8 ms·
To be fair... If you commit a crime, you have to expect there's a risk of being caught and punished. So how is this "really bad", except from the POV of the use
by mfoy_ 9y ago
To be fair... If you commit a crime, you have to expect there's a risk of being caught and punished. So how is this "really bad", except from the POV of the users who may face repercussions?
- madez 9y agoEverybody has the right to expect a fair and reasonable treatment and punishment. If that can't be guaranteed it might be imperative to not share the identity, because sharing it would imply another injustice without righting any other.
- mfoy_ 9y agoI mean... if they released the addresses publicly, sure. But they just passed them along to Interpol...
- zo1 9y agoAnd interpol would do what with them? Probably pass them along to the police-services of the respective countries that these people live in. Some countries execute people for drug possession alone.
- mfoy_ 9y agoWell at no point does that chain of events trigger a public witch hunt. Interpol now faces an ethical / moral / legal dilemma of how to proceed, but passing the addresses _up_ to Interpol was not a mistake. Now, if Interpol was to share the addresses with a country which they knew had cruel and unusual punishments for the alleged crimes then _that_ would be a mistake.
- joosters 9y agoThat would be a great reason not to order drugs online from these countries then. Whether or not you approve of the law, you have to realise that you are putting yourself at risk if you are breaking the law.
- zo1 9y agoI'm specifically mentioning it from the interpol-level. They would at that point be essentially handing-down a death-sentence for a crime that they don't view as being that serious.
- kazagistar 9y agoWhen laws are bad, its bad when people face the repercussions of those laws.
- mfoy_ 9y agoYeah but debating whether the law itself is bad is a separate discussion. Until the laws change people can't be outraged or surprised when they got caught up in them... Besides, it's possible that many of the users live in countries where _buying_ drugs isn't a crime, or where circumstantial evidence like this isn't enough to warrant opening an investigation. So it's possible that most of these users won't even face those repercussions.
- alistproducer2 9y ago>Until the laws change people can't be outraged or surprised when they got caught up Bad laws are usually changed because of public outrage and surprise so.......
- mikeash 9y agoSurprised, yes, but why can't people be outraged at people suffering from bad laws? That makes no sense.
- mfoy_ 9y agoNot outraged at the laws, outraged at being persecuted. If you know something is illegal, and it carries a fine of $1,000 and you do it, you get caught, and they fine you $1,000 you can't be like "What?! How DARE you catch me and fine me like the law says?! ARRRGH!"
- mikeash 9y agoWhy not? If the law is unjust, it's perfectly reasonable to be outraged at being punished when you're caught even if you knew exactly what would happen beforehand. Since drugs have such a stigma in the countries HNers are likely to be from, imagine if we were talking about laws against, say, women driving cars, or criticizing the president.
- romanovcode 9y agoThe problem with this example is that if I knew your address I could order drugs to you.
- mfoy_ 9y agoThat's why it's circumstantial. It like trying to tie an IP address to an individual. It's, at best, a proxy measurement of "who". For example, maybe people ordered drugs to their neighbour's address then waited for the delivery guy and intercepted the package.