4 ms·

So in the same time they should condemn democracy and freedom, as they're having exactly the same effect. It is much easier for police in authoritarian countrie

by neiman 7y ago

So in the same time they should condemn democracy and freedom, as they're having exactly the same effect. It is much easier for police in authoritarian countries to prevent crimes and find perpetrators. But if they don't condemn democracy and freedom, they should also not condemn encryption. The ability to communicate privately, or saying things outside the consensus anonymously, is an important tool for citizens to protect democracy. The Interpol job is to protect the law under the settings of democracy and freedom, not to try to change those settings in order to make their job easier.

glangdale 7y ago
"It is much easier for police in authoritarian countries to prevent crimes and find perpetrators." Is this actually true? This sounds like one of those bits of received wisdom (like the trains supposedly running on time under Mussolini) that turns out to be bogus. I'm not sure that the expansion of police powers under authoritarian regimes has anything to do with making them more efficient at preventing or solving crimes that are crimes in all regimes (e.g. murder, rape, etc). I would at least need to see some evidence that clearance rates are better in authoritarian countries.
- danielrpa 7y ago
  Authoritarian states tend to be not as advanced technologically (one consequence of authoritarianism!), thus their police forces should be less efficient in general despite the increased powers. But controlling for other factors, why wouldn't enhanced surveillance help catch criminals? It's a pretty logical claim. Perhaps you should look for the evidence and bring back to us. For now, it is reasonable to accept the common sense statement.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    Given the needle in a haystack effect? Common sense has proven itself wrong repeatedly It was "common sense" that merchants had to be frauds because the value of goods was universal and they had transport labor. Besides just because they can doesn't mean they will. Authoritarians are also infamous for both corruption and finding rooting out dissidents a higher priority than what most would call actual crime. All other things /aren't/ equal.
    - danielrpa 7y ago
      Common sense is an useful tool. It helps us estimate outcomes when data is absent or scarce, even if it's frequently unreliable. When I leave my desk to go to the bathroom yet again, I expect it to be there. Can't prove it, but it's a reasonable assumption. Without it, every human action would require scientific studies and high quality measurements. The way to contest common sense isn't to point out that common sense is often wrong; instead, it's to provide data. My assertion is that when going against a statement strongly rooted in common sense and, YOU are the one who has the burden of proof. Yes, perhaps authoritarians would do a worse job at catching criminals if they were omniscient? I'm not saying that you ARE wrong, just that you are LIKELY wrong and thus you should provide data to support your claims.
    - glangdale 7y ago
      You're correct. Authoritarians are also infamous for idleness and piss-poor execution of their duties (as well as corruption), as their are accountable to the power hierarchy above them but not necessarily the citizens. Thus, the motivation to protect citizens from crime becomes a second-order task - the real task is to stay in good with the authoritarian state.
  - glangdale 7y ago
    The argument is not about 'enhanced surveillance' in a vacuum; it was about authoritarianism. The idea that police are more effective given more power IMO requires proof; it seems just as plausible that the absence of checks and balances on their behavior makes them more prone towards arresting and successfully prosecuting innocent suspects or failing to prosecute crimes that aren't advantageous to them to investigate. The idea that police in an authoritarian state are just like police in a democracy only with more powers seems hopelessly naive. Everything about their structure and accountability is different, and it doesn't seem to follow from some "common sense argument" that you can just assume they are more efficient controlling for technology.
NohatCoder 7y ago
Most so-called democratic governments are running the same game. They support the word democracy, but when it comes to all the parts that actually make democracy work they often take the authoritarian stance.

by neiman 7y ago

glangdale 7y ago

"It is much easier for police in authoritarian countries to prevent crimes and find perpetrators." Is this actually true? This sounds like one of those bits of received wisdom (like the trains supposedly running on time under Mussolini) that turns out to be bogus. I'm not sure that the expansion of police powers under authoritarian regimes has anything to do with making them more efficient at preventing or solving crimes that are crimes in all regimes (e.g. murder, rape, etc). I would at least need to see some evidence that clearance rates are better in authoritarian countries.

danielrpa 7y ago
Authoritarian states tend to be not as advanced technologically (one consequence of authoritarianism!), thus their police forces should be less efficient in general despite the increased powers. But controlling for other factors, why wouldn't enhanced surveillance help catch criminals? It's a pretty logical claim. Perhaps you should look for the evidence and bring back to us. For now, it is reasonable to accept the common sense statement.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Given the needle in a haystack effect? Common sense has proven itself wrong repeatedly It was "common sense" that merchants had to be frauds because the value of goods was universal and they had transport labor. Besides just because they can doesn't mean they will. Authoritarians are also infamous for both corruption and finding rooting out dissidents a higher priority than what most would call actual crime. All other things /aren't/ equal.
  - danielrpa 7y ago
    Common sense is an useful tool. It helps us estimate outcomes when data is absent or scarce, even if it's frequently unreliable. When I leave my desk to go to the bathroom yet again, I expect it to be there. Can't prove it, but it's a reasonable assumption. Without it, every human action would require scientific studies and high quality measurements. The way to contest common sense isn't to point out that common sense is often wrong; instead, it's to provide data. My assertion is that when going against a statement strongly rooted in common sense and, YOU are the one who has the burden of proof. Yes, perhaps authoritarians would do a worse job at catching criminals if they were omniscient? I'm not saying that you ARE wrong, just that you are LIKELY wrong and thus you should provide data to support your claims.
  - glangdale 7y ago
    You're correct. Authoritarians are also infamous for idleness and piss-poor execution of their duties (as well as corruption), as their are accountable to the power hierarchy above them but not necessarily the citizens. Thus, the motivation to protect citizens from crime becomes a second-order task - the real task is to stay in good with the authoritarian state.
- glangdale 7y ago
  The argument is not about 'enhanced surveillance' in a vacuum; it was about authoritarianism. The idea that police are more effective given more power IMO requires proof; it seems just as plausible that the absence of checks and balances on their behavior makes them more prone towards arresting and successfully prosecuting innocent suspects or failing to prosecute crimes that aren't advantageous to them to investigate. The idea that police in an authoritarian state are just like police in a democracy only with more powers seems hopelessly naive. Everything about their structure and accountability is different, and it doesn't seem to follow from some "common sense argument" that you can just assume they are more efficient controlling for technology.

NohatCoder 7y ago

Most so-called democratic governments are running the same game. They support the word democracy, but when it comes to all the parts that actually make democracy work they often take the authoritarian stance.