Disagree. The police interviews are designed to get people to say things that will get them convicted. This is a hackable system -- a social hack, but a hack nonetheless. (It might also be argued that the real hack is the police interviews where they trick people into giving up their 5th amendment rights.)
Also, the video is extremely interesting in its own right.
Yes but if those articles come to Hacker News so you don't have to go to Reddit, why would you keep using HN?
The best way to know if something is off topic, and indeed the best reason not to post off topic stuff, is if you think the community will spend more time debating whether the article is on or off topic than the article itself.
That's a good point, but I think it's a stretch to argue that this is on topic. If the point of the submission was the social hacking aspect it might be better received if the headline reflected that. As is, a submission like this would be much more appropriate on Reddit or Digg.
This IS hacker news. It is closely related to a certain creator of a certain file system who refused to exercise his 5th Amendment rights and is now formally convicted of murder.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The relevant bit here is the part about being a witness against yourself. You can't remain silent when asked for identification, but you don't have to answer the cop when he asks you if you know how fast you were going. In that situation, you're pleading your 5th amendment right.
1. If I know I am totally innocent, I am totally honest with the cops
2. If you are kinda guilty, i.e., you did something wrong but it wasn't that bad, supplicate yourself to the cop and place yourself at their mercy
3. If you are guilty and know it, shut the fuck up
Bingo. Don't forget the word 'detained'. Cops can either detain or arrest you. Normally, they will tell you when you are being detained.
Being detained means they may put you in cuffs for their own safety while they try to understand the situation. (Let's say you are involved in a domestic squabble.) You are temporarily under the state's custody but you aren't being charged with anything.
You know what being arrested means. You don't want that.
So following this advice and the knowledge that police can lie to you in interrogation^Winterview (and not only there) I would do this:
1. tell the cop that you will exercise your 5th amendment.
2. tell the cop that you know that the police is allowed to lie to interviewee.
3. tell the cop that you will add the time wasted here to
cost that will be billed to him or most likely sued for in counter claims court.
4. tell the cop "that by detaining me here further you agree
to accept any and all such costs"
5. tell them it is their move.
do 3. and 4. if you got the guts if not do only the rest.
And to fill the silience whistle. (Preferbly the most annoying and catching tune you know).
Why? So one would be more 'likeable' and 'popular'?
So one can "brown-nose" ones way to success?
No, seriously I am not that obnoxious unless someone pisses me off and believe me after working as an onsite technician for an ISP it is hard to piss me off.
Yes. So when you meet people that are worth knowing, they don't have an aversion to meeting you again.
>So one can "brown-nose" ones way to success?
Unless you are a super-genius, you are apt to more quickly obtain interesting and lucrative work if people enjoy spending time with you than if the opposite is true.
If you are a super-genius, then feel free to be obnoxious (Newton, Einstein, and a host of others come to mind).
The HN guidelines say: "If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
I think this qualifies.
I'm not entirely sure this is valid for HN, but it's at least more valid than Arrington's latest bitching about Twitter.
Not Hacker News.
Disagree. The police interviews are designed to get people to say things that will get them convicted. This is a hackable system -- a social hack, but a hack nonetheless. (It might also be argued that the real hack is the police interviews where they trick people into giving up their 5th amendment rights.)
Also, the video is extremely interesting in its own right.
I dissagree. This is more news suited for reddit.
I'd sooner quit using the Internet altogether than scour the main Reddit or Digg page for things to read.
Yes but if those articles come to Hacker News so you don't have to go to Reddit, why would you keep using HN?
The best way to know if something is off topic, and indeed the best reason not to post off topic stuff, is if you think the community will spend more time debating whether the article is on or off topic than the article itself.
That's a good point, but I think it's a stretch to argue that this is on topic. If the point of the submission was the social hacking aspect it might be better received if the headline reflected that. As is, a submission like this would be much more appropriate on Reddit or Digg.
This IS hacker news. It is closely related to a certain creator of a certain file system who refused to exercise his 5th Amendment rights and is now formally convicted of murder.
I'm not convinced that "how to kill your wife and not get caught" is really hacker news, though...
