4 ms·

> The premise is somebody might be so dangerous they can't be allowed to fly, but simultaneously so innocent there is nothing the government could arrest and co

by Swizec 6y ago

> The premise is somebody might be so dangerous they can't be allowed to fly, but simultaneously so innocent there is nothing the government could arrest and convict them for. What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up? What if they’re not ready to arrest because they think you might lead them to people higher up in your organization? Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting. You want the boss. Or to use a more scifi spin: Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane. But you have done nothing illegal yet. Now what? edit: for the record I don’t think any of this is a good idea, I’m exploring what the reasoning might be

liability 6y ago
> sci-fi spin So basically you watched Minority Report and thought it was a great idea? I think you missed the point. > Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting If there is evidence somebody might blow up or hijack a plane and they must therefore be kept off that plane, then that person should be arrested. Do you think forbidding them from boarding the plane but letting them walk free without being arrested won't tip off the rest of their organization? Give me a break.
- Swizec 6y ago
  I didn’t say I agree with any of this. I explained what the reasoning might be. Also I’m pretty sure you can’t arrest people for something you have evidence they might do if they haven’t done it yet.
  - liability 6y ago
    Conspiracy to commit terrorism is a crime somebody could lawfully and constitutionally be arrested for if there were actual evidence.
  - bdowling 6y ago
    > can’t arrest people for something you have evidence they might do if they haven’t done it yet. If “might do” means actually planning to commit a crime and then taking some material action to further that plan, then they can be charged with attempt.
MereInterest 6y ago
> What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up? Then that is a civil rights violation right there. Police shouldn't have illegally gathered evidence. Police should not be making decisions based on illegally gathered evidence. Police should not be making an endrun around the courts to apply punishments (such as forbidding travel) based on illegally gathered evidence.
vharuck 6y ago
>What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up? I think the point of disallowing evidence found those ways is to discourage investigators from using those ways. If they can use it, they will seek it. >Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane. But you have done nothing illegal yet. Now what? Totally off topic, but my proposal: a social worker should reach out to you and help with whatever problems you have. Very few people harm others just for the thrill of harming others. There's usually some other cause (revenge, poverty, desire to be heard).
pluto9 6y ago
> Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting. You want the boss. I can't imagine a scenario where blowing up an airplane full of civilians would fall into the category of "not worth arresting". > Or to use a more scifi spin: Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane. That's fiction for a reason--there's no possible way to know that from "data science". In the real world, you can know that from things like direct evidence that this person is involved in a plot to blow up an airplane, which is something they can be arrested for.
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  > I can't imagine a scenario where blowing up an airplane full of civilians would fall into the category of "not worth arresting". If you are confident in your ability to stop them at the checkpoint if they actually try to board a plane, why arrest immediately when you can try to obtain more leads?
mattnewton 6y ago
If you don't have enough to charge them or ask for a warrant, you don't have enough to restrict their civil liberties. That process exists for a reason.
growse 6y ago
> Or to use a more scifi spin: Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane. But you have done nothing illegal yet. Now what? People don't blow up planes by accident. You're either planning to blow up a plane, in which case you have already done a number of illegal things, or you're not, in which case you're 0% likely to blow up a plane.
- Swizec 6y ago
  > you have already done a number of illegal things Fun thing I learned recently in a Netflix documentary: It used to be legal to be a mafia boss because you weren’t the one doing illegal things. Someone had to fight real hard in the 70’s to create a new law that made it illegal to tell others to commit crimes. It was legal to own C4 that doesn’t smell until 1996. A new law after a series of bombings made it illegal. https://www.atf.gov/explosives/plastic-explosives-reminder https://www.atf.gov/explosives/plastic-explosives-reminder I wonder what’s legal now that will be obviously illegal in 20 years because it leads to future crimes?
  - teddyh 6y ago
    Non-locked-down hardware. https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  Sure, but are those illegal things provable? Maybe someone is flagged based on suspicious searches about explosives and planes. That’s clearly not enough to arrest someone, however might be enough of a concern to stop them for a deeper search when boarding a plane. The theater of everything right now is absurd, but there are reasons for using identity to narrow more narrowly search people who may have some probable cause. My concern with the TSA is that we search everyone, regardless of probable cause.
nybble41 6y ago
> What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up? Then they shouldn't have resorted to illegal means to gain that evidence. Using it to prevent someone from flying or to subject them to "advanced screening" is no more justifiable than using it in court. > What if they’re not ready to arrest because they think you might lead them to people higher up in your organization? They would share responsibility for whatever additional crimes you end up committing in the meantime because they failed to act on the evidence which they had. Until they actually bring the matter up in court, however, you remain a free citizen and ought not be subjected to special restrictions or mistreatment without a trial on the basis of secret evidence.
IncRnd 6y ago
> Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting. You want the boss. It's interesting that you bring up mafia in a conversation about the federal government. The federal government collaborated with the mafia dueing WWII and afterwards. So, no, that is not the government that should have power to manufacture evidence and pretend it was legally obtained.

by Swizec 6y ago

liability 6y ago

> sci-fi spin So basically you watched Minority Report and thought it was a great idea? I think you missed the point. > Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting If there is evidence somebody might blow up or hijack a plane and they must therefore be kept off that plane, then that person should be arrested. Do you think forbidding them from boarding the plane but letting them walk free without being arrested won't tip off the rest of their organization? Give me a break.

