5 ms·

Yes, your additional option is to be extorted into paying a 25% fee. Let's do a root cause analysis of the problem, since it goes much deeper than mere small f

by s_q_b 11y ago

Yes, your additional option is to be extorted into paying a 25% fee. Let's do a root cause analysis of the problem, since it goes much deeper than mere small fines. First, the leveraging of state fines, backed by government force, disproportionally affects the poor. The poor are damaged most, because they do not have the money to pay the fines. Second, unable to pay their fines, many members of the poorest segment of the population are incarcerated for their inability to pay. Third, this results in a system where those that are incarcerated for debt lose employment, and are driven deeper into poverty. Finally, the most important part of this piece is that the state of Texas has set up a massive dragnet surveillance operation at the state level. Their goal is not national security. It is domestic surveillance. This technology should never be deployed on American soil, at this scale, and especially not for collecting debt.

jdmichal 11y ago
> Yes, your additional option is to be extorted into paying a 25% fee. How is offering a previously non-existent option extortion, again? Now, if the officers are not stating it as an option, then that is of course a complaint to be made. But nothing in the EFF article indicates this as a problem, so I don't know where this language is coming from. The subject (for lack of a better word here) is perfectly welcome to not take the roadside payment option, be detained, and pay after detainment without any additional fee. Which is exactly what would have happened without any of this. > First, the leveraging of state fines, backed by government force, disproportionally affects the poor. The poor are damaged most, because they do not have the money to pay the fines. The fines being discussed are only those related to copias pro fine, which means that a judgement was already delivered through a court and that judgement was not satisfied. If you want to argue for inequality against the poor in judgements, that's fine, but it's at best a tangentially related point and one I'm not interested in arguing. This system is purely in the realm of after all that has happened, and has no effect there. > Finally, the most important part of this piece is that the state of Texas has set up a massive dragnet surveillance operation at the state level. The data sharing is of course an issue, and I support the EFF in fighting against that. But that is also a separate issue than the option being provided to extinguish these warrants without being detained.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >How is offering a previously non-existent option extortion, again? Say I go to a third world country and find some orphan who has been left to fend for themself. I make them an offer to effectively become a slave in return for being given basic care. Say I do this in which ever country gives me the most power to in-debt them to me. They can refuse and continue what ever life they were living. Is this extortion or exploitation?
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    I'm going to assume a generous use of the word "slave" here, as simply a parallel for the loss of freedom that would be experienced by being detained. As opposed to associations of that word to terribly abusive situations, because abuse is never OK. > extortion - the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats. > exploitation - the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work. Well, since you're not threatening the person nor forcing them to enter into this arrangement, I don't really see how you can call it extortion. Unless you want to call leaving them in their current situation a threat, which would be kind of stretching the intent, as that would imply that I am performing violence (the execution of a threat) against every person in need that I am not helping. You could certainly call it exploitation, with the reasoning that providing only basic care in exchange for the services they render is unfair treatment. This would along the same lines as the justification for minimum wage and other employee protections -- that there is some standard minimum that must be met for these relationships. Of course, there are plenty of flaws with this analogy. I can gloss over most of them, except for the nuance that there is a reason as a matter of law that this person is in their original situation to begin with. I think a better parallel would be an exile, perhaps? * Definitions derived from Google. Feel free to provide your own if you feel they are inaccurate and I will reevaluate.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      How can it be exploitation if they have fully freedom in choosing to forgo the deal? >As opposed to associations of that word to terribly abusive situations, because abuse is never OK. Even if it was as bad as the association you are making, it is merely a choice. >Unless you want to call leaving them in their current situation a threat Here is where most people's moral systems break down. If their current situation involves death, then any deal where you benefit is seen as exploitation unless they think the exchange is fair. But doing absolutely nothing, offering nothing and taking nothing, is seen as a neutral choice. But only to an extent. If you turn away a starving child at your doorstep, the action is seen as abhorrent. But if don't donate money to help feed a starving child elsewhere, even though such an action is easier than helping the child at the doorstep, that is just normal. There almost seems to be some moral corollary to the bystander effect.
pixl97 11y ago
>First, the leveraging of state fines, backed by government force, disproportionally affects the poor. As a Texan with family in law enforcement, I get to watch this unfold daily. But here's a question for you, why is law enforcement levy and collect so many fines? The individual officer does not directly benefit from giving out so many tickets (other than keeping his job). One of the large issues we have now is the court system financed via these fines. There have been many attempts to collect more tax dollars to directly fund the court but that is almost always shot down by groups such as the grassroots movement. This is a direct failure of not the poor people, but the middle class taxpayer that has now put the burden on the poor. The middle and upper class want (I'd say even demand) effective law enforcement, and this is how they've figured out to keep it running without causing to much political strife.
- s_q_b 11y ago
  There is blowback from these actions. Much like the blowback from intelligence operations it often manifests in unusual ways. For example, deposing the elected leader of Iran through Operation Ajax led to the coup by religious extremists, and funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan led to the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Right now the blowback is in the form of a total and utter lack of faith in the political elites by the majority of the population. The military has overwhelmingly more approval, and 23% of the population says that they would support a military coup. If people don't feel that their votes actually matter... Well, I don't want to think about what happens if the world's largest democracy becomes a non-rational actor. You're right, this is an upper class attempt to clamp down on the lower classes and keep the societal wheels turning. I don't understand the desire to give tickets, but it probably comes from the warrior mindset in law enforcement culture. It's about personal dominance. Note that I also have relatives in law enforcement. This isn't an indictment of all police. There are many good people in law enforcement. But in aggregate there certainly has been a lurch toward aggressiveness.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    Well, I don't want to think about what happens if the world's largest democracy becomes irrational. Oh, hey, don't forget that we have 300M privately-owned guns distributed throughout the country, and have plenty of veterans around with combat experience. If America snaps, it isn't going to voluntarily commit itself for psychiatric evaluation. It'll be a full-on schizophrenic break, with lots of bloody bodies. I humbly suggest that a congressional approval rating of 11% and a congressional re-election rate of 95% are not the sort of incompatible numbers that promote continued sanity.

