4 ms·

I'm not a fan. These are guns we are talking about, not paperwork. Paperwork is the shit that's real, guns are just there to make you feel helpless. And also to

by sesqu 16y ago

I'm not a fan. These are guns we are talking about, not paperwork. Paperwork is the shit that's real, guns are just there to make you feel helpless. And also to kill you.

sliverstorm 16y ago
Oh, I'm not sure I think it was the best plan. I merely enjoy mirth at the expense of Anonymous.
sukuriant 16y ago
But the kids would have laughed at paperwork until it was all over, and then possibly still laugh at it. With the guns, they just experienced the severity of their action that a whole armed FBI-team had to come in to deal with the situation.
- sesqu 16y ago
  Yeah, I don't agree with that. If it's a paper in the mail that says "we know it's you", I'd be pretty scared. If it's a policeman at the door saying "come in for questioning", I'd be shitting my pants. If it's three policemen saying "we've come to take all your PCs", I'd be confused and seriously contemplating future involvement with the group. If it's a bunch of thugs breaking the door, grabbing my pcs, iphone, xboxes, lady gaga cd's and threatening to kill me if I object, I'd start looking into getting more involved with political activism. At least, that's how I think I would react, before dealing with the paperwork.
  - roel_v 16y ago
    Entering with an armed team is SOP, mostly to protect policemen. These are just guys doing a job, in the vast majority of cases a good and just job, who want to go home to their wives and children in the evening. Some (most) raids could theoretically be done by just knocking on the door; but sometimes some crazy man will start shooting back, or running away, or try to destroy evidence. Rush-entry raids with flashbangs etc. are designed to cause maximum confusion so that the people in the house are disoriented for a short time, hopefully long enough to be cuffed. Anyway like I said sometimes these could be done by one guy with a briefcase, but how are you going to decide when to raid and when to knock on the door? And who is going to decide? When somebody makes a wrong call and a policeman gets killed, there's going to be a ruckus (police union, other policemen feeling unsafe causing worse performance, etc.) So the safe thing to do is to err on the side of caution. Sucks for those being raided when it wasn't really necessary, and even worse for those being raided in error, but as always it's a trade off. That's how it came to be. IMO perfectly reasonable. One can disagree with specific cases, I do too; but try to put yourself in the shoes of someone designing or managing a law enforcement organization or system. If you have a solution that mitigates the problems yet addresses all the points and many more I brought up above, many many people would love to hear about it.
    - sesqu 16y ago
      Well, around here the cops know who has guns, as well as whether they're known to be a bit crazy. The police are also usually not treated like an invading army, so it's apples for oranges. I'd at least suggest holstering the weapons until they're needed and weighing the probability of encryption against the probability of forceful self-defense, case by case. If for some reason there's reason to believe that the person is working next to both a loaded gun and an encrypted disk, sure, treat it as a hostage situation and call swat or the wiretappers in. I don't think that's the norm, though.
      - roel_v 16y ago
        "The police are also usually not treated like an invading army" (emphasis mine) This shows you don't understand the point (I'm not so much talking about this specific case or even raids on computer criminals anymore, rather in general). The exact point is that sometimes it does happen, but you don't know why. That's why you need to treat every opportunity, no matter how minute, as more dangerous than it actually is, or than you actually think it will be, because the consequences are so out of balance. Let me put it this way: do you feel that 500 unnecessarily forceful raids, each destroying a door and 2 pieces of furniture, and taking a night of sleep away from 500 individuals, are better or worse than 1 policy officer shot in the leg (not even deadly)? I think the shot wound is worse, and therefore wouldn't mind authorizing a raid even when I'm not 100% sure there is acute danger. Actually I'd authorize when there's even just a 1% chance of forceful resistance with a knife. (the trade off may get different when suspects are harmed in the raid, I'm assuming sufficiently trained police people) "and weighing the probability of encryption against the probability of forceful self-defense," This I don't understand. I'm quite sure no suspect will try to fire at policeman with their Truecrypt USB drive. "If for some reason there's reason to believe that the person is working next to both a loaded gun and an encrypted disk" The 'and' between 'loaded gun' and 'an encrypted disk' should be an 'or'. Just one of the two is enough to warrant force. Assuming that, well that's already the trade off being made. I just think you underestimate the amount of criminals using encryption. Even if only 5% of them do use it, that already makes it likely enough that any random one (because remember, before you enter you don't know what you will find) will use it to warrant force. QED.

