3 ms·

Missing the point. No matter what the crime being committed, he trusted the authorities without reciprocation. Huge liability for him and Atari. Consider: 1) W

by jksmith 18y ago

Missing the point. No matter what the crime being committed, he trusted the authorities without reciprocation. Huge liability for him and Atari. Consider: 1) Would you help a stranger recover a stolen item from the perpetrator? 2) If you were in Mexico, and Mexican authorities asked you help them catch someone they labelled a criminal, would you do it? Read about the experiences of Steven Hatfill and Rick Convertino as a reminder of why trust relationships are easily abused by governmental power.

allenbrunson 18y ago
That's an interesting idea. Do you see any evidence in the original article that this is the issue with which the author was having moral problems? I don't see anything like that.
- jksmith 18y ago
  The moral issue can be separated out. The issue for me is just the liability. He notes that he did not seek legal advice.
mattmaroon 18y ago
Your first example is nothing at all like the article. I would do some consulting for a law enforcement agency that had a court issued warrant for that purpose, no doubt. I would not, say, break into one neighbor's house to steal back a blender he took from another neighbor. And in the second, if I were running a Mexican business, and a Mexican law enforcement agency had a valid warrant, again I would consult. It's a simple case of the system working as planned to protect innocent victims. I'd be glad to help. Those people you cited have no parallels to what happened in this specific instance.
- jksmith 18y ago
  The examples show circumstances separated by a matter of degrees regarding application of trust. >It's a simple case of the system working as planned to protect innocent victims. I'm not going to be a yahoo about this, but that's just plain naive. I'm not getting the point across, which is that when a government asks you to act as an agent for their benefit, that government appeals to your assumption of trust without providing any evidence for that trust. A warrant may be enough insurance in return for consulting, but would I go on a raid? Absolutely not. What if your consulting involved providing private information on citizens just because someone in the government assured you that what you were doing was legal. Would you still do it? If you would only with a warrant, then what if they told you that this was some kind of FISA thing that didn't require a warrant? I cited Hatfill and Convertino because they're examples of one-sided trust relationships with the government that went terribly wrong.

by jksmith 18y ago

allenbrunson 18y ago

That's an interesting idea. Do you see any evidence in the original article that this is the issue with which the author was having moral problems? I don't see anything like that.

jksmith 18y ago
The moral issue can be separated out. The issue for me is just the liability. He notes that he did not seek legal advice.

mattmaroon 18y ago

Your first example is nothing at all like the article. I would do some consulting for a law enforcement agency that had a court issued warrant for that purpose, no doubt. I would not, say, break into one neighbor's house to steal back a blender he took from another neighbor. And in the second, if I were running a Mexican business, and a Mexican law enforcement agency had a valid warrant, again I would consult. It's a simple case of the system working as planned to protect innocent victims. I'd be glad to help. Those people you cited have no parallels to what happened in this specific instance.

jksmith 18y ago
The examples show circumstances separated by a matter of degrees regarding application of trust. >It's a simple case of the system working as planned to protect innocent victims. I'm not going to be a yahoo about this, but that's just plain naive. I'm not getting the point across, which is that when a government asks you to act as an agent for their benefit, that government appeals to your assumption of trust without providing any evidence for that trust. A warrant may be enough insurance in return for consulting, but would I go on a raid? Absolutely not. What if your consulting involved providing private information on citizens just because someone in the government assured you that what you were doing was legal. Would you still do it? If you would only with a warrant, then what if they told you that this was some kind of FISA thing that didn't require a warrant? I cited Hatfill and Convertino because they're examples of one-sided trust relationships with the government that went terribly wrong.