by s_q_b 11y ago

jdmichal 11y ago

> Yes, your additional option is to be extorted into paying a 25% fee. How is offering a previously non-existent option extortion, again? Now, if the officers are not stating it as an option, then that is of course a complaint to be made. But nothing in the EFF article indicates this as a problem, so I don't know where this language is coming from. The subject (for lack of a better word here) is perfectly welcome to not take the roadside payment option, be detained, and pay after detainment without any additional fee. Which is exactly what would have happened without any of this. > First, the leveraging of state fines, backed by government force, disproportionally affects the poor. The poor are damaged most, because they do not have the money to pay the fines. The fines being discussed are only those related to copias pro fine, which means that a judgement was already delivered through a court and that judgement was not satisfied. If you want to argue for inequality against the poor in judgements, that's fine, but it's at best a tangentially related point and one I'm not interested in arguing. This system is purely in the realm of after all that has happened, and has no effect there. > Finally, the most important part of this piece is that the state of Texas has set up a massive dragnet surveillance operation at the state level. The data sharing is of course an issue, and I support the EFF in fighting against that. But that is also a separate issue than the option being provided to extinguish these warrants without being detained.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>How is offering a previously non-existent option extortion, again? Say I go to a third world country and find some orphan who has been left to fend for themself. I make them an offer to effectively become a slave in return for being given basic care. Say I do this in which ever country gives me the most power to in-debt them to me. They can refuse and continue what ever life they were living. Is this extortion or exploitation?
- jdmichal 11y ago
  I'm going to assume a generous use of the word "slave" here, as simply a parallel for the loss of freedom that would be experienced by being detained. As opposed to associations of that word to terribly abusive situations, because abuse is never OK. > extortion - the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats. > exploitation - the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work. Well, since you're not threatening the person nor forcing them to enter into this arrangement, I don't really see how you can call it extortion. Unless you want to call leaving them in their current situation a threat, which would be kind of stretching the intent, as that would imply that I am performing violence (the execution of a threat) against every person in need that I am not helping. You could certainly call it exploitation, with the reasoning that providing only basic care in exchange for the services they render is unfair treatment. This would along the same lines as the justification for minimum wage and other employee protections -- that there is some standard minimum that must be met for these relationships. Of course, there are plenty of flaws with this analogy. I can gloss over most of them, except for the nuance that there is a reason as a matter of law that this person is in their original situation to begin with. I think a better parallel would be an exile, perhaps? * Definitions derived from Google. Feel free to provide your own if you feel they are inaccurate and I will reevaluate.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    How can it be exploitation if they have fully freedom in choosing to forgo the deal? >As opposed to associations of that word to terribly abusive situations, because abuse is never OK. Even if it was as bad as the association you are making, it is merely a choice. >Unless you want to call leaving them in their current situation a threat Here is where most people's moral systems break down. If their current situation involves death, then any deal where you benefit is seen as exploitation unless they think the exchange is fair. But doing absolutely nothing, offering nothing and taking nothing, is seen as a neutral choice. But only to an extent. If you turn away a starving child at your doorstep, the action is seen as abhorrent. But if don't donate money to help feed a starving child elsewhere, even though such an action is easier than helping the child at the doorstep, that is just normal. There almost seems to be some moral corollary to the bystander effect.

pixl97 11y ago

>First, the leveraging of state fines, backed by government force, disproportionally affects the poor. As a Texan with family in law enforcement, I get to watch this unfold daily. But here's a question for you, why is law enforcement levy and collect so many fines? The individual officer does not directly benefit from giving out so many tickets (other than keeping his job). One of the large issues we have now is the court system financed via these fines. There have been many attempts to collect more tax dollars to directly fund the court but that is almost always shot down by groups such as the grassroots movement. This is a direct failure of not the poor people, but the middle class taxpayer that has now put the burden on the poor. The middle and upper class want (I'd say even demand) effective law enforcement, and this is how they've figured out to keep it running without causing to much political strife.

s_q_b 11y ago
There is blowback from these actions. Much like the blowback from intelligence operations it often manifests in unusual ways. For example, deposing the elected leader of Iran through Operation Ajax led to the coup by religious extremists, and funding the Mujahideen in Afghanistan led to the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Right now the blowback is in the form of a total and utter lack of faith in the political elites by the majority of the population. The military has overwhelmingly more approval, and 23% of the population says that they would support a military coup. If people don't feel that their votes actually matter... Well, I don't want to think about what happens if the world's largest democracy becomes a non-rational actor. You're right, this is an upper class attempt to clamp down on the lower classes and keep the societal wheels turning. I don't understand the desire to give tickets, but it probably comes from the warrior mindset in law enforcement culture. It's about personal dominance. Note that I also have relatives in law enforcement. This isn't an indictment of all police. There are many good people in law enforcement. But in aggregate there certainly has been a lurch toward aggressiveness.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  Well, I don't want to think about what happens if the world's largest democracy becomes irrational. Oh, hey, don't forget that we have 300M privately-owned guns distributed throughout the country, and have plenty of veterans around with combat experience. If America snaps, it isn't going to voluntarily commit itself for psychiatric evaluation. It'll be a full-on schizophrenic break, with lots of bloody bodies. I humbly suggest that a congressional approval rating of 11% and a congressional re-election rate of 95% are not the sort of incompatible numbers that promote continued sanity.