5 ms·

> If I declare myself to be an enemy of a given entity, I fully expect them to use every resource at their disposal to attempt to defeat me For dealing with in

> If I declare myself to be an enemy of a given entity, I fully expect them to use every resource at their disposal to attempt to defeat me For dealing with individuals, I don't agree that it's ok to use every resource at their disposal. For example, getting the person fired or slandering them is not acceptable. But this is dealing with government. Avoiding the law and law enforcement is wrong and often illegal.

downandout 10y ago
This program was cleared by what I assume to be a highly paid, competent legal department. So I'm going to guess that you are wrong about the "illegal" part. They are a private business that can refuse service to anyone. Even businesses that aren't even close to breaking the law may have perfectly legitimate reasons to avoid serving people in law enforcement, whose job it often is to cause problems and increase expenses for the businesses they visit. It would be illegal to refuse to allow them to do their job if they properly identified themselves as officers, and those officers had some kind of court order authorizing them to seize a car for example. But these are undercover agents posing as legitimate customers - a completely different scenario. >For dealing with individuals, I don't agree that it's ok to use every resource at their disposal. For example, getting the person fired or slandering them is not acceptable. I agree with this, but your government doesn't. Imagine you are falsely accused of a crime. You are quite likely to be fired, you will certainly be publicly slandered, and you may lose family and friends over it. It will take years and substantial amounts of money to clear your name, and when you do, most of the damage will have already been done anyway. In the end, you won't even receive as much as an apology. The government doesn't offer you the same kind of mercy that you believe you should afford to others. So there's no reason to afford the government or anyone employed by it any courtesy beyond the bare minimum to which they are legally entitled. In the case of an unannounced undercover agent, they are nothing more than fellow humans with absolutely no special rights.
- tkone 10y ago
  Just because a lawyer has said something is "OK" doesn't make it legal. Lawyers (even expensive ones) give bad advice all the time for lots of various reasons, or advice that isn't bad at the time, but bad going forward. Did the lawyer understand this was being used to circumvent the law? Or did they understand it was to prevent violations of their terms of service? Is it possible the company either changed the plan after the lawyer saw it, or didn't fully explain the capacities to the lawyer? Accused of a crime? Likely not to many of the scenarios you mentioned. Indicted on criminal charges? Likely yes, but that's why we have criminal indictments. It makes it much harder for the government to falsely accuse you of a crime.
  - downandout 10y ago
    http://abovethelaw.com/2016/09/unsatisfied-with-ham-sandwiches-grand-juries-now-indicting-themselves/ http://abovethelaw.com/2016/09/unsatisfied-with-ham-sandwich... Indictments mean next to nothing.

downandout 10y ago

This program was cleared by what I assume to be a highly paid, competent legal department. So I'm going to guess that you are wrong about the "illegal" part. They are a private business that can refuse service to anyone. Even businesses that aren't even close to breaking the law may have perfectly legitimate reasons to avoid serving people in law enforcement, whose job it often is to cause problems and increase expenses for the businesses they visit. It would be illegal to refuse to allow them to do their job if they properly identified themselves as officers, and those officers had some kind of court order authorizing them to seize a car for example. But these are undercover agents posing as legitimate customers - a completely different scenario. >For dealing with individuals, I don't agree that it's ok to use every resource at their disposal. For example, getting the person fired or slandering them is not acceptable. I agree with this, but your government doesn't. Imagine you are falsely accused of a crime. You are quite likely to be fired, you will certainly be publicly slandered, and you may lose family and friends over it. It will take years and substantial amounts of money to clear your name, and when you do, most of the damage will have already been done anyway. In the end, you won't even receive as much as an apology. The government doesn't offer you the same kind of mercy that you believe you should afford to others. So there's no reason to afford the government or anyone employed by it any courtesy beyond the bare minimum to which they are legally entitled. In the case of an unannounced undercover agent, they are nothing more than fellow humans with absolutely no special rights.

tkone 10y ago
Just because a lawyer has said something is "OK" doesn't make it legal. Lawyers (even expensive ones) give bad advice all the time for lots of various reasons, or advice that isn't bad at the time, but bad going forward. Did the lawyer understand this was being used to circumvent the law? Or did they understand it was to prevent violations of their terms of service? Is it possible the company either changed the plan after the lawyer saw it, or didn't fully explain the capacities to the lawyer? Accused of a crime? Likely not to many of the scenarios you mentioned. Indicted on criminal charges? Likely yes, but that's why we have criminal indictments. It makes it much harder for the government to falsely accuse you of a crime.
- downandout 10y ago
  http://abovethelaw.com/2016/09/unsatisfied-with-ham-sandwiches-grand-juries-now-indicting-themselves/ http://abovethelaw.com/2016/09/unsatisfied-with-ham-sandwich... Indictments mean next to nothing.