4 ms·

The flip sides are not equal. The government has far more capacity for harm than criminals do, and there are other levers for reducing crime than destroying civ

The flip sides are not equal. The government has far more capacity for harm than criminals do, and there are other levers for reducing crime than destroying civil liberties anyway.

Zenst 7y ago
Imagine having hard evidence against a criminal and that evidence can not be used as it would violate the criminals civil liberties and that same criminal has used this approach to destroy an entire neighborhood, and destroyed peoples livelihoods, well-being.... Maybe it's just a minority edge-case, and I'm just looking at it from personal experience edge-case - the flip-side. Sorry, I just wished I could elaborate, but I may end-up violating a heroin/crack dealers civil rights :cry:.
- NCWV 7y ago
  People chose to buy drugs from the man you're referencing. He isn't out making sales calls. Dealers are people too and they're mostly just trying to survive.
- ch4s3 7y ago
  This is straight up FUD. Any case where someone is a menace to a whole neighborhood over a period of time could clearly be solved within the bounds of constitutional law with conventional policing. Commercial DNA databanks are a problem for a lot of reason. You shed small amounts of DNA absolutely everywhere, and it can absolutely be transported on shoes, coats, and the like. Modern testing can pick up these trace amounts in place where you haven't been. The Innocence Project has already overturned a few convictions based on tiny DNA traces of this variety. The commercial databases just give cops the opportunity to perform dragnet searches for any and everyone whose DNA shows up in an area of interest, it's scary and sloppy. I'll also point out that at least i the US, the constitution is the backstop for EVERYONE's civil rights. If cops are allowed to trample on the rights of the accused in the name of "safety" then there will be no protection for anyone.
  - Zenst 7y ago
    It's not FUD when you have experienced it, things like anybody trying to stop them or getting in their way, they use the police to harass the people with false reports, many other forms of abuse and excel at playing the victim card. Example, dealer attacks person and then reports that the person attacked them and evidence that proves otherwise is dismissed as it violated their rights. But shall leave it at that. Just please don't blindly dismiss a person's experience as FUD.
    - ch4s3 7y ago
      How would the ability to go fishing in a commercial DNA database do anything to fix that situation? I can't imagine any situation in which the ability for police to rummage around in the trash and test spit on coffee cups against 23andME would stop your problem. You're just scaremongering. You have a policing problem for sure, but simple video or eyewitness reports would solve your problem. There's no additional need for the power to perform dragnet searches that can and do drag innocent people into the justice system. Authoritarianism isn't the answer to petty crime.
      - Zenst 7y ago
        >You have a policing problem for sure Oh yes, more so when 37% of the police in my area haven't been veteted and leak information to criminals more than we have rain. But this is London. Sorry, i'm running on a tangent and slightly off-topic and respect and acknowledge what your saying. I'm just more aware of the aspect that those 10 people that get away with crime can impact more than one innocent found guilty. What with all the privacy and civil protection laws, criminals do know how to game and play the system better than those who control and run the systems. As for DNA - it should be default no, but equally allow those who want to opt-in and allow their DNA to be used to help maybe identify some genetic relative of a crime. But like most things - no clear cut solution and when it swings so far one direction, you end up with a powerless system that struggles to fulfill it's remit due to being buried in red-tape.
        7y ago
- homonculus1 7y ago
  The very same civil liberties that protect that heroin dealer from prosecution also protect innocent people from prosecution (maybe even you). Individual rights and strong limitations on government are a Chesterton's fence to many people, it is easy to see the immediate utility of doing away with them in edge cases where they present an obstacle but it is harder to see the systematic protections they afford and the culture of freedom they support. And again, rampant heroin isn't an inevitable consequence of freedom. We don't have to destroy civil rights to get rid of heroin, it's just that the actual root cause social solutions are a lot more nuanced than sending men with guns to use force. But more force is an easy story to sell to the public, and it happens to be convenient to the people at the top.
  - Zenst 7y ago
    Oh agree, about the demonising aspect - but if you've ever lived above a crackhouse, you would appreciate the finer aspects of how it has an impact. Let alone the ways addicts procure money and drugs. Then apathetic support for addicts, many avenues of guilt. But then all addicts are victims is a mentality that plays out, one in which I've seen abused by some addicts. But then, generalisation of a whole group has never really pans well in society. But the real issue as you touch upon is the underlying issues, the drivers for going into addiction and such drugs, that's where support is needed and more so, cheaper for prevention than support later on. Yet both area's are seriously lacking and the whole mentality of fighting the fires instead of fighting the sources keeps playout out.