If a certain someone had read it, the OS community would have been better off...
Are you being facetious?
I think most people agree that people who kill someone ought to get locked up, even if it isn't convenient.
"Not Hacker News" is hn's equivilent of "First".
But you do not have to be the very fast, yet.
lol. True.
Although, I wouldn't say it if I could just downvote it.
No, "Non-scribd link: http://*.pdf" is the HN equivalent of "First".
From the HN Guidelines: "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups."
RTFG
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Part 2 is excellent too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=relat...
Man, that guy talks fast!
I remind myself that I don't have to talk to the police every few months. (Need to pre-wire it so I don't flounder when under duress.)
One thing you have to be careful about: you may end up doing yourself more damage by pleading the fifth when it isn't necessary.
"No officer, I understand this is a routine traffic stop, but I'm pulling out the fifth and am not responding to your queries."
You don't have to plead the 5th to not answer questions.
If you are not under arrest then you don't have to say anything. If you are, then what you are using is your right to remain silent ala miranda.
The fifth amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The relevant bit here is the part about being a witness against yourself. You can't remain silent when asked for identification, but you don't have to answer the cop when he asks you if you know how fast you were going. In that situation, you're pleading your 5th amendment right.
Tucker max has a good forum post on where the leeway is: http://messageboard.tuckermax.com/showthread.php?t=3032
1. If I know I am totally innocent, I am totally honest with the cops 2. If you are kinda guilty, i.e., you did something wrong but it wasn't that bad, supplicate yourself to the cop and place yourself at their mercy 3. If you are guilty and know it, shut the fuck up
You should watch the video in the headline; because you would see a lawyer and a police detective both telling you why this is terrible advice.
"Am I being detained? Am I free to go?"
Those are your two key questions.
These guys aren't advising you to be a jerk, but you should know what your rights are and how they apply to you.
Bingo. Don't forget the word 'detained'. Cops can either detain or arrest you. Normally, they will tell you when you are being detained.
Being detained means they may put you in cuffs for their own safety while they try to understand the situation. (Let's say you are involved in a domestic squabble.) You are temporarily under the state's custody but you aren't being charged with anything.
You know what being arrested means. You don't want that.
Anyone know if his slides are available online?
I didn't know the micromachines man became a lawyer. Slow down your speech their champ.
So following this advice and the knowledge that police can lie to you in interrogation^Winterview (and not only there) I would do this:
1. tell the cop that you will exercise your 5th amendment. 2. tell the cop that you know that the police is allowed to lie to interviewee. 3. tell the cop that you will add the time wasted here to cost that will be billed to him or most likely sued for in counter claims court. 4. tell the cop "that by detaining me here further you agree to accept any and all such costs" 5. tell them it is their move.
do 3. and 4. if you got the guts if not do only the rest.
And to fill the silience whistle. (Preferbly the most annoying and catching tune you know).
If you watch part 2, the (ex?) cop points out that police specifically are allowed to lie during interrogations.
I think the best thing to do would be to just calmly, firmly and repeatedly ask for a lawyer.
I would suggest never being this obnoxious to someone who has power over you.
Just stop being obnoxious altogether over the age of thirteen.
Why? So one would be more 'likeable' and 'popular'? So one can "brown-nose" ones way to success?
No, seriously I am not that obnoxious unless someone pisses me off and believe me after working as an onsite technician for an ISP it is hard to piss me off.
>So one would be more 'likeable' and 'popular'?
Yes. So when you meet people that are worth knowing, they don't have an aversion to meeting you again.
>So one can "brown-nose" ones way to success?
Unless you are a super-genius, you are apt to more quickly obtain interesting and lucrative work if people enjoy spending time with you than if the opposite is true.
If you are a super-genius, then feel free to be obnoxious (Newton, Einstein, and a host of others come to mind).
I am equaly obnoxious to someone who is obnoxious to me.
I find being detained for an crime one hasnt done very odius.
And that I would shut up would be very objectionable in the police officers opinion.
So should I disregard this good advice that is the main toppic of the linked video just so I dont apear obnoxious in the eyes of the police?