4 ms·

I really don't like some of the philosophies expressed in this article. The whole "put family members in jail" bit feels like a worthless appeal to emotion. I

by RIMR 7y ago

I really don't like some of the philosophies expressed in this article. The whole "put family members in jail" bit feels like a worthless appeal to emotion. If your family member is a mass murderer, I really don't care if investigators use information related to you to catch them. Even if that data is your DNA, and it was shared contrary to your expectations. Nobody wants to see their loved ones go to prison, but the Golden State Killer was an absolute monster, and it's an demonstrably good thing he was caught and faced justice. I understand that people feel that using DNA information from genealogy services to investigate crimes might feel like a slippery slope towards egregious abuse (and maybe that's true), but the Golden State Killer is definitely not an example of such abuse.

mavelikara 7y ago
If a family member is charged for a crime, unless it is your spouse, isn't it true that the State can compel you to provide evidence that might incriminate the family member?
- Verdex 7y ago
  It's complicated: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2282 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2282
authoritarian 7y ago
I don't buy this justification. It's like the people talking about mass surveillance saying, "I understand that people feel like unchecked government mass surveillance might feel like a slipper slope towards egregious abuse, but it's worth it to catch all the evil terrorists and pedophiles" Sure the Golden State Killer was a terrible person, but I'm not willing to just blindly trust and accept that the government should be able to access and use whatever data they want to keep me "safe." Personally, I fall into the "Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither" camp
- zajd 7y ago
  > Personally, I fall into the "Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither" camp Man what a dumb quote. Trading liberty for security is the foundation of what a society/civilization is.
- lordCarbonFiber 7y ago
  An aside, but that sentiment "Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither" makes no sense. Every person in every civilization has made the trade off between liberty and security to some degree. All but the staunchest anarchists are for some laws. Discussion over where the grey areas end are valid; and I'd argue more useful then assuming what ever is currently acceptable to any given person must be the optimal tradeoff.
  - neetdeth 7y ago
    It doesn't make sense because it's so often butchered. Here's the real quote from Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." So, the liberty must be "essential" and the safety must be "temporary" - and the classification as such would be the essence of the argument. It's not so much a statement of principle as it is invective. And in context, it's actually about the liberties of a legislative assembly [1] rather than those of the individual, but that's a minor detail. 1. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said
  - Paul-ish 7y ago
    Exactly this. Police in most countries can search your home if they have proper legal justification. That is extremely invasive, but it is allowed by many societies because they recognize that invasive searches with proper oversight can bring around greater liberty, if such searches catch individuals who are harming others. As I see it, the issue is not that these websites are being used by law enforcement, but that there is not formalized rules for doing so, nor is there transparency in how they are used by law enforcement. An example of a formal rule would be a warrant requirement.
mieseratte 7y ago
> The whole "put family members in jail" bit feels like a worthless appeal to emotion. Using "but wouldn't you want to lock up those darn killers" is itself an emotional appeal.
mcnichol 7y ago
Agree with your point of view and I think the challenge is the latter half of your statement. It is akin to the darknet and illicit behavior. They can (and have) stopped bad people doing seriously bad things on the net so should we allow an authority to moderate that. At a point in time everything may work as intended but the track record is that the system will be abused.
justinclift 7y ago
> Nobody wants to see their loved ones go to prison, but the Golden State Killer was an absolute monster ... As was pointed out by another commenter, the (accused) Golden State Killer was a police officer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_State_Killer#Joseph_James_DeAngelo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_State_Killer#Joseph_Jam... So the people you're saying you'd want to trust with this info in order to do the right thing, are sometimes literally the "Bad Guys" you shouldn't. :(

by RIMR 7y ago

mavelikara 7y ago

If a family member is charged for a crime, unless it is your spouse, isn't it true that the State can compel you to provide evidence that might incriminate the family member?

Verdex 7y ago
It's complicated: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2282 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2282

authoritarian 7y ago

I don't buy this justification. It's like the people talking about mass surveillance saying, "I understand that people feel like unchecked government mass surveillance might feel like a slipper slope towards egregious abuse, but it's worth it to catch all the evil terrorists and pedophiles" Sure the Golden State Killer was a terrible person, but I'm not willing to just blindly trust and accept that the government should be able to access and use whatever data they want to keep me "safe." Personally, I fall into the "Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither" camp

zajd 7y ago
> Personally, I fall into the "Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither" camp Man what a dumb quote. Trading liberty for security is the foundation of what a society/civilization is.
lordCarbonFiber 7y ago
An aside, but that sentiment "Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither" makes no sense. Every person in every civilization has made the trade off between liberty and security to some degree. All but the staunchest anarchists are for some laws. Discussion over where the grey areas end are valid; and I'd argue more useful then assuming what ever is currently acceptable to any given person must be the optimal tradeoff.
- neetdeth 7y ago
  It doesn't make sense because it's so often butchered. Here's the real quote from Franklin: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." So, the liberty must be "essential" and the safety must be "temporary" - and the classification as such would be the essence of the argument. It's not so much a statement of principle as it is invective. And in context, it's actually about the liberties of a legislative assembly [1] rather than those of the individual, but that's a minor detail. 1. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said
- Paul-ish 7y ago
  Exactly this. Police in most countries can search your home if they have proper legal justification. That is extremely invasive, but it is allowed by many societies because they recognize that invasive searches with proper oversight can bring around greater liberty, if such searches catch individuals who are harming others. As I see it, the issue is not that these websites are being used by law enforcement, but that there is not formalized rules for doing so, nor is there transparency in how they are used by law enforcement. An example of a formal rule would be a warrant requirement.

mieseratte 7y ago

> The whole "put family members in jail" bit feels like a worthless appeal to emotion. Using "but wouldn't you want to lock up those darn killers" is itself an emotional appeal.

mcnichol 7y ago

Agree with your point of view and I think the challenge is the latter half of your statement. It is akin to the darknet and illicit behavior. They can (and have) stopped bad people doing seriously bad things on the net so should we allow an authority to moderate that. At a point in time everything may work as intended but the track record is that the system will be abused.

justinclift 7y ago

> Nobody wants to see their loved ones go to prison, but the Golden State Killer was an absolute monster ... As was pointed out by another commenter, the (accused) Golden State Killer was a police officer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_State_Killer#Joseph_James_DeAngelo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_State_Killer#Joseph_Jam... So the people you're saying you'd want to trust with this info in order to do the right thing, are sometimes literally the "Bad Guys" you shouldn't. :(