The flip sides are not equal. The government has far more capacity for harm than criminals do, and there are other levers for reducing crime than destroying civil liberties anyway.

Zenst 7y ago

Imagine having hard evidence against a criminal and that evidence can not be used as it would violate the criminals civil liberties and that same criminal has used this approach to destroy an entire neighborhood, and destroyed peoples livelihoods, well-being.... Maybe it's just a minority edge-case, and I'm just looking at it from personal experience edge-case - the flip-side. Sorry, I just wished I could elaborate, but I may end-up violating a heroin/crack dealers civil rights :cry:.

NCWV 7y ago
People chose to buy drugs from the man you're referencing. He isn't out making sales calls. Dealers are people too and they're mostly just trying to survive.
ch4s3 7y ago
This is straight up FUD. Any case where someone is a menace to a whole neighborhood over a period of time could clearly be solved within the bounds of constitutional law with conventional policing. Commercial DNA databanks are a problem for a lot of reason. You shed small amounts of DNA absolutely everywhere, and it can absolutely be transported on shoes, coats, and the like. Modern testing can pick up these trace amounts in place where you haven't been. The Innocence Project has already overturned a few convictions based on tiny DNA traces of this variety. The commercial databases just give cops the opportunity to perform dragnet searches for any and everyone whose DNA shows up in an area of interest, it's scary and sloppy. I'll also point out that at least i the US, the constitution is the backstop for EVERYONE's civil rights. If cops are allowed to trample on the rights of the accused in the name of "safety" then there will be no protection for anyone.
- Zenst 7y ago
  It's not FUD when you have experienced it, things like anybody trying to stop them or getting in their way, they use the police to harass the people with false reports, many other forms of abuse and excel at playing the victim card. Example, dealer attacks person and then reports that the person attacked them and evidence that proves otherwise is dismissed as it violated their rights. But shall leave it at that. Just please don't blindly dismiss a person's experience as FUD.
  - ch4s3 7y ago
    How would the ability to go fishing in a commercial DNA database do anything to fix that situation? I can't imagine any situation in which the ability for police to rummage around in the trash and test spit on coffee cups against 23andME would stop your problem. You're just scaremongering. You have a policing problem for sure, but simple video or eyewitness reports would solve your problem. There's no additional need for the power to perform dragnet searches that can and do drag innocent people into the justice system. Authoritarianism isn't the answer to petty crime.
    - Zenst 7y ago
      >You have a policing problem for sure Oh yes, more so when 37% of the police in my area haven't been veteted and leak information to criminals more than we have rain. But this is London. Sorry, i'm running on a tangent and slightly off-topic and respect and acknowledge what your saying. I'm just more aware of the aspect that those 10 people that get away with crime can impact more than one innocent found guilty. What with all the privacy and civil protection laws, criminals do know how to game and play the system better than those who control and run the systems. As for DNA - it should be default no, but equally allow those who want to opt-in and allow their DNA to be used to help maybe identify some genetic relative of a crime. But like most things - no clear cut solution and when it swings so far one direction, you end up with a powerless system that struggles to fulfill it's remit due to being buried in red-tape.
      - 7y ago
homonculus1 7y ago
The very same civil liberties that protect that heroin dealer from prosecution also protect innocent people from prosecution (maybe even you). Individual rights and strong limitations on government are a Chesterton's fence to many people, it is easy to see the immediate utility of doing away with them in edge cases where they present an obstacle but it is harder to see the systematic protections they afford and the culture of freedom they support. And again, rampant heroin isn't an inevitable consequence of freedom. We don't have to destroy civil rights to get rid of heroin, it's just that the actual root cause social solutions are a lot more nuanced than sending men with guns to use force. But more force is an easy story to sell to the public, and it happens to be convenient to the people at the top.
- Zenst 7y ago
  Oh agree, about the demonising aspect - but if you've ever lived above a crackhouse, you would appreciate the finer aspects of how it has an impact. Let alone the ways addicts procure money and drugs. Then apathetic support for addicts, many avenues of guilt. But then all addicts are victims is a mentality that plays out, one in which I've seen abused by some addicts. But then, generalisation of a whole group has never really pans well in society. But the real issue as you touch upon is the underlying issues, the drivers for going into addiction and such drugs, that's where support is needed and more so, cheaper for prevention than support later on. Yet both area's are seriously lacking and the whole mentality of fighting the fires instead of fighting the sources keeps playout out.