7 ms·

If you shoot a bunch of people while declaring allegiance to an organized group known for shooting bunches of people then I think that pretty clearly demonstrat

If you shoot a bunch of people while declaring allegiance to an organized group known for shooting bunches of people then I think that pretty clearly demonstrates that reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents. If this doesn't clear your hurdle for reasonable search then what would? To be clear, I don't think the order to Apple is necessarily altogether a good idea or is even going to produce the desired results, but your complaint seems to be with the fact that this data is being pursued at all. Edit to reply: > Evidence of a conspiracy would help. You said they declared allegiance to an organized group. When they did that, did they say or hint that they had been in contact with that group, other than, say, watching public YouTube videos? The woman in the couple declared it right before the shooting[0]. Do you want a notarized letter from the deceased? > Would you agree that "high likelihood" is too low a bar for justifying searching the phones of people who live in high-crime neighborhoods? I'm pretty sure neither "high likelihood" nor "authentic need" were being used as a term of art here, but I would bet that any judge would view the commission of murder declaredly for an organized militant group to be probable cause that there is information pertaining to more criminal activity by that group on these two's phones and in their communications. Do you really view this as a government overreach or are you just trolling? Under what circumstances, if any, would you see as justified a search of someone's email? phone? house? So far you've equivocated between living in a bad neighborhood and committing murder-suicide. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-...

jbapple 11y ago
> reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents Would you agree that "high likelihood" is too low a bar for justifying searching the phones of people who live in high-crime neighborhoods? > If this doesn't clear your hurdle for reasonable search then what would? Evidence of a conspiracy would help. You said they declared allegiance to an organized group. When they did that, did they say or hint that they had been in contact with that group, other than, say, watching public YouTube videos?
- tptacek 11y ago
  I'm having a hard time believing that you're commenting in good faith here. Yes, the police will easily get warrants to search whatever property of a mass murderer's they feel would be productive to search. No, that does not mean they can randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods. Privacy rights for mass murderers: not a high priority of US constitutional law. Is there some other issue we're missing here, or does that pretty much wrap it up?
  - jbapple 11y ago
    > I'm having a hard time believing that you're commenting in good faith here. You can feel free to disengage from this conversation if you find it troubling. If you are incredulous that someone might be concerned with the privacy of these people (and their friends and family) in the particular way I am, then I'm not sure what I can do to make you believe. I am a person. These are my true thoughts. I actually and honestly believe them. > Yes, the police will easily get warrants to search whatever property of a mass murderer's they feel would be productive to search. As I said earlier to you in another branch of this discussion, I am not disagreeing that the police CAN get this warrant. They appear to HAVE gotten this warrant, so I guess that's a historical fact. I'm trying to have a discussion about what we think is just and fair and right, as well as trying to find out if there is any evidence of a conspiracy. I have not followed the news on this shooting, so I would not be shocked if the answer were "yes, there is some evidence of a conspiracy". This is why I asked the question, "Do we have reason to believe that there is evidence of any pending crimes or any old unsolved crimes on the phone?" > No, that does not mean they can randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods. I did not ask if police CAN randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods, I asked the commenter if he or she thought they ought to be able to do so. If the answer is "yes, they ought to", then we might have a different discussion than if the answer is "no, they should not". I have met people who would answer "yes" and I have met people who would answer "no". Neither answer will cause me to accuse the commenter of commenting in bad faith. > Privacy rights for mass murderers: not a high priority of US constitutional law. I'm not talking about what is and is not a high priority for the justice system. I'm trying to engage in a dialogue about what we think the requirements for a warrant SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE and whether or not there is any evidence that the phone will provide information that will help solve or prevent crimes. > Is there some other issue we're missing here, or does that pretty much wrap it up? I'm sorry if this conversation is upsetting or troubling to you.
Lagged2Death 11y ago
...pretty clearly demonstrates that reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents. It sounds like common sense, I guess, but has that ever worked, actually? Similar "prevention" rationale is offered for governments to spy on virtually all telecom all the time, now. But this shooting happened anyway.
- BWStearns 11y ago
  > Similar "prevention" rationale is offered for governments to spy on virtually all telecom all the time, now. But this shooting happened anyway. 1) Anyone with a plan promised to stop all terrorist attacks is lying to you, stupid, or both. You can't have a free society and a 0% chance of political violence. 2) Yes, searching the possessions and communications of dead terrorists unsurprisingly are substantially more likely to lead to useful criminal leads than reading your metadata. A warrant to read this person's stuff isn't unreasonable in the slightest, an order forcing apple to do shit might be but that's a procedural thing unrelated to the core issue of "is there a good reason to read this person's stuff"
jbapple 11y ago
In response to your (first?) edit: > The woman in the couple declared it right before the shooting[0]. I'm not questioning that she declared allegiance. I'm asking if she was in private contact with anyone. If you were responding to that, can you show me where that is in the NYT article you linked? I don't see it. > Do you want a notarized letter from the deceased? Let's try to keep this civil, please. > Do you really view this as a government overreach or are you just trolling? I actually believe the things I am saying. I am not saying them to anger or upset you or anyone else. Please do not let the fact that we disagree about the scope of the 4th Amendment cause you emotional suffering. I am not ready to declare it overreach, because I do not know all of the evidence yet. This is why I have been saying things like "Do we have reason to believe that there is evidence of any pending crimes or any old unsolved crimes on the phone?" and "did they say or hint that they had been in contact with that group" and "I have not followed the news on this shooting, so I would not be shocked if the answer were 'yes, there is some evidence of a conspiracy'." If there is no such evidence, I do think it is overreach, but my opinions on policy are not fixed in stone, and I sometimes change my mind about them when presented with new arguments, ideas, or philosophies. > Under what circumstances, if any, would you see as justified a search of someone's email? phone? house? I doubt anyone has a complete enumeration of all circumstances under which they feel a search is justified. I would feel torn if there was lousy circumstantial evidence that the phone would solve or prevent crimes, I would be in support of a warrant if there was strong evidence, and I am opposed to a warrant with no evidence. One thing I would call strong evidence is a shooter having announced that he or she was part of a terrorist cell in the US. I will no longer reading or responding to your edits that are "edited to reply". If you want to discuss with me further, please reply to reply by using the "reply" button. I will not be editing any of my posts to "edit to reply".
- BWStearns 11y ago
  You keep switching between legal and normative requirements. We disagree on the 4th amendment in the same way that scientists and climate change deniers disagree about global warming. You have a fringe understanding of it with no support from the relevant literature and your arguments about it are poorly structured, deny evidence, and rely on intentionally misunderstanding context and terms of art. The legality of searching for evidence is pretty open and shut because you need probable cause. The point of a search is to gather evidence, requiring the evidence that would be the result of a search is obviously a non-starter as a system. Shooting a bunch of people and saying you're with ISIS is plenty of probable cause for a search. I don't see how you're waiting for "all the evidence" here since all the relevant facts are in and they're sufficient. Whether or not she was conversing privately with ISIS counterparts would be the resulting information of the search. > One thing I would call strong evidence is a shooter having announced that he or she was part of a terrorist cell in the US. The only way to read this in light of our previous discussion is that saying "I'm in ISIS!" and then shooting up a bunch of civilians is insufficient to prompt a post-mortem search of the attackers' affairs, instead they need to say "I'm in ISIS and there are a bunch of us!" and then shoot a bunch of civilians. Bravo sir, I have been well and properly trolled.

