8 ms·

> Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? Do you mean _alleged_ criminals? Yes, they do. Convicted criminal

by hvis 11y ago

> Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? Do you mean _alleged_ criminals? Yes, they do. Convicted criminals, on the other hand, don't have that right already.

pqdbr 11y ago
No they don't. Your argument doesn't make any logical sense. Wiretapping is needed during the investigation phase, which you need to gather evidence BEFORE trialling and convicting anyone. And is only authorized if you have strong evidence that a crime or criminal organization is in place. If only convicted criminals didn't have right to privacy, how would you get them convicted in the first place ? Also, you really got it 100% backwards. Convicted criminals have right to privacy after they are convicted, because we don't assume they will commit new crimes. Everybody is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. We must have new evidence that convicted criminals are commiting crimes to start a new wiretap.
- djhn 11y ago
  You convict them by having proof. Not by fishing for something you can construct into proof.
- evook 11y ago
  Wiretape your politicans. How would you get them convicted in the first place otherwise?
- _jgdh 11y ago
  Its absurdly simple to make someone an alleged criminal. You simply need to accuse them of a crime. There are many countries where the government does exactly this - they accuse people such as human rights activists of crimes like "fomenting discord" and "promoting unrest" and lock them up. Under your enlightened regime of revoking the human right of privacy from alleged criminal, these people would have no recourse. So no, your argument doesn't make any logical sense.
  - bzxbot 11y ago
    No, it's not, at least not in Brazil. As mentioned above, wiretapping need to be authorized by a judge. The police must provide a reasonable justification. If the provided justification is weak or deemed unlawful, a lawyer can exclude all the data collected in trial. If privacy is a human right that cannot be violated ever, how are going to deal with criminals that use services such as WhatsApp?
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      > If privacy is a human right that cannot be violated ever, how are going to deal with criminals that use services such as WhatsApp? By finding evidence that does not rely on services such as WhatsApp. How did anybody ever get convicted before the age of WhatsApp, or for that matter the invention of the telephone. It's not as if wiretaps and cell phone messages are the only kind of incriminating evidence that can be found on the vast majority of crimes. And if that is the evidence that stands between a free man/woman and their conviction then maybe it is better that they go free because it is all too easy to forge such evidence or to plant it.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > How did anybody ever get convicted before the age of WhatsApp, or for that matter the invention of the telephone. A nitpick, but I really dislike this line of reasoning. Before WhatsApp criminals communicated using different means which were easier to monitor. Now that they have WhatsApp (or whatever), they will use that instead of easier to monitor methods. A move to modern communication tools gives them an edge over law enforcement, so it's no surprise LE feels a pressing need to do something about it. It's an arms race.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        There is no obligation on the part of criminals to make it easy for law enforcement to catch them, and criminals will use whatever tools they can to stay out of jail. Yes, that's an arms race, but that arms race has nothing to do with whatsapp. That's just a general purpose tool that has been re-purposed. This is what I was getting at with my recent comment that knowledge (and by extension technology) is dual use. You can't make something that will not somehow benefit the bad guys too if it benefits the good guys.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- middleclick 11y ago
