5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - jdmichal 11y ago
      > How can it be exploitation if they have fully freedom in choosing to forgo the deal? I detailed my reasoning in the response. Specifically, that the exchange of basic care for the services rendered may not be considered a "fair" exchange [0], and thus being unfair treatment, and thus being exploitation. In regards to morality, I agree with your sentiments. Bystander effect isn't the right word for it, but it feels very similar. More of an out-of-sight-out-of-mind, willful-ignorance thing. You can't claim ignorance when the child is at your doorstep asking you for help, but you can when they're somewhere else. There could also be an angle there with protection of one's own social / familial group over others, even if it means preventable harm to the other group. Also, I'd like to thank you for this reasonable and engaging exchange. [0] This would, of course, be a culturally sensitive judgement.
s_q_b 11y ago
Who cares whether a judge issued the judgement? The fact is that most of the poor cannot take time off to travel to a courthouse at an appointed date and time, thus those judgements are entered without any defense. It shouldn't come as a shock that the poorest citizens are the least likely to show up to a hearing where they will be forced to pay money. Even from a strictly legal perspective, detainment for a civil judgement based upon evidence from a massive domestic surveillance dragnet is very Constitutionally suspect. But to be totally honest, I don't care what legal mechanisms allow this. It is simply wrong.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  I'm not appreciative of your continued attempt to conflate very separate issues in order to attempt to prove some "this is bad" point. I'll reiterate: If you want to engage someone about unfair judgements against certain classes, I'm not that person. It's only relation to the situation at hand is that it is a source of copias pro fine warrants. > Even from a strictly legal perspective, detainment for a civil judgement based upon evidence from a massive domestic surveillance dragnet is very Constitutionally suspect. The enabling part of this on the officer's side is not a "massive domestic surveillance dragnet". It's OCR tied to a database query. It's automation of a search the officer could already perform, if he could type fast enough. As I've already stated, I agree with the EFF's position about the sharing of data back to Vigilant Solutions. Especially because sharing this data back is not necessary for the technology as used by the officers.
  - s_q_b 11y ago
    I'm not interested in engaging in a legalistic argument without considering the societal implications. The enabling part of this on the officer's side is not a "massive domestic surveillance dragnet". How else would you describe a state wide system that automatically records the movement of the population and stores it in a database other than dragnet surveillance? And Texas is bigger than many nations. So yes, I would count that as massive. It's OCR tied to a database query. It's automation of a search the officer could already perform, if he could type fast enough. Yes, and that is a tremendously important difference. A computer can log and store every license plate in real time. A single officer cannot do that at scale. The courts have not caught up to this implication of computing technology. This is due to a failure to recognize that a change in quantity can be a change in quality. For example, the occasional overflight to check for drug operations is qualitatively different from surveilling a whole city with areostats and drones. Both involve observation of public areas and are thus currently Constitutional. But one is far more invasive. Your reductionist approach fails to consider any of the factors put forward. There is no conflation of issues. You are simply parroting back obsolete precedent, and refusing to acknowledge the implications of your argument.

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.
  - jdmichal 11y ago
    > How can it be exploitation if they have fully freedom in choosing to forgo the deal? I detailed my reasoning in the response. Specifically, that the exchange of basic care for the services rendered may not be considered a "fair" exchange [0], and thus being unfair treatment, and thus being exploitation. In regards to morality, I agree with your sentiments. Bystander effect isn't the right word for it, but it feels very similar. More of an out-of-sight-out-of-mind, willful-ignorance thing. You can't claim ignorance when the child is at your doorstep asking you for help, but you can when they're somewhere else. There could also be an angle there with protection of one's own social / familial group over others, even if it means preventable harm to the other group. Also, I'd like to thank you for this reasonable and engaging exchange. [0] This would, of course, be a culturally sensitive judgement.

s_q_b 11y ago

Who cares whether a judge issued the judgement? The fact is that most of the poor cannot take time off to travel to a courthouse at an appointed date and time, thus those judgements are entered without any defense. It shouldn't come as a shock that the poorest citizens are the least likely to show up to a hearing where they will be forced to pay money. Even from a strictly legal perspective, detainment for a civil judgement based upon evidence from a massive domestic surveillance dragnet is very Constitutionally suspect. But to be totally honest, I don't care what legal mechanisms allow this. It is simply wrong.

jdmichal 11y ago
I'm not appreciative of your continued attempt to conflate very separate issues in order to attempt to prove some "this is bad" point. I'll reiterate: If you want to engage someone about unfair judgements against certain classes, I'm not that person. It's only relation to the situation at hand is that it is a source of copias pro fine warrants. > Even from a strictly legal perspective, detainment for a civil judgement based upon evidence from a massive domestic surveillance dragnet is very Constitutionally suspect. The enabling part of this on the officer's side is not a "massive domestic surveillance dragnet". It's OCR tied to a database query. It's automation of a search the officer could already perform, if he could type fast enough. As I've already stated, I agree with the EFF's position about the sharing of data back to Vigilant Solutions. Especially because sharing this data back is not necessary for the technology as used by the officers.
- s_q_b 11y ago
  I'm not interested in engaging in a legalistic argument without considering the societal implications. The enabling part of this on the officer's side is not a "massive domestic surveillance dragnet". How else would you describe a state wide system that automatically records the movement of the population and stores it in a database other than dragnet surveillance? And Texas is bigger than many nations. So yes, I would count that as massive. It's OCR tied to a database query. It's automation of a search the officer could already perform, if he could type fast enough. Yes, and that is a tremendously important difference. A computer can log and store every license plate in real time. A single officer cannot do that at scale. The courts have not caught up to this implication of computing technology. This is due to a failure to recognize that a change in quantity can be a change in quality. For example, the occasional overflight to check for drug operations is qualitatively different from surveilling a whole city with areostats and drones. Both involve observation of public areas and are thus currently Constitutional. But one is far more invasive. Your reductionist approach fails to consider any of the factors put forward. There is no conflation of issues. You are simply parroting back obsolete precedent, and refusing to acknowledge the implications of your argument.