jbapple 11y ago

> reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents Would you agree that "high likelihood" is too low a bar for justifying searching the phones of people who live in high-crime neighborhoods? > If this doesn't clear your hurdle for reasonable search then what would? Evidence of a conspiracy would help. You said they declared allegiance to an organized group. When they did that, did they say or hint that they had been in contact with that group, other than, say, watching public YouTube videos?

tptacek 11y ago
I'm having a hard time believing that you're commenting in good faith here. Yes, the police will easily get warrants to search whatever property of a mass murderer's they feel would be productive to search. No, that does not mean they can randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods. Privacy rights for mass murderers: not a high priority of US constitutional law. Is there some other issue we're missing here, or does that pretty much wrap it up?
- jbapple 11y ago
  > I'm having a hard time believing that you're commenting in good faith here. You can feel free to disengage from this conversation if you find it troubling. If you are incredulous that someone might be concerned with the privacy of these people (and their friends and family) in the particular way I am, then I'm not sure what I can do to make you believe. I am a person. These are my true thoughts. I actually and honestly believe them. > Yes, the police will easily get warrants to search whatever property of a mass murderer's they feel would be productive to search. As I said earlier to you in another branch of this discussion, I am not disagreeing that the police CAN get this warrant. They appear to HAVE gotten this warrant, so I guess that's a historical fact. I'm trying to have a discussion about what we think is just and fair and right, as well as trying to find out if there is any evidence of a conspiracy. I have not followed the news on this shooting, so I would not be shocked if the answer were "yes, there is some evidence of a conspiracy". This is why I asked the question, "Do we have reason to believe that there is evidence of any pending crimes or any old unsolved crimes on the phone?" > No, that does not mean they can randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods. I did not ask if police CAN randomly get warrants to search random houses in high-crime neighborhoods, I asked the commenter if he or she thought they ought to be able to do so. If the answer is "yes, they ought to", then we might have a different discussion than if the answer is "no, they should not". I have met people who would answer "yes" and I have met people who would answer "no". Neither answer will cause me to accuse the commenter of commenting in bad faith. > Privacy rights for mass murderers: not a high priority of US constitutional law. I'm not talking about what is and is not a high priority for the justice system. I'm trying to engage in a dialogue about what we think the requirements for a warrant SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE and whether or not there is any evidence that the phone will provide information that will help solve or prevent crimes. > Is there some other issue we're missing here, or does that pretty much wrap it up? I'm sorry if this conversation is upsetting or troubling to you.

