3 ms·

But it would be better if they had to show reasonable suspicion. > Effective law enforcement often requires undercover work, information gathering and surveill

But it would be better if they had to show reasonable suspicion. > Effective law enforcement often requires undercover work, information gathering and surveillance of suspected criminals. Such surveillance should be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity – and ended when that suspicion is dispelled. > However, when conducted without suspicion of criminal activity, especially when targeted at unpopular political groups, or when intended to profile religious, ethnic or racial minorities, it violates the right to be free of unwarranted government intrusion and to exercise free speech, association, and practice one’s religion. The harm to those under surveillance without suspicion is made worse when the information collected about them and their activities is shared by local, state and federal law enforcement, military and security agencies and stored in multiple databases, just in case it might ever become useful. > In addition to chilling speech, surveillance without suspicion actually makes law enforcement less effective. When authorities are swamped with mountains of irrelevant and inaccurate information, their ability to properly analyze data is compromised. Ultimately, these practices make us less safe. https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/surveillance-without-suspicion https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/surveillance-without-suspicion Right now, your social media might be mined to classify you as an "anarchist", after which you may be pulled over and arrested when you are driving close to an anti-war protest. To me, that does not sound just at all.

closeparen 8y ago
Reading published content is not surveillance. Otherwise you’re surveilling me right now!
- princeofwands 8y ago
  It is digital surveillance. I could mine all your opinions from 7963 posts. Find those subjects that trigger a nervous or anxious psychological reaction or subjects that produce bad sentiment. Find out your sleep cycle. Find that one post from 2013 which you have now forgotten. Do the same for the account you most replied to. And then serve you catered (political) ads that are incredibly appealing to your deepest emotions (I was able to heuristically match your laptop with your smartphone, the only part that needed some luck). Or use that information when I am investigating you (with or without reasonable suspicion) or interrogating you (for a death penalty crime with an estimated 4.1 percent of wrongful convictions). But that would be digital surveillance and I have no reasonable suspicion to surveil you.
sdinsn 8y ago
> Right now, your social media might be mined to classify you as an "anarchist" If police want to classify you as that, that's fine. It's meaningless. > after which you may be pulled over and arrested when you are driving close to an anti-war protest Arrested for what? Police would only be able to arrest if they have a reason, and being an anarchist / going to a protest is not a reason (in the US, at least). Please don't spread fear and misinformation.
- princeofwands 8y ago
  Please don't accuse me of spreading misinformation. The case was linked on the page I cited. https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/chinn-v-blankenship-complaint https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/chinn-v-blankenship-complaint > If police want to classify you as that, that's fine. It's meaningless. No it is not meaningless. Police see anarchists and alt-right activists as "harboring ideas that are subversive to state control", meaning, you get on their shit list. > Arrested for what? The police stopped the car after it was identified as carrying 3 anarchists (stop & search under false pre-text) close to an anti-war protest. A police officer then arrested the driver for seemingly being under the influence of weed, without any evidence or probably cause, and had him locked up at the police station. So while you are correct that being an anarchist going to a protest is not a valid reason, if the police wants you off the streets (because they classified you as being shit), they will use another reason (such as: "He looked under the influence of weed" or another popular one: "contempt of cop", which rarely carry any penalties for the cops and kind of act like Joker cards so they can go with a gut feeling over solid proof or cause) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_cop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_cop

closeparen 8y ago

Reading published content is not surveillance. Otherwise you’re surveilling me right now!

princeofwands 8y ago
It is digital surveillance. I could mine all your opinions from 7963 posts. Find those subjects that trigger a nervous or anxious psychological reaction or subjects that produce bad sentiment. Find out your sleep cycle. Find that one post from 2013 which you have now forgotten. Do the same for the account you most replied to. And then serve you catered (political) ads that are incredibly appealing to your deepest emotions (I was able to heuristically match your laptop with your smartphone, the only part that needed some luck). Or use that information when I am investigating you (with or without reasonable suspicion) or interrogating you (for a death penalty crime with an estimated 4.1 percent of wrongful convictions). But that would be digital surveillance and I have no reasonable suspicion to surveil you.

sdinsn 8y ago

> Right now, your social media might be mined to classify you as an "anarchist" If police want to classify you as that, that's fine. It's meaningless. > after which you may be pulled over and arrested when you are driving close to an anti-war protest Arrested for what? Police would only be able to arrest if they have a reason, and being an anarchist / going to a protest is not a reason (in the US, at least). Please don't spread fear and misinformation.

princeofwands 8y ago
Please don't accuse me of spreading misinformation. The case was linked on the page I cited. https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/chinn-v-blankenship-complaint https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/chinn-v-blankenship-complaint > If police want to classify you as that, that's fine. It's meaningless. No it is not meaningless. Police see anarchists and alt-right activists as "harboring ideas that are subversive to state control", meaning, you get on their shit list. > Arrested for what? The police stopped the car after it was identified as carrying 3 anarchists (stop & search under false pre-text) close to an anti-war protest. A police officer then arrested the driver for seemingly being under the influence of weed, without any evidence or probably cause, and had him locked up at the police station. So while you are correct that being an anarchist going to a protest is not a valid reason, if the police wants you off the streets (because they classified you as being shit), they will use another reason (such as: "He looked under the influence of weed" or another popular one: "contempt of cop", which rarely carry any penalties for the cops and kind of act like Joker cards so they can go with a gut feeling over solid proof or cause) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_cop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_cop