5 ms·

It's always better to use non-illegal activities when constructing examples. After all, why is it a bad thing that police are more efficient at catching crimina

by deelowe 10y ago

It's always better to use non-illegal activities when constructing examples. After all, why is it a bad thing that police are more efficient at catching criminals (I'm a strong supporter of legalization btw, but recognize that as long as it's illegal, the police need to do their jobs). So whys is parallel construction a bad thing? Here's a different example. The FBI uses machine learning to develop models for predicting whether an individual is involved in terrorist activities. You are an innocent civilian who just so happens to a) be mulsim b) be an immigrant c) have recently visited a suspected country and d) work in agriculture and had to buy a lot of fertilizer recently. The FBI's system has labeled you a thread and that info was shared with the local authorities. At midnight on a Tuesday, your home is raided based on this info. The local police use the fertilizer purchase as the reason. The rest came from the FBI. It's a no-knock raid. A family member is injured or killed in the process. You end up in jail for several days during the interrogation. Turns out you are a closet homosexual. Various other things surface. You go to trail. You're innocent. Much of the evidence is fabricated or spurious, so it's thrown out. You get found not guilty. Your life is ruined. You are a disgrace to your religion. Your wife has divorced you. Your child has a permanent disability. You've lost your job. All because due process wasn't followed.

cmurf 10y ago
Not merely because due process wasn't followed, regular Joe Citizen passively supports it by having no problem with this outcome in any meaningful way. There are no political consequences. This is a country where a significant minority have elected a presidential candidate who activity argues against due process, using the argument that because terrorists don't follow due process neither should we. And that is an increasingly popular sentiment, that somehow following the law and ethics is liberal bullcrap, and that selective application of due process as a kind of loyalty test and reward is patriotic and heroic.
heartsucker 10y ago
My reason for citing something illegal is this is 1) this is a case where it is more likely to be used, and 2) it's still wrong here, so in cases that are more grey, it should be definitely seen as wrong. However, your example doesn't really require a Stingray. It shows that pre-crime modeling and no-knock warrants have negative outcomes (to which I agree).
coldtea 10y ago
>It's always better to use non-illegal activities when constructing examples. After all, why is it a bad thing that police are more efficient at catching criminals Because the police's job is not to "catch criminals", it is to "catch criminals within the boundaries of the law/constitution".
- themartorana 10y ago
  It's actually to "serve and protect" not "catch criminals." If that's one of the ways they serve the community, fine. But it's a far cry from where we are today. I don't feel served or protected by police at all - and I'm white. Anecdotally I'm sure there's plenty of examples out there, but in my personal experience, interactions with police are tense, adversarial, and scary, and that's if you haven't done anything illegal. Police should be jovial and friendly with the public they are supposed to protect. I see no evidence of that where I live.
  - jsymolon 10y ago
    Sorry to ruin that ... but Police do NOT have to "serve and protect" that's a marketing line. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-pol...
    - themartorana 10y ago
      "She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process." It was shaky legal ground to begin with, with clear precedent against the argument. While a restraining order may not compel police to act in a certain fashion on demand, that has nothing to do with the general reason police exist to begin with, and the way they interact with the public. In a true government "of the people" the police exist to protect those people.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
awqrre 10y ago
> So why is parallel construction a bad thing? Because try to hide the fact that they collected the incriminating information in an illegal manner.
1_2__3 10y ago
> So whys is parallel construction a bad thing? Because due process matters. There, that answer takes care of both the 'illegal' and 'legal' activities.
- sli 10y ago
  A comment does not end simply because you've stopped reading it. > Your life is ruined. You are a disgrace to your religion. Your wife has divorced you. Your child has a permanent disability. You've lost your job. All because due process wasn't followed.
a3n 10y ago
> So whys is parallel construction a bad thing? Because the first half of parallel construction, the illegal thing, is ... well, illegal.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  I think the OP's point was that you can argue against parallel construction even more effectively if you can demonstrate a case where the hidden side of the parallel construction isn't even illegal can already be problematic, you have a stronger argument against it. Either that or they're really pro-ruined lives?
  - a3n 10y ago
    > a case where the hidden side of the parallel construction isn't even illegal Agreed. In that case they're misleading the court and the defense. Which is probably, you know, illegal. :)
  - themartorana 10y ago
    I don't think you have to be "pro" ruined lives to be apathetic towards individuals whose lives were ruined.
tedunangst 10y ago
What does that example have to do with parallel construction? They could easily get a warrant in that situation, ending in a raid with the same result.
aquadrop 10y ago
But I fail to see why due process wasn't followed... Judge should have sanctioned raid in that case anyway, right (or how does it work)? And there's always some arbitrary line where someone decides 'that's enough for a raid', we just have to hope that whoever it is, he/she has a good common sense. In your example, if that person wasn't working in agriculture (and still suddenly bought large amounts of fertilizer etc.) And was seen with radicals/known offenders. And was known to distribute radical literature. In that case do you think raid was justified? Because that's really the way to stop terrorist acts, all that things they do for security at airports are useless, you can't do anything if there's determined crazy person with bomb on the streets, it's too late. That FBI's machine learning algorithm is just have to be good, to be used. FBI should be force by fear of bad media in case of wrong outcome to tune it for no false positives.
ubernostrum 10y ago
After all, why is it a bad thing that police are more efficient at catching criminals Generalizing a bit, the people most likely to make that particular argument are in my experience also the people most likely to respond to "three felonies a day" type arguments. I don't know why, but the strongest law-and-order folks tend to also be the strongest anti-"big government" folks. So framing parallel construction as a method to enable selective prosecution of anyone (see: "three felonies a day", given unlimited warrantless surveillance, you can Richelieu anybody you like) at any time -- with all the threat that implies of being used to expand government power without limit and intimidate, silence or outright imprison detractors -- is probably a more successful approach.

