undefined

points

[-]

As a neutral participant I think “the hostility” is probably because of your condescending tone when you said “hopefully it helps your confusion”. Your initial article really didn’t say anything about people being re-incarcerated for these sorts of errors. I really want to say “maybe you got CONFUSED and posted the wrong one!” but that would be snotty and condescending too.

But maybe you posted the wrong one to begin with.

Let’s all be friends and nice to each other.

by chaps4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

That's totally fair, I shouldn't have said it like that!

by Aurornis3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

GPS is not that accurate even on a good day. A small device attached to someone’s ankle with a small antenna and an obstructed view of the sky will frequently be registering locations outside of the footprint of someone’s house.

A single 33 foot anomaly is already within the geofence buffer zones used. In dense urban areas the geofence buffer allowance may be 10X that already.

by dataflow4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Do you have any examples of someone getting thrown behind bars due to a GPS error on the order of ~30ft like you're claiming? That's all I'm asking. Really don't understand why you keep avoiding it. You've essentially claimed police/judges are doing something rather stupid and terrible. I'm asking you to show example(s) of what you claimed (~30ft error → thrown behind bars), not something significantly different (~1+ mi error → only-police-visit-but-not-thrown-behind-bars).

by chaps3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

"You've essentially claimed police/judges are doing something rather stupid and terrible."

Yes, yes I am. You really need to realize just how unbelievably fucking arbitrary the criminal courts are. At every level. They're not tech people.

To answer your question, I have examples of motions by prosecutors to suspend people from the EM program where they specifically cite specific data points just barely out of their homes, where video footage provably shows they were inside the whole time. They're not mine to share.

Btw, the courts are public and you should try some criminal courts watching. Pick a random day and just go.

by Dylan168071 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Btw, the courts are public and you should try some criminal courts watching. Pick a random day and just go.

So you could find an example easily but you don't want to? Or you're suggesting court watching in general and not to find an example?

"I have an example I won't share" is better than nothing, I guess. But you were being snarky before you even said that much, when you were just linking your article and not saying if examples existed at all.

I'm curious why they're not yours to share, though. Did someone give them to you under private circumstances, or can people get there from public information but you think you shouldn't spread the word?

by chaps1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It wasn't easy to find, heh. Lots of FOIA requests to even get to a point of where I could go through court records at the Clerk of Courts. Obstinate lawyers for months and months. But after all that, I can find the court documents at the Clerk of Courts. I printed them there and I don't have them anymore. I would need to redact even if I had them. But they were all the same form, but with the actual violations largely hand-written notes written by a prosecutor in a hurry. It was usually a list of like, ten instances that they seemingly picked from random of the GPS rlogs. The best glance I had into what was by FOIA'ing the GPS records of someone who died much later but had a lawyer who fought tooth and nail to show he didn't leave his home. GPS is truly all over the place in these logs. I validate a lot of that against call center records that themselves took months to get but show when alarms and calls are made to the devices, plus when dispatch is done.

A lot of this stuff is hard to talk about because it's about real people in real pending (at the time) cases.. and I'm also not a criminal defense attorney by any means. There's a reason the first article I posted had their identity completely removed. There's weird liability and believe me I want to say more.

Very honestly, I wish I could have done more reporting on how fucked up those devices were. I put a lot of time and effort into reporting that couldn't make it to print, largely because I was doing freelance work at the time. The first offer I got for that piece was $50. Wasn't sustainable.

Do you have any questions about these EM programs?

by dataflow3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> To answer your question

Looking forward!

> motions by prosecutors

Motion ≠ incarceration. So, not an answer (yet?)...

Did defendants get incarcerated as a result of these motions, or no?

by chaps2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

They did, yes. I hope you have a better day.

by dataflow11 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Okay thanks, so here's what I don't understand. When there is video evidence that someone was in their house the whole time, and given that everyone who has used a GPS knows it can easily be inaccurate by 30ft, why in the world would the judge trust the ankle monitor accuracy over video footage they see with their own eyes that directly contradicts it?

Something about this just doesn't seem very plausible, especially if this kind of thing is happening more than once in a blue moon. Either the video evidence is not as convincing as we're being led to assume (thus leaving more doubt in the judge's mind than ours, even if the person is innocent), or there should be some other explanation.