4 ms·

Are you seriously shocked that there are people out there that would be willing to assist law enforcement? It's not like they are advertising this service for a

Are you seriously shocked that there are people out there that would be willing to assist law enforcement? It's not like they are advertising this service for anyone to drop by with any arbitrary phone to unlock. They are no worse than locksmiths advertising the ability to crack safes.

speedplane 7y ago
> Are you seriously shocked that there are people out there that would be willing to assist law enforcement? ... They are no worse than locksmiths advertising the ability to crack safes. It's more like a locksmith advertising the ability to break anyone's safe that contains details on every place you've ever been, purchase you've ever made, and person you've ever communicated with. Phones are far more ubiquitous and contain far more information than any family safe. Not a fair comparison.
- thoughtfunction 7y ago
  Well for #1 & #2, they don't need your phone for that, just subpoenas to the relevant companies. And most people are not international globe trotters where the extra stuff outside of the country would be of much use. #3 is the real treasure trove.
- danarmak 7y ago
  Are you suggesting a locksmith should refuse to help the police open safes that contain too many valuables or PII inside?
  - Jonnax 7y ago
    At the end of the day you live in a global world. Is it acceptable for this company to sell it to Saudi Arabian police where it's a crime for a woman to run away from home? https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-imei-track-runaways-2019-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-imei-track-runa... Or how about Australia raiding journalists for whistleblowing on abuses conducted by their arm forces in war: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48522729 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48522729 Perhaps you agree or perhaps you don't. But the issue is more complex than saying that "everyone should help the police"
    - danarmak 7y ago
      I'm not saying "everyone" should help the police. I do think it's alright that a few companies, in specialized professions, exist to help the police (and other governmental organizations). Yes, a lot of the effect is harmful, including in helping police do harm. But an argument that no-one should help the police is basically an argument the police shouldn't exist.
      - kerkeslager 7y ago
        No it's not. I'd argue that nobody should help the police as they exist in many modern implementations, because the police as they exist now are often bad actors. But it's not hard to imagine a police force that's held to a higher standard such that they actually are trustworthy. The argument doesn't have to be "police shouldn't exist"--it could be "police should be better".
        danarmak 7y ago
        But since we lack an individually actionable way of making the police better, doesn't the argument reduce to "we should not help the police as they are now"?
        kerkeslager 7y ago
        Yes, tautologically, "no-one should help the police" means "we should not help the police as they are now", but given that's obvious, I suspect that's not what you intend to say. My previous post was responding to your claim "But an argument that no-one should help the police is basically an argument the police shouldn't exist", which is incorrect. The two are very different arguments.
        danarmak 7y ago
        The police could not exist if most people refused to help them. Arguing for people not to help the police is therefore arguing for the police to stop existing or to become less powerful or less effective. I take "not helping" to mean not just not developing specialized products that only police can legally use, but also not calling the police in case of crime, not helping them with investigations as witnesses. Where the law permits, not selling them generic products and services (eg food). And where personal circumstances permit, not working for a company that does business with them, deplatforming them, etc.
jMyles 7y ago
> Are you seriously shocked that there are people out there that would be willing to assist law enforcement? No, as I said, it's the flaunting it that surprises me.

speedplane 7y ago

> Are you seriously shocked that there are people out there that would be willing to assist law enforcement? ... They are no worse than locksmiths advertising the ability to crack safes. It's more like a locksmith advertising the ability to break anyone's safe that contains details on every place you've ever been, purchase you've ever made, and person you've ever communicated with. Phones are far more ubiquitous and contain far more information than any family safe. Not a fair comparison.

thoughtfunction 7y ago
Well for #1 & #2, they don't need your phone for that, just subpoenas to the relevant companies. And most people are not international globe trotters where the extra stuff outside of the country would be of much use. #3 is the real treasure trove.
danarmak 7y ago
Are you suggesting a locksmith should refuse to help the police open safes that contain too many valuables or PII inside?
- Jonnax 7y ago
  At the end of the day you live in a global world. Is it acceptable for this company to sell it to Saudi Arabian police where it's a crime for a woman to run away from home? https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-imei-track-runaways-2019-5?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabia-imei-track-runa... Or how about Australia raiding journalists for whistleblowing on abuses conducted by their arm forces in war: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48522729 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48522729 Perhaps you agree or perhaps you don't. But the issue is more complex than saying that "everyone should help the police"
  - danarmak 7y ago
    I'm not saying "everyone" should help the police. I do think it's alright that a few companies, in specialized professions, exist to help the police (and other governmental organizations). Yes, a lot of the effect is harmful, including in helping police do harm. But an argument that no-one should help the police is basically an argument the police shouldn't exist.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      No it's not. I'd argue that nobody should help the police as they exist in many modern implementations, because the police as they exist now are often bad actors. But it's not hard to imagine a police force that's held to a higher standard such that they actually are trustworthy. The argument doesn't have to be "police shouldn't exist"--it could be "police should be better".
      - danarmak 7y ago
        But since we lack an individually actionable way of making the police better, doesn't the argument reduce to "we should not help the police as they are now"?
        kerkeslager 7y ago
        Yes, tautologically, "no-one should help the police" means "we should not help the police as they are now", but given that's obvious, I suspect that's not what you intend to say. My previous post was responding to your claim "But an argument that no-one should help the police is basically an argument the police shouldn't exist", which is incorrect. The two are very different arguments.
        danarmak 7y ago
        The police could not exist if most people refused to help them. Arguing for people not to help the police is therefore arguing for the police to stop existing or to become less powerful or less effective. I take "not helping" to mean not just not developing specialized products that only police can legally use, but also not calling the police in case of crime, not helping them with investigations as witnesses. Where the law permits, not selling them generic products and services (eg food). And where personal circumstances permit, not working for a company that does business with them, deplatforming them, etc.

jMyles 7y ago

> Are you seriously shocked that there are people out there that would be willing to assist law enforcement? No, as I said, it's the flaunting it that surprises me.