5 ms·

* Scene opens with two federal agents discussing a new case * Agent 1: There was a shooting on 5th st. Agent 2: Just use the phone records to look up everyone

by dmm 6y ago

* Scene opens with two federal agents discussing a new case * Agent 1: There was a shooting on 5th st. Agent 2: Just use the phone records to look up everyone in the area and then arrest them at their work in front of their boss. Agent 1: It's ok to do this because the innocent will surely have a way to prove their innocence. Agent 2: But what if it looks bad that we are arresting so many innocent people? Agent 1: In every legal system there are always more crimes than can be prosecuted. The discretion of prosecutors is an important legal function. If we arrest someone embarrassing, we'll just find something to charge them with. Agent 2: Yeah and contact with federal agents also _generates_ more crime, like lying to one of us is a felony, right? Agent 1: Hope they have the $250k it takes to defend against a federal felony. * The agents laugh * * Scene end

EarthIsHome 6y ago
> If we arrest someone embarrassing, we'll just find something to charge them with. Or as they currently do: lie about their detainees doing crimes and/or plant contraband
- creato 6y ago
  In this situation, the privacy violation of becoming a suspect via location history is an utterly negligible problem. What you describe could just as easily happen in a traffic stop (and in fact probably far more likely).
  - godelski 6y ago
    > could just as easily happen in a traffic stop Well it clearly does.... But I think the point being made is that part of the issue is lazy policing/detective work. The concern about privacy is really about the concern of __abuse__ of data. Why many of us want to protect our data is that we do not trust those in power, nor current nor potential future rulers (a big concern). Such instances as the above example are abuse of that data, as well as abuse of power. The thought is that if they are going to abuse us, we're going to make it more difficult. Dragnet operations make the above easier, not the same level of difficulty.
slg 6y ago
Bad cops are going to be bad cops regardless of the tools you give them. That isn't to say privacy is not a problem, just that I don't think privacy is the primary problem in your example.
- godelski 6y ago
  Give a bad cop a club and they'll beat someone. Give a bad cop a gun and they'll shoot someone. Give a bad cop a swat van and they'll raid a teenager's home, kill their dog and brother. I'm tired of this binary perspective. It is common but in bad faith. The tools matter. Different tools enable different levels of abuse. Yes, cops shouldn't abuse citizens and we should do our best to stop that. But do you expect to find a perfect solution? If not, then we should also ensure that when a bad cop slips through, they are limited in the damage they can do.
  - slg 6y ago
    You are reading way too much into my comment. I was directly speaking to the example given and not making some universal endorsement of empowering cops. There was nothing in that example that was specifically linked to data collection. You could have had the exact same situation except they are rounding up Black people as suspects. The problem there is bad cops not dangerous tools. The tool is irrelevant in the example.

by dmm 6y ago

EarthIsHome 6y ago

> If we arrest someone embarrassing, we'll just find something to charge them with. Or as they currently do: lie about their detainees doing crimes and/or plant contraband

creato 6y ago
In this situation, the privacy violation of becoming a suspect via location history is an utterly negligible problem. What you describe could just as easily happen in a traffic stop (and in fact probably far more likely).
- godelski 6y ago
  > could just as easily happen in a traffic stop Well it clearly does.... But I think the point being made is that part of the issue is lazy policing/detective work. The concern about privacy is really about the concern of __abuse__ of data. Why many of us want to protect our data is that we do not trust those in power, nor current nor potential future rulers (a big concern). Such instances as the above example are abuse of that data, as well as abuse of power. The thought is that if they are going to abuse us, we're going to make it more difficult. Dragnet operations make the above easier, not the same level of difficulty.

slg 6y ago

Bad cops are going to be bad cops regardless of the tools you give them. That isn't to say privacy is not a problem, just that I don't think privacy is the primary problem in your example.

godelski 6y ago
Give a bad cop a club and they'll beat someone. Give a bad cop a gun and they'll shoot someone. Give a bad cop a swat van and they'll raid a teenager's home, kill their dog and brother. I'm tired of this binary perspective. It is common but in bad faith. The tools matter. Different tools enable different levels of abuse. Yes, cops shouldn't abuse citizens and we should do our best to stop that. But do you expect to find a perfect solution? If not, then we should also ensure that when a bad cop slips through, they are limited in the damage they can do.
- slg 6y ago
  You are reading way too much into my comment. I was directly speaking to the example given and not making some universal endorsement of empowering cops. There was nothing in that example that was specifically linked to data collection. You could have had the exact same situation except they are rounding up Black people as suspects. The problem there is bad cops not dangerous tools. The tool is irrelevant in the example.