4 ms·

I like the idea of a 10 year prison sentence for surveillance of cell phones without first obtaining an actual warrant.

by rcurry 11y ago

roflchoppa 11y ago
10 years seems to be a long time. How ever i do feel that there needs to be a way to keep people that work in the public sector under checks that can affect their personal liberties. it emphasizes the check.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  The specific number of years is a tunable value. Any prison sentence at all sends an important message about the importance of respecting personal liberties. As for the length, a good argument can be made that violations done under the color of authority[1] should always be punished more severely than "regular" violations of the law. The people who have the power to enforce the law have much greater power than the average citizen. Abuse of that greater power should require a similarly larger punishment. That said, I have no idea if 10 years is appropriate. If it isn't I'm sure a better length of time can be negotiated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    So why not make an abuse of power registry and require people that have been convicted of abusing power to disclose this fact? It would also be necessary to have hiring institutions publicize that they are hiring a power abuser (i.e., if a police chief didn't care about the previous abuse of power he would still be required to inform the community of the situation). Someone running for office would be required to do it to, it'd be great, tack "I was convicted of blah blah blah" on somewhere near the "I approve this message". The above is still a much more substantial punishment than I would want to see for an average citizen that was eavesdropping on cell phone calls.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > eavesdropping on cell phone calls That's not the part that warrants a strong punishment. Jail time is justified for the abuse of power while acting under the color of law. The particulars about that abuse (eavesdropping on a cell phone) is less important. > registry While this is an interesting idea, I caution strongly against creating any kind of "registry". The current examples we have seen (e.g. "sex offenders") has shown how registries dilute important concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" when presence on the registry doesn't map 1-to-1 with "found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Even more worrying is the idea that someone should be tainted for life (or "a long time") for a mistake. Branding people with a modern "scarlet letter" for their mistakes doesn't create an incentive for that person to change their behavior[1]. Once someone has "paid their debt to society", they deserve a 2nd chance that is free of past accusations. There may be a way to make some aspects of a registry work without these problems, but I'm haven't seen it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc ("The Truth About Dishonesty")
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        So make it for 15 years. The thought is that a registry/disclosure rule is still a strong punishment (it presumably prevents them from using their primary skills to repeat the offense) but should cost less than a prison sentence. I suppose I don't care if incarceration is justified, I'm more interested in whether it is necessary.
      - scintill76 11y ago
        Another unfortunate thing about the sex offender registry is that it lumps, e.g., 18-year-olds who had a 17-year-old quasi-consensual partner (whom the law decrees can't actually consent), together with much worse criminals -- at least under some jurisdictions' laws. I suppose an abuser-of-power registry would have similar issues with minor infractors getting too much punishment because people pay more attention to "he's listed" than to what he actually did.
    - awqrre 11y ago
      Maybe they should not be able to be hired by the government again (directly or via a contractor) and be released from their current function right away (prison would be an option, depending on the severity of the offense).
  - roflchoppa 11y ago
    Wow, i never even considered the aspect of the violations under the color of authority.... So when you guys wanna try to make this a bill?
devit 11y ago
Might be worth considering giving that 10 year prison sentence (or perhaps a per-user fine of at least $100k) to people who are offering cell phone services where surveillance is possible. The root cause of these issues is that there is no liability for people who sell systems with security holes.

I like the idea of a 10 year prison sentence for surveillance of cell phones without first obtaining an actual warrant.

by rcurry 11y ago

I like the idea of a 10 year prison sentence for surveillance of cell phones without first obtaining an actual warrant.

10 years seems to be a long time. How ever i do feel that there needs to be a way to keep people that work in the public sector under checks that can affect their personal liberties. it emphasizes the check.

pdkl95 11y ago
The specific number of years is a tunable value. Any prison sentence at all sends an important message about the importance of respecting personal liberties. As for the length, a good argument can be made that violations done under the color of authority[1] should always be punished more severely than "regular" violations of the law. The people who have the power to enforce the law have much greater power than the average citizen. Abuse of that greater power should require a similarly larger punishment. That said, I have no idea if 10 years is appropriate. If it isn't I'm sure a better length of time can be negotiated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_%28law%29
- maxerickson 11y ago
  So why not make an abuse of power registry and require people that have been convicted of abusing power to disclose this fact? It would also be necessary to have hiring institutions publicize that they are hiring a power abuser (i.e., if a police chief didn't care about the previous abuse of power he would still be required to inform the community of the situation). Someone running for office would be required to do it to, it'd be great, tack "I was convicted of blah blah blah" on somewhere near the "I approve this message". The above is still a much more substantial punishment than I would want to see for an average citizen that was eavesdropping on cell phone calls.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > eavesdropping on cell phone calls That's not the part that warrants a strong punishment. Jail time is justified for the abuse of power while acting under the color of law. The particulars about that abuse (eavesdropping on a cell phone) is less important. > registry While this is an interesting idea, I caution strongly against creating any kind of "registry". The current examples we have seen (e.g. "sex offenders") has shown how registries dilute important concepts like "innocent until proven guilty" when presence on the registry doesn't map 1-to-1 with "found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". Even more worrying is the idea that someone should be tainted for life (or "a long time") for a mistake. Branding people with a modern "scarlet letter" for their mistakes doesn't create an incentive for that person to change their behavior[1]. Once someone has "paid their debt to society", they deserve a 2nd chance that is free of past accusations. There may be a way to make some aspects of a registry work without these problems, but I'm haven't seen it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBmJay_qdNc ("The Truth About Dishonesty")
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      So make it for 15 years. The thought is that a registry/disclosure rule is still a strong punishment (it presumably prevents them from using their primary skills to repeat the offense) but should cost less than a prison sentence. I suppose I don't care if incarceration is justified, I'm more interested in whether it is necessary.
    - scintill76 11y ago
      Another unfortunate thing about the sex offender registry is that it lumps, e.g., 18-year-olds who had a 17-year-old quasi-consensual partner (whom the law decrees can't actually consent), together with much worse criminals -- at least under some jurisdictions' laws. I suppose an abuser-of-power registry would have similar issues with minor infractors getting too much punishment because people pay more attention to "he's listed" than to what he actually did.
  - awqrre 11y ago
    Maybe they should not be able to be hired by the government again (directly or via a contractor) and be released from their current function right away (prison would be an option, depending on the severity of the offense).
- roflchoppa 11y ago
  Wow, i never even considered the aspect of the violations under the color of authority.... So when you guys wanna try to make this a bill?

devit 11y ago

Might be worth considering giving that 10 year prison sentence (or perhaps a per-user fine of at least $100k) to people who are offering cell phone services where surveillance is possible. The root cause of these issues is that there is no liability for people who sell systems with security holes.