4 ms·

Honestly, I do accept it, because I still believe they're trying to do the right thing. I know it's easy to shit on law enforcement, but I still fundamentally

Honestly, I do accept it, because I still believe they're trying to do the right thing. I know it's easy to shit on law enforcement, but I still fundamentally believe that they're a force of good. Edit: I'd love to discuss this more with all of you, but I've been told by HN moderation that I am a negative force on this website and discussions like these are why. I hope some day there'll be a place we can talk about this kind of thing civilly, but it's not here and it's not today, unfortunately.

mikeash 9y ago
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I would argue that resisting evil actions by good people is more noble than resisting evil actions by evil people, because you stand a better chance of changing things when they don't intend to be evil. I've never had my phone searched, but if they tried, I'd say, "Good luck cracking my password. Can I go now?"
- diminoten 9y ago
  Brave words typed onto an Internet forum. I don't think this is an "evil action" to begin with.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    What's "brave" about it? I'm a programmer making a good salary, and all I have to lose is my phone. I can buy another one if they decide to threaten me with seizure. If you don't think it's an evil action, then why are you phrasing it as "I still believe they're trying to do the right thing"? I interpret that as "I think they're doing the wrong thing, but I don't mind because they think it's the right thing." If it's not evil then why not defend the action on its own merits, rather than appealing to the fundamental goodness of the organization?
    - diminoten 9y ago
      Because it's perceived as evil, and I didn't want to litigate that and be a force of negativity on HN.
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        Thinking it is appropriate to search phones is at least a solid argument. People might loudly disagree or downvote, but it's a coherent opinion. The idea that trying to do the right thing can justify something is specious nonsense.
        diminoten 9y ago
        It's specious nonsense to try to do the right thing? You can't possibly mean that, right?
        jtmcmc 9y ago
        It's specious nonsense to justify things by saying they are trying to do the right thing.
    - twothamendment 9y ago
      When I read the article, my first thought that I'd let them keep the phone. Mine is quite old and I've been debating buying a new one since it is giving me trouble. Something like that would just be good excuse to get a new one. If it were a brand new phone, I might think harder about it - but we really need to stand up to crap like this.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    And I do. I fail to see any kind of "good" that this could fall under.
maxerickson 9y ago
It's entirely possible to believe that law enforcement are a net good and also that they do lots of things that they shouldn't. That they are trying to do the right thing doesn't really excuse doing bad things. Lots of evil is carried out by people that think they are trying to do the right thing.
1001101 9y ago
It's a continuum, and everyone has their favorite setting on the dial based on their values and experience. Fortunately, we have the Bill of Rights to say where the max setting is in the US, but, unfortunately, I think they've taken it to 11.
- DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
  I thought that too, but a series of Supreme Court ruling disagrees with me.
colbyh 9y ago
parts aren't the whole, and it's completely justifiable to say "you might be doing this for the right reasons but this particular action is wrong". distrust in a process isn't distrust of the entire agency.
ska 9y ago
You can be a bit more nuanced than that without being anti-LEO. I believe law enforcement organization are almost essentially incapable of self-regulating their tendency to accumulate additional powers. I also believe there are clear benefits to limiting these powers. If you accept these premises, it's clear that constraint must be applied from outside of the LEOs themselves. The typical answer to how, is through legislation and oversight. If you don't believe that is being performed effectively, there is a pretty compelling argument for action to improve the system. Historically speaking, "They were trying to do the right thing" is a poor excuse for any number of pretty horrible results.
cmurf 9y ago
That is supposed to be true, but it's difficult to grant this level of trust when they don't trust the public. There is no transparency in this process, and there's no agreement on whether it's even legal. It's normal for people to reduce their level of trust in others who initiate a trust reduction arbitrarily. Of course the individual alone knows whether they are trust worthy, so the instance they're treated with suspicion, they know whether it's misplaced, and it goes directly to competency and motive, and the mere questioning of why the searches are happening means trust has been reduced.
s73ver 9y ago
I don't care if they believe they're a force for good or not. They're still being shitty, and they should be shat on. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
FireBeyond 9y ago
Then tell people why you think so. What real value do you think is achieved by allowing CBP to arbitrarily poke around cell phones being brought into the country that are not at all hidden? How much liberty from unreasonable search and seizure do we have to endure for the infinitesimal possibility that some good will come from these searches, you know, just like all the good that comes of TSA searches (I know for a fact I've taken pocket knives and multitools and hammers through airport security on multiple occasions). Yes, you can argue that, legally, at the border, there are different standards for reasonability and a requirement thereof. But I'd like to hear a cogent argument for why that is, and how that plays into the need for such a thing.