Swizec 6y ago
I didn’t say I agree with any of this. I explained what the reasoning might be. Also I’m pretty sure you can’t arrest people for something you have evidence they might do if they haven’t done it yet.
- liability 6y ago
  Conspiracy to commit terrorism is a crime somebody could lawfully and constitutionally be arrested for if there were actual evidence.
- bdowling 6y ago
  > can’t arrest people for something you have evidence they might do if they haven’t done it yet. If “might do” means actually planning to commit a crime and then taking some material action to further that plan, then they can be charged with attempt.

MereInterest 6y ago

> What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up? Then that is a civil rights violation right there. Police shouldn't have illegally gathered evidence. Police should not be making decisions based on illegally gathered evidence. Police should not be making an endrun around the courts to apply punishments (such as forbidding travel) based on illegally gathered evidence.

vharuck 6y ago

>What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up? I think the point of disallowing evidence found those ways is to discourage investigators from using those ways. If they can use it, they will seek it. >Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane. But you have done nothing illegal yet. Now what? Totally off topic, but my proposal: a social worker should reach out to you and help with whatever problems you have. Very few people harm others just for the thrill of harming others. There's usually some other cause (revenge, poverty, desire to be heard).

pluto9 6y ago

> Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting. You want the boss. I can't imagine a scenario where blowing up an airplane full of civilians would fall into the category of "not worth arresting". > Or to use a more scifi spin: Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane. That's fiction for a reason--there's no possible way to know that from "data science". In the real world, you can know that from things like direct evidence that this person is involved in a plot to blow up an airplane, which is something they can be arrested for.

ViViDboarder 6y ago
> I can't imagine a scenario where blowing up an airplane full of civilians would fall into the category of "not worth arresting". If you are confident in your ability to stop them at the checkpoint if they actually try to board a plane, why arrest immediately when you can try to obtain more leads?

mattnewton 6y ago

If you don't have enough to charge them or ask for a warrant, you don't have enough to restrict their civil liberties. That process exists for a reason.

growse 6y ago

> Or to use a more scifi spin: Data science says you are 99% likely to blow up a plane. But you have done nothing illegal yet. Now what? People don't blow up planes by accident. You're either planning to blow up a plane, in which case you have already done a number of illegal things, or you're not, in which case you're 0% likely to blow up a plane.

Swizec 6y ago
> you have already done a number of illegal things Fun thing I learned recently in a Netflix documentary: It used to be legal to be a mafia boss because you weren’t the one doing illegal things. Someone had to fight real hard in the 70’s to create a new law that made it illegal to tell others to commit crimes. It was legal to own C4 that doesn’t smell until 1996. A new law after a series of bombings made it illegal. https://www.atf.gov/explosives/plastic-explosives-reminder https://www.atf.gov/explosives/plastic-explosives-reminder I wonder what’s legal now that will be obviously illegal in 20 years because it leads to future crimes?
- teddyh 6y ago
  Non-locked-down hardware. https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/
ViViDboarder 6y ago
Sure, but are those illegal things provable? Maybe someone is flagged based on suspicious searches about explosives and planes. That’s clearly not enough to arrest someone, however might be enough of a concern to stop them for a deeper search when boarding a plane. The theater of everything right now is absurd, but there are reasons for using identity to narrow more narrowly search people who may have some probable cause. My concern with the TSA is that we search everyone, regardless of probable cause.

nybble41 6y ago

> What if they have illegal evidence that you’re dangerous and can’t arrest you because it wouldn’t hold up? Then they shouldn't have resorted to illegal means to gain that evidence. Using it to prevent someone from flying or to subject them to "advanced screening" is no more justifiable than using it in court. > What if they’re not ready to arrest because they think you might lead them to people higher up in your organization? They would share responsibility for whatever additional crimes you end up committing in the meantime because they failed to act on the evidence which they had. Until they actually bring the matter up in court, however, you remain a free citizen and ought not be subjected to special restrictions or mistreatment without a trial on the basis of secret evidence.

IncRnd 6y ago

> Think mafia. Sure the thug did illegal crap and you know it, but he isn’t worth arresting. You want the boss. It's interesting that you bring up mafia in a conversation about the federal government. The federal government collaborated with the mafia dueing WWII and afterwards. So, no, that is not the government that should have power to manufacture evidence and pretend it was legally obtained.