Lagged2Death 11y ago

...pretty clearly demonstrates that reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents. It sounds like common sense, I guess, but has that ever worked, actually? Similar "prevention" rationale is offered for governments to spy on virtually all telecom all the time, now. But this shooting happened anyway.

BWStearns 11y ago
> Similar "prevention" rationale is offered for governments to spy on virtually all telecom all the time, now. But this shooting happened anyway. 1) Anyone with a plan promised to stop all terrorist attacks is lying to you, stupid, or both. You can't have a free society and a 0% chance of political violence. 2) Yes, searching the possessions and communications of dead terrorists unsurprisingly are substantially more likely to lead to useful criminal leads than reading your metadata. A warrant to read this person's stuff isn't unreasonable in the slightest, an order forcing apple to do shit might be but that's a procedural thing unrelated to the core issue of "is there a good reason to read this person's stuff"

jbapple 11y ago

In response to your (first?) edit: > The woman in the couple declared it right before the shooting[0]. I'm not questioning that she declared allegiance. I'm asking if she was in private contact with anyone. If you were responding to that, can you show me where that is in the NYT article you linked? I don't see it. > Do you want a notarized letter from the deceased? Let's try to keep this civil, please. > Do you really view this as a government overreach or are you just trolling? I actually believe the things I am saying. I am not saying them to anger or upset you or anyone else. Please do not let the fact that we disagree about the scope of the 4th Amendment cause you emotional suffering. I am not ready to declare it overreach, because I do not know all of the evidence yet. This is why I have been saying things like "Do we have reason to believe that there is evidence of any pending crimes or any old unsolved crimes on the phone?" and "did they say or hint that they had been in contact with that group" and "I have not followed the news on this shooting, so I would not be shocked if the answer were 'yes, there is some evidence of a conspiracy'." If there is no such evidence, I do think it is overreach, but my opinions on policy are not fixed in stone, and I sometimes change my mind about them when presented with new arguments, ideas, or philosophies. > Under what circumstances, if any, would you see as justified a search of someone's email? phone? house? I doubt anyone has a complete enumeration of all circumstances under which they feel a search is justified. I would feel torn if there was lousy circumstantial evidence that the phone would solve or prevent crimes, I would be in support of a warrant if there was strong evidence, and I am opposed to a warrant with no evidence. One thing I would call strong evidence is a shooter having announced that he or she was part of a terrorist cell in the US. I will no longer reading or responding to your edits that are "edited to reply". If you want to discuss with me further, please reply to reply by using the "reply" button. I will not be editing any of my posts to "edit to reply".

BWStearns 11y ago
You keep switching between legal and normative requirements. We disagree on the 4th amendment in the same way that scientists and climate change deniers disagree about global warming. You have a fringe understanding of it with no support from the relevant literature and your arguments about it are poorly structured, deny evidence, and rely on intentionally misunderstanding context and terms of art. The legality of searching for evidence is pretty open and shut because you need probable cause. The point of a search is to gather evidence, requiring the evidence that would be the result of a search is obviously a non-starter as a system. Shooting a bunch of people and saying you're with ISIS is plenty of probable cause for a search. I don't see how you're waiting for "all the evidence" here since all the relevant facts are in and they're sufficient. Whether or not she was conversing privately with ISIS counterparts would be the resulting information of the search. > One thing I would call strong evidence is a shooter having announced that he or she was part of a terrorist cell in the US. The only way to read this in light of our previous discussion is that saying "I'm in ISIS!" and then shooting up a bunch of civilians is insufficient to prompt a post-mortem search of the attackers' affairs, instead they need to say "I'm in ISIS and there are a bunch of us!" and then shoot a bunch of civilians. Bravo sir, I have been well and properly trolled.