mikeash 9y ago

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I would argue that resisting evil actions by good people is more noble than resisting evil actions by evil people, because you stand a better chance of changing things when they don't intend to be evil. I've never had my phone searched, but if they tried, I'd say, "Good luck cracking my password. Can I go now?"

diminoten 9y ago
Brave words typed onto an Internet forum. I don't think this is an "evil action" to begin with.
- mikeash 9y ago
  What's "brave" about it? I'm a programmer making a good salary, and all I have to lose is my phone. I can buy another one if they decide to threaten me with seizure. If you don't think it's an evil action, then why are you phrasing it as "I still believe they're trying to do the right thing"? I interpret that as "I think they're doing the wrong thing, but I don't mind because they think it's the right thing." If it's not evil then why not defend the action on its own merits, rather than appealing to the fundamental goodness of the organization?
  - diminoten 9y ago
    Because it's perceived as evil, and I didn't want to litigate that and be a force of negativity on HN.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      Thinking it is appropriate to search phones is at least a solid argument. People might loudly disagree or downvote, but it's a coherent opinion. The idea that trying to do the right thing can justify something is specious nonsense.
      - diminoten 9y ago
        It's specious nonsense to try to do the right thing? You can't possibly mean that, right?
        jtmcmc 9y ago
        It's specious nonsense to justify things by saying they are trying to do the right thing.
  - twothamendment 9y ago
    When I read the article, my first thought that I'd let them keep the phone. Mine is quite old and I've been debating buying a new one since it is giving me trouble. Something like that would just be good excuse to get a new one. If it were a brand new phone, I might think harder about it - but we really need to stand up to crap like this.
- s73ver 9y ago
  And I do. I fail to see any kind of "good" that this could fall under.

maxerickson 9y ago

It's entirely possible to believe that law enforcement are a net good and also that they do lots of things that they shouldn't. That they are trying to do the right thing doesn't really excuse doing bad things. Lots of evil is carried out by people that think they are trying to do the right thing.

1001101 9y ago

It's a continuum, and everyone has their favorite setting on the dial based on their values and experience. Fortunately, we have the Bill of Rights to say where the max setting is in the US, but, unfortunately, I think they've taken it to 11.

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
I thought that too, but a series of Supreme Court ruling disagrees with me.

colbyh 9y ago

parts aren't the whole, and it's completely justifiable to say "you might be doing this for the right reasons but this particular action is wrong". distrust in a process isn't distrust of the entire agency.

ska 9y ago

You can be a bit more nuanced than that without being anti-LEO. I believe law enforcement organization are almost essentially incapable of self-regulating their tendency to accumulate additional powers. I also believe there are clear benefits to limiting these powers. If you accept these premises, it's clear that constraint must be applied from outside of the LEOs themselves. The typical answer to how, is through legislation and oversight. If you don't believe that is being performed effectively, there is a pretty compelling argument for action to improve the system. Historically speaking, "They were trying to do the right thing" is a poor excuse for any number of pretty horrible results.

cmurf 9y ago

That is supposed to be true, but it's difficult to grant this level of trust when they don't trust the public. There is no transparency in this process, and there's no agreement on whether it's even legal. It's normal for people to reduce their level of trust in others who initiate a trust reduction arbitrarily. Of course the individual alone knows whether they are trust worthy, so the instance they're treated with suspicion, they know whether it's misplaced, and it goes directly to competency and motive, and the mere questioning of why the searches are happening means trust has been reduced.

s73ver 9y ago

I don't care if they believe they're a force for good or not. They're still being shitty, and they should be shat on. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

FireBeyond 9y ago

Then tell people why you think so. What real value do you think is achieved by allowing CBP to arbitrarily poke around cell phones being brought into the country that are not at all hidden? How much liberty from unreasonable search and seizure do we have to endure for the infinitesimal possibility that some good will come from these searches, you know, just like all the good that comes of TSA searches (I know for a fact I've taken pocket knives and multitools and hammers through airport security on multiple occasions). Yes, you can argue that, legally, at the border, there are different standards for reasonability and a requirement thereof. But I'd like to hear a cogent argument for why that is, and how that plays into the need for such a thing.