If it was identifying Lemmy users, it definitely would be. But, it’s a tool that reveals identities of a small, supposedly accountable group during real-life interactions, and we’re just mentioning it, so it seems like there’s at least an argument to allow it.
I would love to hear what has you concerned about a tool which provides a piece of information which is, by law (California Penal Code Section 830.10), supposed to be accessible to all individuals interacting with the officer - their name and/or badge number.
Even if an officer’s name and badge number were not public (which would be weird, because both of these are a part of a police officer’s uniform), what is the concern about a tool which provides these?
B. Cops are public figures. Name and badge number are public information. Hence why the first sentence in the article states it uses public records. It does not give their address and phone number. It is not doxxing
In your example for (A), you’ve unnecessarily used a controversial item in comparison to information/tool that is publicly available and cannot be used to do harm beyond holding individuals accountable, which for law enforcement, needs to be doubly more so.
A more comparable example for (A) would’ve been something like the location of a police station, which of course needs to be public, and publicly available and announced.
But an article about how guns are used and that they exist is not the same as selling them. I can see the argument that you should not even report on them because it makes them more popular, but at least in the US, guns are pretty permeated through society
I think it’s more akin to a “get guns ez pz” article. Even if most people can get them, a lot of people don’t because it’s a hassle. But to be fair, if it’s public information then heck, it was only a matter of time until there was a website making it ez pz.
That’s not this article’s fault. And some important context I managed to miss at first :/
Still very US centric, but guns are incredibly easy to get here. I live in a “progressive” state and I don’t even have to take a single class to get one, or get a concealed carry permit
Is this not doxxing? Posted by a mod no less
If it was identifying Lemmy users, it definitely would be. But, it’s a tool that reveals identities of a small, supposedly accountable group during real-life interactions, and we’re just mentioning it, so it seems like there’s at least an argument to allow it.
Not supposedly, a group that is duty bound to be accountable.
I think we all know the practice of that is a little hit-and-miss.
It is only “hit” if you mean hit by a police car or bullet. There is zero accountability
Well, that’s too far in the other direction. Zero is a very small number, and Derek Chauvin is in jail.
lol, true. That is a rounding error though
I would love to hear what has you concerned about a tool which provides a piece of information which is, by law (California Penal Code Section 830.10), supposed to be accessible to all individuals interacting with the officer - their name and/or badge number.
The concern was the lack of knowledge that this was public. I noticed it’s in the article, I may have read over it
Even if an officer’s name and badge number were not public (which would be weird, because both of these are a part of a police officer’s uniform), what is the concern about a tool which provides these?
It would make it easier for these people to be harassed, or worse. Privacy is important
You believe that a police officer, who is doing public actions, in a public role, should be given privacy while performing public actions? Say more
A. No, this is an article talking about the tool.
B. Cops are public figures. Name and badge number are public information. Hence why the first sentence in the article states it uses public records. It does not give their address and phone number. It is not doxxing
A. A gun is a tool as well, doesn’t mean you should make them public available
B. That makes a lot of sense. I’m not from around there, sorry for the misunderstanding
In your example for (A), you’ve unnecessarily used a controversial item in comparison to information/tool that is publicly available and cannot be used to do harm beyond holding individuals accountable, which for law enforcement, needs to be doubly more so.
A more comparable example for (A) would’ve been something like the location of a police station, which of course needs to be public, and publicly available and announced.
I suppose, either way it makes harassment and more misbehaviour more easily available
But an article about how guns are used and that they exist is not the same as selling them. I can see the argument that you should not even report on them because it makes them more popular, but at least in the US, guns are pretty permeated through society
I think it’s more akin to a “get guns ez pz” article. Even if most people can get them, a lot of people don’t because it’s a hassle. But to be fair, if it’s public information then heck, it was only a matter of time until there was a website making it ez pz.
That’s not this article’s fault. And some important context I managed to miss at first :/
Still very US centric, but guns are incredibly easy to get here. I live in a “progressive” state and I don’t even have to take a single class to get one, or get a concealed carry permit