2 ms·
US law enforcement would be horrifically, jaw-droppingly corrupt if 20% of arrests were "malicious." But even then, 80% of arrests would be non-malicious, so a
by enoch_r 9y ago
US law enforcement would be horrifically, jaw-droppingly corrupt if 20% of arrests were "malicious." But even then, 80% of arrests would be non-malicious, so a very strong prior that a given arrest is malicious would be completely unreasonable.
"US law enforcement is the bad guy, therefore any given choice they make is probably evil" is fiction-logic. It works in movies, not in real life.
- mindcrime 9y ago80% of arrests would be non-malicious, so a very strong prior that a given arrest is malicious would be completely unreasonable. Sure, but we're not talking about a randomly selected item here. Looking at US arrests w/r/t "cybercrime" and given the history of overly broad interpretations of the CFAA and what-not, I think it's a lot less clear than you are suggesting. "US law enforcement is the bad guy, therefore any given choice they make is probably evil" is fiction-logic. It works in movies, not in real life. We're not talking about "logic" (as in "deductive logic") here... w're talking about the kind of fuzzy reasoning, based on abduction and bayesian inference, that human beings use in the face of limited information... and with an understanding that you revise your position as new information is acquired.