by sesqu 16y ago

I'm not a fan. These are guns we are talking about, not paperwork. Paperwork is the shit that's real, guns are just there to make you feel helpless. And also to kill you.

sliverstorm 16y ago

Oh, I'm not sure I think it was the best plan. I merely enjoy mirth at the expense of Anonymous.

sukuriant 16y ago

But the kids would have laughed at paperwork until it was all over, and then possibly still laugh at it. With the guns, they just experienced the severity of their action that a whole armed FBI-team had to come in to deal with the situation.

sesqu 16y ago
Yeah, I don't agree with that. If it's a paper in the mail that says "we know it's you", I'd be pretty scared. If it's a policeman at the door saying "come in for questioning", I'd be shitting my pants. If it's three policemen saying "we've come to take all your PCs", I'd be confused and seriously contemplating future involvement with the group. If it's a bunch of thugs breaking the door, grabbing my pcs, iphone, xboxes, lady gaga cd's and threatening to kill me if I object, I'd start looking into getting more involved with political activism. At least, that's how I think I would react, before dealing with the paperwork.
- roel_v 16y ago
  Entering with an armed team is SOP, mostly to protect policemen. These are just guys doing a job, in the vast majority of cases a good and just job, who want to go home to their wives and children in the evening. Some (most) raids could theoretically be done by just knocking on the door; but sometimes some crazy man will start shooting back, or running away, or try to destroy evidence. Rush-entry raids with flashbangs etc. are designed to cause maximum confusion so that the people in the house are disoriented for a short time, hopefully long enough to be cuffed. Anyway like I said sometimes these could be done by one guy with a briefcase, but how are you going to decide when to raid and when to knock on the door? And who is going to decide? When somebody makes a wrong call and a policeman gets killed, there's going to be a ruckus (police union, other policemen feeling unsafe causing worse performance, etc.) So the safe thing to do is to err on the side of caution. Sucks for those being raided when it wasn't really necessary, and even worse for those being raided in error, but as always it's a trade off. That's how it came to be. IMO perfectly reasonable. One can disagree with specific cases, I do too; but try to put yourself in the shoes of someone designing or managing a law enforcement organization or system. If you have a solution that mitigates the problems yet addresses all the points and many more I brought up above, many many people would love to hear about it.
  - sesqu 16y ago
    Well, around here the cops know who has guns, as well as whether they're known to be a bit crazy. The police are also usually not treated like an invading army, so it's apples for oranges. I'd at least suggest holstering the weapons until they're needed and weighing the probability of encryption against the probability of forceful self-defense, case by case. If for some reason there's reason to believe that the person is working next to both a loaded gun and an encrypted disk, sure, treat it as a hostage situation and call swat or the wiretappers in. I don't think that's the norm, though.
    - roel_v 16y ago
      "The police are also usually not treated like an invading army" (emphasis mine) This shows you don't understand the point (I'm not so much talking about this specific case or even raids on computer criminals anymore, rather in general). The exact point is that sometimes it does happen, but you don't know why. That's why you need to treat every opportunity, no matter how minute, as more dangerous than it actually is, or than you actually think it will be, because the consequences are so out of balance. Let me put it this way: do you feel that 500 unnecessarily forceful raids, each destroying a door and 2 pieces of furniture, and taking a night of sleep away from 500 individuals, are better or worse than 1 policy officer shot in the leg (not even deadly)? I think the shot wound is worse, and therefore wouldn't mind authorizing a raid even when I'm not 100% sure there is acute danger. Actually I'd authorize when there's even just a 1% chance of forceful resistance with a knife. (the trade off may get different when suspects are harmed in the raid, I'm assuming sufficiently trained police people) "and weighing the probability of encryption against the probability of forceful self-defense," This I don't understand. I'm quite sure no suspect will try to fire at policeman with their Truecrypt USB drive. "If for some reason there's reason to believe that the person is working next to both a loaded gun and an encrypted disk" The 'and' between 'loaded gun' and 'an encrypted disk' should be an 'or'. Just one of the two is enough to warrant force. Assuming that, well that's already the trade off being made. I just think you underestimate the amount of criminals using encryption. Even if only 5% of them do use it, that already makes it likely enough that any random one (because remember, before you enter you don't know what you will find) will use it to warrant force. QED.