31 ms·

Yeah. This is another moral question along the Snowden/Manning lines. Here's the thing: breaking into somebody's house is illegal. If you do it, you're a crimi

Yeah. This is another moral question along the Snowden/Manning lines. Here's the thing: breaking into somebody's house is illegal. If you do it, you're a criminal and should face some kind of legal proceeding. If you break into their house and leave some personal items along the curb, like nude photographs? I'm probably going to gawk at them as I drive by. I don't like the fact that I do it, but I am human. You are still a criminal, and as long as I don't start sharing your personal items, I'm not. I'm just a schmuck. If, however, you leave evidence of moral or criminal wrongdoing out on the curb for everybody to see? Then the community has an obligation to take action both against the robber and the person who's house was broken into. Simply because you were robbed doesn't mean that you get out of consequences for your actions once they become public. I'm tempted to view the ramifications of the leaked emails as a purely internal DNC affair. Having said that, I am reading partisan attacks that say there are illegal activities in there. If so? Well, somebody needs to face some kind of legal proceeding. And somebody else is still a robber. Whatever our views, it's important to come up with standards that apply no matter who's "side" you're on.

retox 10y ago
If you break into someone's house and find evidence of a murder or sexual assault, should you reveal those details? I would say yes, the crime of breaking and entering (and theft of the evidence) is still a crime, but a smaller one in the grand scheme of things. I would say both parties should be charged. It's not so clear cut though; if I break into your house and find a few joints should that be treated the same way? I suppose it boils down to where on the continuum of severity you place corruption of the democratic process. Encouraging someone to break into private property looking for evidence would still be a crime, IMO.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  Note that you are answering a different question. I approached this issue framed as "what should society do?". My answers were about whether criminal proceedings should occur. How should the rest of us react when we see something like this? Your question is of a moral nature: what should I do if I break in your house and find out that you are abusing your kids? This is why they write fiction :) Not so easy to figure out, and it could easily vary by individual and circumstance. As to advocating for people to become robbers, would I advocate for another Snowden to appear? I think that's impossible for me to answer without answering your moral question, without knowing what sorts of things would be revealed by the crime. Whether I advocated or not, though, it'd still be a crime. Not sure if my advocacy is a crime. If so, then I'm a criminal and the law is an ass.
  - retox 10y ago
    My comment wasn't so much a direct response to the points you raised, and I wasn't disagreeing, the things I discussed were ideas which were inspired by your comment. I hadn't considered whether I would advocate for another Snowden, but assuming being 'another Snowden' implies exposing corruption I would have to say that I would. I personally think that corruption in any form is one of the things holding us back as a species. See Africa for a wealth of examples.
jacquesm 10y ago
> Then the community has an obligation to take action both against the robber and the person who's house was broken into. No. This is exactly what's wrong with parallel construction and why any evidence like this should always be treated like it simply does not exist. The only times when you should be able to break that rule is if there is overwhelming social advantage to breaking it. And I'm not sure the case posted here is one of those.
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  I don't think so. In my response, if somebody used parallel construction? They'd be guilty of a crime. This is what we want, right?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    No, it would be akin to anonymous tips leading to miraculous discoveries. After all, if the penalty would be to only be slapped on the wrist for the 'lesser' crime then that would up-end the whole system in place for evidence gathering, which is supposed to be lawful at all times. Parallel construction is sneaky in that it allows otherwise in-admissible evidence into a case or allows one to jump-start a case that would otherwise not have existed in the first place.
    - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
      Don't we already allow anonymous tips? Surely you're not saying we should disallow anonymous tips about crime, right? I apologize. You must be making some point that I'm missing. If somebody breaks into your house, they are guilty of a crime. Period. I didn't say anything about "slaps on the wrist" For all I care, you can make discovering a crime while breaking into the house the same as being complicit in the crime. Along this entire subthread, there seems to be several topics conflated. Punishment is a separate matter from culpability, as is the state breaking the law during a criminal investigation, which you seem to be focusing on by bringing up parallel construction. The only thing I am addressing is how society should treat the discovery of random bits of information put into the public domain by thieves. That's it. Not how criminal investigations should be conducted, not the relative punishment for various crimes, not how a robber's personal morals should affect his decisions, and not whether it's okay to publish such information once it is made public. These are all great topics. I'm just not talking about them.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
"If you break into their house and leave some personal items along the curb, like nude photographs? I'm probably going to gawk at them as I drive by. I don't like the fact that I do it, but I am human. You are still a criminal, and as long as I don't start sharing your personal items, I'm not. I'm just a schmuck." What you've just unknowingly (I hope) done is encouraged continuously violating people's privacy, property, and physical health using powers of state just in case something is found. Given most are innocent enough, that means innocent people will be hurt constantly to find some extra guilty ones. That's ridiculous from a moral perspective. It also assumes the cops are all good: an assumption that's countered by existence of Bill of Rights itself. Not to mention steady stream of corruption cases, misrepresented evidence, lying to get fake confessions, and so on. Definitely not the kind of people that need any "right to ignore rights" if that should ever exist. Their incentive is to lock people up, not keep them free. So, the system should give us protection against that to force them to do it only when they have strong justification.

