4 ms·

Actually, for practical purposes, your question is the wrong one. A lot of people think the more ideologically pure argument is the one to make, but it's usuall

Actually, for practical purposes, your question is the wrong one. A lot of people think the more ideologically pure argument is the one to make, but it's usually the one with the least impact and least likely to bring about your desired situation. "Right" and "Wrong" are thrown out the window as soon as law enforcement makes the case that there is simply no time for the constitution. They're saving little tiny babies! but "OK, how many little tiny babies are you actually saving as opposed to blatant overreaches into the lives of private citizens" is the more effective point. The numbers will look bad, they can't help themselves once they get a whiff of some new power. In this case, arguing for the _idea_ of liberty (incorrectly) labels you a pedant more concerned with red tape than being a hero.

tossandturn 8y ago
>they can't help themselves once they get a whiff of some new power Semantics, but I don't think it is necessarily the "power", so much as it is a new vector to get the evidence they feel that they need to perform their job with less effort. It is a lazy method that circumvents the laws that stand in their way for good reasons.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > I don't think it is necessarily the "power", so much as it is a new vector to get the evidence they feel that they need to perform their job with less effort I am inclined to agree with you, but I have no evidence. Hence the questions. HN is well aware of the risks. But I've never seen any work done into the potential benefits. If the benefits are slim, then the discussion is moot. If there are cases that can be solved with phone data only, and if those cases are horrible or frequent enough, then there is a valid debate at hand.
- sjy 8y ago
  No laws are being circumvented if the police have a warrant. The problem (from a law enforcement perspective) is that technology now makes it easy for people to communicate and store data in a way that the police can’t monitor even with a warrant. This wasn’t an issue when the police could obtain warrants to monitor telephone lines and break into safes.
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
>"Right" and "Wrong" are thrown out the window as soon as law enforcement makes the case that there is simply no time for the constitution. They're saving little tiny babies! but "OK, how many little tiny babies are you actually saving as opposed to blatant overreaches into the lives of private citizens" is the more effective point. This. Freedom isn't free. "How many kids have to die before you give up your..." "All of them you twat!"

tossandturn 8y ago

>they can't help themselves once they get a whiff of some new power Semantics, but I don't think it is necessarily the "power", so much as it is a new vector to get the evidence they feel that they need to perform their job with less effort. It is a lazy method that circumvents the laws that stand in their way for good reasons.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> I don't think it is necessarily the "power", so much as it is a new vector to get the evidence they feel that they need to perform their job with less effort I am inclined to agree with you, but I have no evidence. Hence the questions. HN is well aware of the risks. But I've never seen any work done into the potential benefits. If the benefits are slim, then the discussion is moot. If there are cases that can be solved with phone data only, and if those cases are horrible or frequent enough, then there is a valid debate at hand.
sjy 8y ago
No laws are being circumvented if the police have a warrant. The problem (from a law enforcement perspective) is that technology now makes it easy for people to communicate and store data in a way that the police can’t monitor even with a warrant. This wasn’t an issue when the police could obtain warrants to monitor telephone lines and break into safes.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

>"Right" and "Wrong" are thrown out the window as soon as law enforcement makes the case that there is simply no time for the constitution. They're saving little tiny babies! but "OK, how many little tiny babies are you actually saving as opposed to blatant overreaches into the lives of private citizens" is the more effective point. This. Freedom isn't free. "How many kids have to die before you give up your..." "All of them you twat!"