forum, so the number of completely off topic stories only remains low thanks to people visibly objecting to them.
Acknowledging that social justice is inherently interesting does not imply that only social justice is interesting or that it is the most interesting. As such, the claim does not lead to 'nothing but those stories'. For that, additional premises are needed, none of which were posited.
Or to take a purely commercial angle: Where there is change, there is opportunity. Startups don't make money by joining the herd, but by exploiting changing situations.
Change can come in many forms, including social. Such stories are a record of social change, and the pressures that drive it.
My startup covers business news for the waste management industry, among others. But surely you don't want to hear about Virginia's new landfill and recycling restrictions even though they're tangentially connected to a startup and to technology?
Slamming a photographers camera in his face you call complex? i would call it stupid abuse of power, if the police officer felt threatened, he should act like a pofessional, not a bully from highschool.
Most of us carry smart phones that could, at any time, be recording audio, photos or video. It is useful to know if the police can abuse you simply because you are suspected of recording them.
Some of us are building or contemplating building products that make use of those smart phone features. If such activity is likely to result in police brutality directed at our customers, that is worth knowing.
Technology impacts the real world. How and where our technology touches society in general is worth understanding.
Most of us carry smart phones that could, at any time, be recording audio, photos or video.
Most of everyone does, though. That doesn't make it HN material. I'd wager that most of us brush our teeth, but I don't think that an article about toothbrush sales should be posted here.
HN has really turned into anti {government, Hollywood, big music, Facebook, Google, Craigslist, anything-else-that-is-large-and makes-a-bunch-of-money} lately so this isn't surprising.
Well, government, Hollywood, Big music, Facebook, (arguably) Google, Craigslist, and any other enterprise which is large and makes a bunch of money, are clear and present dangers to the mostly free internet we have today. Which, considering my job, and considering the average startup, is the biggest threat to their existence.
Since it doesn't allow other websites to wholesale copy it's listings and data for their own use (and monetization) it is a danger to the free(loading) internet apparently.
Considering you now have to give up your copyright to them if you post anything there, I'd have to say yes. Abusing our broken system of laws makes you a danger.
That sounds like the same attitude of 2600 or /. It is hardly new in this sub-culture, and has been around for decades.
Innovative technologies are disruptive, and those behind the disruption generally look down on monopolies with antiquated products. Given the pace of change, sometimes we as the disruptive become the disrupted.
Reddit also has /r/programming, so why don't we just move all the technical discussions there too, while we're at it?
The reason HN is interesting is not that it has unique submissions--it mostly doesn't--but that it has consistently insightful commentary. It makes sense to bring up topics like this here rather than Reddit simply because of the resulting discussions.
Also, my impression is that HN has always been disproportionately libertarianish. In fact, in my experience, this is true of the tech and startup communities in general. So I don't think this is a particularly new development.
I'd argue that it doesn't have consistently insightful commentary with regards to these issues.
I love reading HN comments on tech news/debates/articles because I know there's going to be a huge depth and breadth of different commenters' experiences and anecdotes. This generally isn't true with regards to political/social stuff, where the vast majority of commenters have the same belief and experience.
That being said, I don't really mind the submissions -- because they're easily identifiable -- I just hope they aren't signals of a larger trend towards generalism. (Reddit, too, used to be predominantly tech/programming articles.)
I like to keep in mind http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html for these topics. And it does seem like there have been more and more of them--hopefully at worst it's a trend to "tech, programming, startups, and politics" rather than full generality. From that essay, the large number of comments on these threads is explained by "Politics, like religion, is a topic where there's no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions." Though I would add that this extends to many more subjects, including bashing companies.
If submissions to nothing more than image macros ever get popular, then it's time to jump ship because HN has become way too much like Reddit.
One of the reason HN has consistently insightful commentary is that we consistently flag/downvote non-insightful articles and posts.
You can't simply introduce more social-justice type articles and expect the rest of HN to stay the same. This is why I recommend sticking with the site guidelines: if it would be covered on TV news (this would!) it doesn't belong here, unless it's evidence of some new phenomena (this isn't!)
While civil liberty issues get upvoted here, I think the added element of photography amplifies the interest. The intersection between techies and photography enthusiasts seems pretty high (you'll note there are a number of photography/imaging technology stories here as well).
Right. Well... except for that little bit where it is an interesting data point in how official backlash against amateur photography and journalism is reaching the formerly safe "credentialed pro" folks. You know, the thing where the cops nation-wide, and honestly world-wide are starting to attack everyone reporting on them using easy access tech like phones, because it upsets the former balance where only they had those powers.
Has nothing to do with those of us making that tech at all. You're right.
You are trolling HN with your constant complaining about off topic stories. Down vote and move on. Look at amout of "discussion" that is in response to the OT story. The second level OT-OT I can only construe as to poison the well.
I think there is a story here actually that is a valuable lesson to those who read HN.
He goes to a great lengths to tell this as "nothing to see here, move along.."
Now why would he do that?
My theory on this is that in the past he didn't have to contend with pain in the ass bystanders doing the same thing that he did. Those amateurs are now making it increasingly difficult for a professional like him to do his job.
As a result he wants to send a message out there for fear that if he doesn't his rights will be restricted as a result of others behaviors. It's a little "last man over the bridge".
The other possibility of course is that he has something to hide. He doesn't want to stir the hornets nest for fear that something will happen to him and he wants to keep a low profile by ending this as soon as possible.
Really? He didn't say there was nothing to see here. He said his rights were violated (and given his professional history, he seems capable of making that determination). He said he was appalled at his treatment, at the individual police who did this to him, and the people who are backing up the police who did this to him.
His equivocation was intended to head off the "police are all nazis because one of them took my camera and arrested me when I was in the middle of a crime scene and interfering with the police" attitude that's all too common. He pointed out that there is a line between responsible documentation of events, and interference, and that line is crossed sometimes, and people criticize the police anyway, and that's not right.
I agree that he might be concerned about the proliferation of amateur journalism. But, my guess is that his balanced attitude is really because doesn't want to be known as a problem photographer to NYPD officers. It would just make his job (and life) more difficult.
American democracy has now begun to begin "The Internet Reformation". This will be annoying for the apathetic. Expect significant friction with police as they are the tools of those currently in power.
To put it another way, how useful is the right to read the source if one does not have the right to free speech, assembly, religion (or lack there of), and petition for redress of grievances.
To be even more blunt, the Magna Carta Libertatum is under attack.
You have to know about the world in order to change it.
I don't want to sound like an idiot spouting zen koans but you really have to be aware of major trends to be able to navigate around them or even perhaps change them. The clash between technology and authority is a very interesting one.
The individual, the mob and the government are all empowered differently by each new advance.
I would say that it shows evidence of the increasingly common trend of police officers frequently greeting citizens going about lawful activities with violence.
For example, if you are creating an app that records sound or images, you would want to be aware of the risks to camera users. Especially if that camera is less obvious than the camera used by the photographer in this story. The law seems to be on the side of the photographer but the realities are complex.
This is covered under the HN guidelines, as the intersection between technology, privacy, and civil liberties is definitely an interesting new and ongoing phenomenon.