retox 10y ago

If you break into someone's house and find evidence of a murder or sexual assault, should you reveal those details? I would say yes, the crime of breaking and entering (and theft of the evidence) is still a crime, but a smaller one in the grand scheme of things. I would say both parties should be charged. It's not so clear cut though; if I break into your house and find a few joints should that be treated the same way? I suppose it boils down to where on the continuum of severity you place corruption of the democratic process. Encouraging someone to break into private property looking for evidence would still be a crime, IMO.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
Note that you are answering a different question. I approached this issue framed as "what should society do?". My answers were about whether criminal proceedings should occur. How should the rest of us react when we see something like this? Your question is of a moral nature: what should I do if I break in your house and find out that you are abusing your kids? This is why they write fiction :) Not so easy to figure out, and it could easily vary by individual and circumstance. As to advocating for people to become robbers, would I advocate for another Snowden to appear? I think that's impossible for me to answer without answering your moral question, without knowing what sorts of things would be revealed by the crime. Whether I advocated or not, though, it'd still be a crime. Not sure if my advocacy is a crime. If so, then I'm a criminal and the law is an ass.
- retox 10y ago
  My comment wasn't so much a direct response to the points you raised, and I wasn't disagreeing, the things I discussed were ideas which were inspired by your comment. I hadn't considered whether I would advocate for another Snowden, but assuming being 'another Snowden' implies exposing corruption I would have to say that I would. I personally think that corruption in any form is one of the things holding us back as a species. See Africa for a wealth of examples.

jacquesm 10y ago

> Then the community has an obligation to take action both against the robber and the person who's house was broken into. No. This is exactly what's wrong with parallel construction and why any evidence like this should always be treated like it simply does not exist. The only times when you should be able to break that rule is if there is overwhelming social advantage to breaking it. And I'm not sure the case posted here is one of those.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
I don't think so. In my response, if somebody used parallel construction? They'd be guilty of a crime. This is what we want, right?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  No, it would be akin to anonymous tips leading to miraculous discoveries. After all, if the penalty would be to only be slapped on the wrist for the 'lesser' crime then that would up-end the whole system in place for evidence gathering, which is supposed to be lawful at all times. Parallel construction is sneaky in that it allows otherwise in-admissible evidence into a case or allows one to jump-start a case that would otherwise not have existed in the first place.
  - DanielBMarkham 10y ago
    Don't we already allow anonymous tips? Surely you're not saying we should disallow anonymous tips about crime, right? I apologize. You must be making some point that I'm missing. If somebody breaks into your house, they are guilty of a crime. Period. I didn't say anything about "slaps on the wrist" For all I care, you can make discovering a crime while breaking into the house the same as being complicit in the crime. Along this entire subthread, there seems to be several topics conflated. Punishment is a separate matter from culpability, as is the state breaking the law during a criminal investigation, which you seem to be focusing on by bringing up parallel construction. The only thing I am addressing is how society should treat the discovery of random bits of information put into the public domain by thieves. That's it. Not how criminal investigations should be conducted, not the relative punishment for various crimes, not how a robber's personal morals should affect his decisions, and not whether it's okay to publish such information once it is made public. These are all great topics. I'm just not talking about them.

nickpsecurity 10y ago

"If you break into their house and leave some personal items along the curb, like nude photographs? I'm probably going to gawk at them as I drive by. I don't like the fact that I do it, but I am human. You are still a criminal, and as long as I don't start sharing your personal items, I'm not. I'm just a schmuck." What you've just unknowingly (I hope) done is encouraged continuously violating people's privacy, property, and physical health using powers of state just in case something is found. Given most are innocent enough, that means innocent people will be hurt constantly to find some extra guilty ones. That's ridiculous from a moral perspective. It also assumes the cops are all good: an assumption that's countered by existence of Bill of Rights itself. Not to mention steady stream of corruption cases, misrepresented evidence, lying to get fake confessions, and so on. Definitely not the kind of people that need any "right to ignore rights" if that should ever exist. Their incentive is to lock people up, not keep them free. So, the system should give us protection against that to force them to do it only when they have strong justification.