  In an ideal world, what you said would make sense. But unfortunately many governments and judicial systems around the world are corrupt and they misuse their powers - they have and they will. There is a reason most countries have laws against unlawful search and seizure. Otherwise going by what you said and assuming the judiciary is incorruptible (which is almost probably never by the way), why would we give citizens rights against the government?
- pqdbr 11y ago
  I can't reply to replies, so I'll post here. 1. No, you don't make someone an alleged criminal by simply accusing them of a crime. You need preliminary proofs that a) a crime is happening and b) your target is most likely the author of that crime. Judges are really demanding when analyzing this proof before authorizing a wiretap. If you authorize a wiretap and you find out a crime, but later the lawyer can demonstrate that the wiretap was illegal (because the judge didn't have enough preliminary proof), the crime discovered is considered to be discovered "by chance", so it nullifies the entire result of the wiretap, based on the theory named "fruits of the poisonous tree", and unless you have enough evidence that doesn't derive at all from the wiretap, the defendant won't be convicted. 2. Read the newspaper in Brazil and you'll see the country is harshly investigating our politicians. We have a senator in jail by a supreme court's order as we speak for god's sake. 3. The same law in Brazil that authorizes wiretapping (Law nº 9296 from 1996) criminalizes with 2 to 4 years of jail anyone that does a wiretap without judicial order or with abuse of power.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > I can't reply to replies... Click the timestamp of the comment (or find another way to access the permalink for the comment). The reply link should appear.
  - egeozcan 11y ago
    > You need preliminary proofs that a) a crime is happening and b) your target is most likely the author of that crime. Definition of "most likely" varies wildly. Without concrete proof, any breach of privacy seems corrupt to me.
- vox_mollis 11y ago
  Thank you for reaffirming my priors on what kind of people judges are.
caio1982 11y ago
The ones involved in the crimes of this case had been convicted already but then they were released recently after a habeas corpus, but are still under investigation and being prosecuted.
marcosdumay 11y ago
Whatever you think, our Law says that if the police has enough evidence to strongly suspect somebody, a court can restrict his right of privacy to gather extra proof. You may hold any opinion you want, but the above is in Brazilian Constitution, and not even contested by anybody.
- khgvljhkb 11y ago
  I don't know brazilian law, but in my country (Sweden. I'm ashamed...) the Military office for Radio Communications (FRA) is recording all data crossing the border (which of course includes the data of all citizens, since the internet is borderless). They certainly do not have evidence that every citizen and every foreigner (total 7 billion people) is a pedophile, terrorist or even a jaywalker. I for one have lost any faith in governance in the information age, and will happily encrypt my communication. If I can sabotage for the organisations spying on me, that is a net win.
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Well, as far the it's publicly known, Brazil does not monitor data that crosses its border, nor has implanted capacity to do so. What I don't understand is why you bring that point to a discussion about WatsApp hiding information about an specific crime.
    - khgvljhkb 11y ago
      The discussion turned into what rights a government should be able to take, and that is what I tried to reply to.

