4 ms·

Well, good. It's an investigation, not a definite thing. The FBI isn't charging anyone with anything, they just are saying "let's have a good look here and see

by mabbo 9y ago

Well, good. It's an investigation, not a definite thing. The FBI isn't charging anyone with anything, they just are saying "let's have a good look here and see if something illegal has gone on". There's lots of reasons to think they might be right, but I leave it to them to make the call. We should want investigations into possible crimes, especially when the overall victims are consumers who will have less competition for their money.

whipoodle 9y ago
I'm not saying I have a problem with this, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that characterization of FBI investigations.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  Exactly. FBI investigations are not a "first point of contact" when a complaint has been made or someone has a question. Some law enforcement agency has already determined that there is something worth investigating, but they don't have all the tools required to investigate it fully, so it has escalated to the FBI. For law enforcement an FBI investigation is at least the equivalent in development terms of a priority ticket with Managers subscribing and asking for daily updates.
  - blackguardx 9y ago
    You are partially incorrect. The FBI only investigates federal crimes. They act as the initial point of contact for those crimes all the time. In fact, you can go to their office in San Francisco (and others I'm sure) and file a complaint in person.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
We should want investigations into possible crimes,... Of course. That said, though, I wish they'd keep this sort of thing private so that there is more chance folks are actually innocent until proven guilty instead of having public opinion labeling you as such before the trial.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  That is not going to happen in the US - mugshots of suspects are public way before people get their day in court. I know at least 1 European country (can't remember which) that won't allow the publication of suspects' names (or was it photographs?) until they are convicted.
  - anon1385 9y ago
    There's issues with going that way though - it gives the police the power to arrest and detain people in secret and prevents anybody talking about it. Historically police forces have a bad record of abusing that kind of power. It's also going to be pretty unenforceable in the era of social media.
    - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
      The abuse of power in the US is a much larger problem to be sure, and honestly that stuff has already happened [1]. And this is with the stuff supposedtly being public. Surely there are other ways that blend protecting privacy of the presumed innocent without letting up on police forces. We can do things like keep mugshots of unconvicted people out of public view, especially on police websites and media outlets. We can quit putting folks' names on the front page when covering a story. Sure, publish arrests the cops have made with a general location, withholding people's names and addresses. We can have all cops wear body cams that may or may not be recording and release them to the public once we've blurred the person's identity. Some of this would take changing a system. Stiff penalties to cops that break the law and are convicted. Better training. A chip sewn into uniforms (which can be laundered at the station with no need to take them home to protect the police during their personal life) to track movements. A bail system that actually looks to see if someone is a flight risk and limits on how long we can keep folks in jail. A robust public defender system (it is a right to have a lawyer, after all, even though some states make destitute folks pay for it nonetheless). We could start public service announcements asking folks not to judge folks before they are found guilty with evidence. We could use official, licensed services to do background checks and disallow arrest records to be part of the check (probably a few exceptions for security reasons). Train police officers a bit better so they minimally can be aware of their natural biases and work against them. I'm not saying this list is perfect nor all inclusive, but it is a start. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/19/homan-square-chicago-police-disappeared-thousands https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/19/homan-square...

by mabbo 9y ago

whipoodle 9y ago

I'm not saying I have a problem with this, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that characterization of FBI investigations.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
Exactly. FBI investigations are not a "first point of contact" when a complaint has been made or someone has a question. Some law enforcement agency has already determined that there is something worth investigating, but they don't have all the tools required to investigate it fully, so it has escalated to the FBI. For law enforcement an FBI investigation is at least the equivalent in development terms of a priority ticket with Managers subscribing and asking for daily updates.
- blackguardx 9y ago
  You are partially incorrect. The FBI only investigates federal crimes. They act as the initial point of contact for those crimes all the time. In fact, you can go to their office in San Francisco (and others I'm sure) and file a complaint in person.

Broken_Hippo 9y ago

We should want investigations into possible crimes,... Of course. That said, though, I wish they'd keep this sort of thing private so that there is more chance folks are actually innocent until proven guilty instead of having public opinion labeling you as such before the trial.

sangnoir 9y ago
That is not going to happen in the US - mugshots of suspects are public way before people get their day in court. I know at least 1 European country (can't remember which) that won't allow the publication of suspects' names (or was it photographs?) until they are convicted.
- anon1385 9y ago
  There's issues with going that way though - it gives the police the power to arrest and detain people in secret and prevents anybody talking about it. Historically police forces have a bad record of abusing that kind of power. It's also going to be pretty unenforceable in the era of social media.
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    The abuse of power in the US is a much larger problem to be sure, and honestly that stuff has already happened [1]. And this is with the stuff supposedtly being public. Surely there are other ways that blend protecting privacy of the presumed innocent without letting up on police forces. We can do things like keep mugshots of unconvicted people out of public view, especially on police websites and media outlets. We can quit putting folks' names on the front page when covering a story. Sure, publish arrests the cops have made with a general location, withholding people's names and addresses. We can have all cops wear body cams that may or may not be recording and release them to the public once we've blurred the person's identity. Some of this would take changing a system. Stiff penalties to cops that break the law and are convicted. Better training. A chip sewn into uniforms (which can be laundered at the station with no need to take them home to protect the police during their personal life) to track movements. A bail system that actually looks to see if someone is a flight risk and limits on how long we can keep folks in jail. A robust public defender system (it is a right to have a lawyer, after all, even though some states make destitute folks pay for it nonetheless). We could start public service announcements asking folks not to judge folks before they are found guilty with evidence. We could use official, licensed services to do background checks and disallow arrest records to be part of the check (probably a few exceptions for security reasons). Train police officers a bit better so they minimally can be aware of their natural biases and work against them. I'm not saying this list is perfect nor all inclusive, but it is a start. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/19/homan-square-chicago-police-disappeared-thousands https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/19/homan-square...