by deelowe 10y ago

cmurf 10y ago

Not merely because due process wasn't followed, regular Joe Citizen passively supports it by having no problem with this outcome in any meaningful way. There are no political consequences. This is a country where a significant minority have elected a presidential candidate who activity argues against due process, using the argument that because terrorists don't follow due process neither should we. And that is an increasingly popular sentiment, that somehow following the law and ethics is liberal bullcrap, and that selective application of due process as a kind of loyalty test and reward is patriotic and heroic.

heartsucker 10y ago

My reason for citing something illegal is this is 1) this is a case where it is more likely to be used, and 2) it's still wrong here, so in cases that are more grey, it should be definitely seen as wrong. However, your example doesn't really require a Stingray. It shows that pre-crime modeling and no-knock warrants have negative outcomes (to which I agree).

coldtea 10y ago

>It's always better to use non-illegal activities when constructing examples. After all, why is it a bad thing that police are more efficient at catching criminals Because the police's job is not to "catch criminals", it is to "catch criminals within the boundaries of the law/constitution".

themartorana 10y ago
It's actually to "serve and protect" not "catch criminals." If that's one of the ways they serve the community, fine. But it's a far cry from where we are today. I don't feel served or protected by police at all - and I'm white. Anecdotally I'm sure there's plenty of examples out there, but in my personal experience, interactions with police are tense, adversarial, and scary, and that's if you haven't done anything illegal. Police should be jovial and friendly with the public they are supposed to protect. I see no evidence of that where I live.
- jsymolon 10y ago
  Sorry to ruin that ... but Police do NOT have to "serve and protect" that's a marketing line. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-pol...
  - themartorana 10y ago
    "She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process." It was shaky legal ground to begin with, with clear precedent against the argument. While a restraining order may not compel police to act in a certain fashion on demand, that has nothing to do with the general reason police exist to begin with, and the way they interact with the public. In a true government "of the people" the police exist to protect those people.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago

awqrre 10y ago

> So why is parallel construction a bad thing? Because try to hide the fact that they collected the incriminating information in an illegal manner.

1_2__3 10y ago

> So whys is parallel construction a bad thing? Because due process matters. There, that answer takes care of both the 'illegal' and 'legal' activities.

sli 10y ago
A comment does not end simply because you've stopped reading it. > Your life is ruined. You are a disgrace to your religion. Your wife has divorced you. Your child has a permanent disability. You've lost your job. All because due process wasn't followed.

a3n 10y ago

> So whys is parallel construction a bad thing? Because the first half of parallel construction, the illegal thing, is ... well, illegal.

johncolanduoni 10y ago
I think the OP's point was that you can argue against parallel construction even more effectively if you can demonstrate a case where the hidden side of the parallel construction isn't even illegal can already be problematic, you have a stronger argument against it. Either that or they're really pro-ruined lives?
- a3n 10y ago
  > a case where the hidden side of the parallel construction isn't even illegal Agreed. In that case they're misleading the court and the defense. Which is probably, you know, illegal. :)
- themartorana 10y ago
  I don't think you have to be "pro" ruined lives to be apathetic towards individuals whose lives were ruined.

tedunangst 10y ago

What does that example have to do with parallel construction? They could easily get a warrant in that situation, ending in a raid with the same result.

aquadrop 10y ago

But I fail to see why due process wasn't followed... Judge should have sanctioned raid in that case anyway, right (or how does it work)? And there's always some arbitrary line where someone decides 'that's enough for a raid', we just have to hope that whoever it is, he/she has a good common sense. In your example, if that person wasn't working in agriculture (and still suddenly bought large amounts of fertilizer etc.) And was seen with radicals/known offenders. And was known to distribute radical literature. In that case do you think raid was justified? Because that's really the way to stop terrorist acts, all that things they do for security at airports are useless, you can't do anything if there's determined crazy person with bomb on the streets, it's too late. That FBI's machine learning algorithm is just have to be good, to be used. FBI should be force by fear of bad media in case of wrong outcome to tune it for no false positives.

ubernostrum 10y ago

After all, why is it a bad thing that police are more efficient at catching criminals Generalizing a bit, the people most likely to make that particular argument are in my experience also the people most likely to respond to "three felonies a day" type arguments. I don't know why, but the strongest law-and-order folks tend to also be the strongest anti-"big government" folks. So framing parallel construction as a method to enable selective prosecution of anyone (see: "three felonies a day", given unlimited warrantless surveillance, you can Richelieu anybody you like) at any time -- with all the threat that implies of being used to expand government power without limit and intimidate, silence or outright imprison detractors -- is probably a more successful approach.