4 ms·

This makes it quite clear that these devices are intended and used for the routine disruption of a licensed radio system ... which is Federal offence in the US.

This makes it quite clear that these devices are intended and used for the routine disruption of a licensed radio system ... which is Federal offence in the US. The interesting question here is; why? Why would someone working in law enforcement risk a year in jail just so they can do warrantless wiretapping? That suggests a certain level of desperation. One answer is that we to a certain extent make it impossible for law enforcement to do their job any other way. We have a lot of laws on the books where none of the people violating those laws are likely to go down to a police station and file a complaint. The prohibition on illegal drugs is a good example. It's like asking a friend to help you with your diet while forbidding them from looking in your fridge. Your friend is likely to look in your fridge if they don't just refuse to help at all. We are sending mixed signals. Another answer is purely economic. It is very expensive to have law enforcement people sitting around on stakeouts and/or following people. It saves a tremendous amount of time and effort if you can find out where people are going to be. If warrantless surveillance becomes technologically impossible, then we are going to have to pay a lot more salaries to have all our laws enforced.

nxzero 10y ago
>> "If warrantless surveillance becomes technologically impossible, then we are going to have to pay a lot more salaries to have all our laws enforced." Completely agree, cost would rapidly get out of control without warrantless surveillance and criminal activities would surge. In fact, why even use tech like this when everyone by law should just wear a device to broadcast their location, all their communications, etc. All the data collected should be admissible in court too. /sarcasm
- upofadown 10y ago
  Particular categories of criminal activities would surge. A strong argument can be made that the associated problems shouldn't be handled with law enforcement ... but that is not something law enforcement gets to decide, we do. In a sense we are being crummy bosses, we want our employees to do two mutually incompatible things at the same time. Our conflicted thoughts about things like recreational drugs trickle down into bad policy.
  - hood_syntax 10y ago
    The thoughts on recreational drugs are not conflicted (for the most part), they are separate thoughts from groups which are at odds with each other.
  - nxzero 10y ago
    >> "Particular categories of criminal activities would surge." Please provide examples and the reasoning used to support these examples.

nxzero 10y ago

>> "If warrantless surveillance becomes technologically impossible, then we are going to have to pay a lot more salaries to have all our laws enforced." Completely agree, cost would rapidly get out of control without warrantless surveillance and criminal activities would surge. In fact, why even use tech like this when everyone by law should just wear a device to broadcast their location, all their communications, etc. All the data collected should be admissible in court too. /sarcasm

upofadown 10y ago
Particular categories of criminal activities would surge. A strong argument can be made that the associated problems shouldn't be handled with law enforcement ... but that is not something law enforcement gets to decide, we do. In a sense we are being crummy bosses, we want our employees to do two mutually incompatible things at the same time. Our conflicted thoughts about things like recreational drugs trickle down into bad policy.
- hood_syntax 10y ago
  The thoughts on recreational drugs are not conflicted (for the most part), they are separate thoughts from groups which are at odds with each other.
- nxzero 10y ago
  >> "Particular categories of criminal activities would surge." Please provide examples and the reasoning used to support these examples.