3 ms·

I usually defer to a different mode of communication when it's more convenient or appropriate to the discussion. Instead of trying to type a novel to explain so

I usually defer to a different mode of communication when it's more convenient or appropriate to the discussion. Instead of trying to type a novel to explain something, I'd prefer to engage in a conversation in order to identify parts of the topic that can be skipped. This usually reduces the time cost to communication.

Todd 11y ago
Well, if you cross paths with this new breed of prosecutor, it will be incumbent upon you to prove your innocence. It appears that they no longer need evidence of a crime, just perceived intent. This may be starting in the financial services industry, but it will obviously spread to become a pervasive "best practice" in the future. Couple this with machine learning and the tone of your conversation may eventually be sufficient "proof" of intent.
- codyb 11y ago
  Did you read the article Todd? And I quote: "Simply highlighting suggestive phrases isn’t enough, of course." If someone starts talking about Jihad, you can't charge them with a crime, but they're probably the person you want to look into when it comes to investigating terrorism. It's the same vein. Why would you expect prosecutors to look blindly?
  - Todd 11y ago
    Yes, I did read the article. You make a valid point. The context is important. My point was that they are suggesting that these phrases are indicators of guilt. It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to see how this can be applied across all communications channels, and used as indicators of intent, such that they are eventually used prior to having a warrant and, indeed, used as sufficient "evidence" to secure a warrant. These types of things help establish precedents. Once their utility is demonstrated, and tools developed to make the technique more effective, they will begin to be deployed elsewhere.

3 ms·

I usually defer to a different mode of communication when it's more convenient or appropriate to the discussion. Instead of trying to type a novel to explain so

by x3n0ph3n3 11y ago

Todd 11y ago
Well, if you cross paths with this new breed of prosecutor, it will be incumbent upon you to prove your innocence. It appears that they no longer need evidence of a crime, just perceived intent. This may be starting in the financial services industry, but it will obviously spread to become a pervasive "best practice" in the future. Couple this with machine learning and the tone of your conversation may eventually be sufficient "proof" of intent.
- codyb 11y ago
  Did you read the article Todd? And I quote: "Simply highlighting suggestive phrases isn’t enough, of course." If someone starts talking about Jihad, you can't charge them with a crime, but they're probably the person you want to look into when it comes to investigating terrorism. It's the same vein. Why would you expect prosecutors to look blindly?
  - Todd 11y ago
    Yes, I did read the article. You make a valid point. The context is important. My point was that they are suggesting that these phrases are indicators of guilt. It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to see how this can be applied across all communications channels, and used as indicators of intent, such that they are eventually used prior to having a warrant and, indeed, used as sufficient "evidence" to secure a warrant. These types of things help establish precedents. Once their utility is demonstrated, and tools developed to make the technique more effective, they will begin to be deployed elsewhere.