by hvis 11y ago

pqdbr 11y ago

No they don't. Your argument doesn't make any logical sense. Wiretapping is needed during the investigation phase, which you need to gather evidence BEFORE trialling and convicting anyone. And is only authorized if you have strong evidence that a crime or criminal organization is in place. If only convicted criminals didn't have right to privacy, how would you get them convicted in the first place ? Also, you really got it 100% backwards. Convicted criminals have right to privacy after they are convicted, because we don't assume they will commit new crimes. Everybody is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. We must have new evidence that convicted criminals are commiting crimes to start a new wiretap.

djhn 11y ago
You convict them by having proof. Not by fishing for something you can construct into proof.
evook 11y ago
Wiretape your politicans. How would you get them convicted in the first place otherwise?
_jgdh 11y ago
Its absurdly simple to make someone an alleged criminal. You simply need to accuse them of a crime. There are many countries where the government does exactly this - they accuse people such as human rights activists of crimes like "fomenting discord" and "promoting unrest" and lock them up. Under your enlightened regime of revoking the human right of privacy from alleged criminal, these people would have no recourse. So no, your argument doesn't make any logical sense.
- bzxbot 11y ago
  No, it's not, at least not in Brazil. As mentioned above, wiretapping need to be authorized by a judge. The police must provide a reasonable justification. If the provided justification is weak or deemed unlawful, a lawyer can exclude all the data collected in trial. If privacy is a human right that cannot be violated ever, how are going to deal with criminals that use services such as WhatsApp?
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > If privacy is a human right that cannot be violated ever, how are going to deal with criminals that use services such as WhatsApp? By finding evidence that does not rely on services such as WhatsApp. How did anybody ever get convicted before the age of WhatsApp, or for that matter the invention of the telephone. It's not as if wiretaps and cell phone messages are the only kind of incriminating evidence that can be found on the vast majority of crimes. And if that is the evidence that stands between a free man/woman and their conviction then maybe it is better that they go free because it is all too easy to forge such evidence or to plant it.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > How did anybody ever get convicted before the age of WhatsApp, or for that matter the invention of the telephone. A nitpick, but I really dislike this line of reasoning. Before WhatsApp criminals communicated using different means which were easier to monitor. Now that they have WhatsApp (or whatever), they will use that instead of easier to monitor methods. A move to modern communication tools gives them an edge over law enforcement, so it's no surprise LE feels a pressing need to do something about it. It's an arms race.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        There is no obligation on the part of criminals to make it easy for law enforcement to catch them, and criminals will use whatever tools they can to stay out of jail. Yes, that's an arms race, but that arms race has nothing to do with whatsapp. That's just a general purpose tool that has been re-purposed. This is what I was getting at with my recent comment that knowledge (and by extension technology) is dual use. You can't make something that will not somehow benefit the bad guys too if it benefits the good guys.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
middleclick 11y ago
In an ideal world, what you said would make sense. But unfortunately many governments and judicial systems around the world are corrupt and they misuse their powers - they have and they will. There is a reason most countries have laws against unlawful search and seizure. Otherwise going by what you said and assuming the judiciary is incorruptible (which is almost probably never by the way), why would we give citizens rights against the government?
pqdbr 11y ago
I can't reply to replies, so I'll post here. 1. No, you don't make someone an alleged criminal by simply accusing them of a crime. You need preliminary proofs that a) a crime is happening and b) your target is most likely the author of that crime. Judges are really demanding when analyzing this proof before authorizing a wiretap. If you authorize a wiretap and you find out a crime, but later the lawyer can demonstrate that the wiretap was illegal (because the judge didn't have enough preliminary proof), the crime discovered is considered to be discovered "by chance", so it nullifies the entire result of the wiretap, based on the theory named "fruits of the poisonous tree", and unless you have enough evidence that doesn't derive at all from the wiretap, the defendant won't be convicted. 2. Read the newspaper in Brazil and you'll see the country is harshly investigating our politicians. We have a senator in jail by a supreme court's order as we speak for god's sake. 3. The same law in Brazil that authorizes wiretapping (Law nº 9296 from 1996) criminalizes with 2 to 4 years of jail anyone that does a wiretap without judicial order or with abuse of power.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > I can't reply to replies... Click the timestamp of the comment (or find another way to access the permalink for the comment). The reply link should appear.
- egeozcan 11y ago
  > You need preliminary proofs that a) a crime is happening and b) your target is most likely the author of that crime. Definition of "most likely" varies wildly. Without concrete proof, any breach of privacy seems corrupt to me.
vox_mollis 11y ago
Thank you for reaffirming my priors on what kind of people judges are.

caio1982 11y ago

The ones involved in the crimes of this case had been convicted already but then they were released recently after a habeas corpus, but are still under investigation and being prosecuted.

marcosdumay 11y ago

Whatever you think, our Law says that if the police has enough evidence to strongly suspect somebody, a court can restrict his right of privacy to gather extra proof. You may hold any opinion you want, but the above is in Brazilian Constitution, and not even contested by anybody.

khgvljhkb 11y ago
I don't know brazilian law, but in my country (Sweden. I'm ashamed...) the Military office for Radio Communications (FRA) is recording all data crossing the border (which of course includes the data of all citizens, since the internet is borderless). They certainly do not have evidence that every citizen and every foreigner (total 7 billion people) is a pedophile, terrorist or even a jaywalker. I for one have lost any faith in governance in the information age, and will happily encrypt my communication. If I can sabotage for the organisations spying on me, that is a net win.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Well, as far the it's publicly known, Brazil does not monitor data that crosses its border, nor has implanted capacity to do so. What I don't understand is why you bring that point to a discussion about WatsApp hiding information about an specific crime.
  - khgvljhkb 11y ago
    The discussion turned into what rights a government should be able to take, and that is what I tried to reply to.