10 ms·

The majority of people do not care because the police can legally blow your door of its hinges, kick the shit out of you, drag you into a van, and stuff you in

The majority of people do not care because the police can legally blow your door of its hinges, kick the shit out of you, drag you into a van, and stuff you in a cell all before you get to the due process part of the justice system. They have accepted that this is fine. Telling them that they can be spied on by the government and that the only way to stay safe is to accept a quality of life drop and also learn up on half a dozen relatively complicated technological concepts is not going to work.

treeman79 6y ago
If your on a government officials bad list, then all you said applies. Deserved or otherwise. Being placed on list is still a fight. Give politicians free reign to everyone’s browser history/social media account, well Suddenly a lot of people are on a bad list.
- cheschire 6y ago
  Well, not everyone. The politicians themselves will have everything encrypted because they'll call it CUI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Unclassified_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Unclassified_Inform...
  - CapricornNoble 6y ago
    Where I work "CUI" is just the header we slap on all of our PowerPoints on NIPR[1], and basically means "don't email this to your civilian email account, or otherwise share it with people outside of work"...but it's still feasible, from a technical standpoint. It's just wrong from an administrative policy perspective. CUI doesn't automatically entail/require encryption. Most people don't even bother to encrypt their emails in Outlook even when chock-full of CUI documents, or worse, high-impact PII/PHI. If politicians want encrypted comms they'll probably have a //SECRET Blackberry or iPhone. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet
    - inetsee 6y ago
      Years ago I worked on a Special Access project. Everything that got thrown away went into the burn barrels, whether it had a classified label or not. Of course, when California took away our license to burn stuff, we acquired a grinder type shredder.
      - novok 6y ago
        That is just an easy general policy to adopt, secret project or not. At this point I would call it as basic as using HTTPS, just a general good practice.
      - treeman79 6y ago
        Shredder on Grinder? I’m going to burn for that one :)
- MayeulC 6y ago
  > Give politicians free reign to everyone’s browser history/social media account I'd argue that this is the core issue: everyone is on a list now. Where did the presumption of innocence go?
- davidwitt415 6y ago
  I'm in favor of the Black Mirror approach for politicians; Give the people full transparency into politicians' activities. This shouldn't be so controversial, given that they work for us, but of course, that is when you would see some real concern for privacy!
  - dddbbb 6y ago
    > This shouldn't be so controversial, given that they work for us, Pretty suspect line of reasoning when you apply it to literally any other scenario.
    - freshhawk 6y ago
      Sure, if you compare it to scenarios that aren't remotely the same. I think we were supposed to take it as an obvious given that this applies to scenarios where the side giving away the power is watching the side that was given the power.
  - dejavuagain 6y ago
    A. They think you work for them. B. They write the laws. For example is illegal for USA politicians to do business with the children of foreign leaders, but it's not illegal for children of USA politicians to do business with foreign leaders.
pmoriarty 6y ago
"The majority of people do not care because the police can legally blow your door of its hinges, kick the shit out of you, drag you into a van, and stuff you in a cell all before you get to the due process part of the justice system. They have accepted that this is fine." No. The majority don't care because it hasn't happened to them or someone they love. Once it does you can believe they'll start caring pretty quick.
- suifbwish 6y ago
  You will see that even if it happens to 250k people, no one will believe it’s happening just like covid
- n0nc3 6y ago
  Typically, when something like that happens to an "educated" person they are discredited in some way first. Surveillance makes that process a whole lot easier.
- ajmurmann 6y ago
  Or someone in their social class even.
- int_19h 6y ago
  Case in point. Maryland SWAT did that to the mayor of Berwyn Heights, shooting his dogs in the process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor%27s_residence_drug_raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor... So he spearheaded an accountability bill that mandated the state police to publish a yearly report on how often SWAT is deployed, for what reasons, how often lethal force ends up being used etc (it should be noted that police unions fought this tooth and nail, even though it didn't actually hold them accountable for any of it - only exposed how SWAT is actually used most of the time). http://goccp.maryland.gov/reports-publications/law-enforcement-reports/swat/ http://goccp.maryland.gov/reports-publications/law-enforceme... But there's a catch. You might notice from the link above that the reports end in 2014. That's because the law had a 5-year sunset clause, and nobody bothered to renew it. So, even when a fairly influential politician from a privileged background gets involved for personal reasons, that's not still enough long-term.
xd 6y ago
The majority of people do not care because the police can legally blow your door of its hinges, kick the shit out of you, drag you into a van, and stuff you in a cell all before you get to the due process part of the justice system. No, the police can not legally "kick the shit out of you", they can use reasonable force if you decide to ignore or refuse instructions when they have a warrant which has been obtained via the courts. The warrant will only be granted after presenting substantive evidence that the person they are wishing to arrest has committed serious crime i.e. possession / distribution of indecent images of children, drugs, money laundering etc which required rapid entry to secure evidence. They don't get to enter your property for minor offences or on a whim.
- hluska 6y ago
  Sadly, while this answer is theoretically correct (and should be correct), reality is a lot muddier.
- yeahnotreally 6y ago
  > No, the police can not legally "kick the shit out of you", they can use reasonable force if you decide to ignore or refuse instructions when they have a warrant which has been obtained via the courts. Ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beating.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beati...
  - xd 6y ago
    Yeap, there are bad actors in the police just like in all other walks of life. Do we demonise doctors because of the likes of Harold Shipman?
    - yeahnotreally 6y ago
      >Yeap, there are bad actors in the police just like in all other walks of life. Irrelevant. It's evidence that refutes your earlier claim that police can not legally "kick the shit out of you". They can. Dismissing them as "bad actors" doesn't change that fact.

The majority of people do not care because the police can legally blow your door of its hinges, kick the shit out of you, drag you into a van, and stuff you in a cell all before you get to the due process part of the justice system. They have accepted that this is fine. Telling them that they can be spied on by the government and that the only way to stay safe is to accept a quality of life drop and also learn up on half a dozen relatively complicated technological concepts is not going to work.

treeman79 6y ago

If your on a government officials bad list, then all you said applies. Deserved or otherwise. Being placed on list is still a fight. Give politicians free reign to everyone’s browser history/social media account, well Suddenly a lot of people are on a bad list.

cheschire 6y ago
Well, not everyone. The politicians themselves will have everything encrypted because they'll call it CUI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Unclassified_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Unclassified_Inform...
- CapricornNoble 6y ago
  Where I work "CUI" is just the header we slap on all of our PowerPoints on NIPR[1], and basically means "don't email this to your civilian email account, or otherwise share it with people outside of work"...but it's still feasible, from a technical standpoint. It's just wrong from an administrative policy perspective. CUI doesn't automatically entail/require encryption. Most people don't even bother to encrypt their emails in Outlook even when chock-full of CUI documents, or worse, high-impact PII/PHI. If politicians want encrypted comms they'll probably have a //SECRET Blackberry or iPhone. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet
  - inetsee 6y ago
    Years ago I worked on a Special Access project. Everything that got thrown away went into the burn barrels, whether it had a classified label or not. Of course, when California took away our license to burn stuff, we acquired a grinder type shredder.
    - novok 6y ago
      That is just an easy general policy to adopt, secret project or not. At this point I would call it as basic as using HTTPS, just a general good practice.
    - treeman79 6y ago
      Shredder on Grinder? I’m going to burn for that one :)
MayeulC 6y ago
> Give politicians free reign to everyone’s browser history/social media account I'd argue that this is the core issue: everyone is on a list now. Where did the presumption of innocence go?
davidwitt415 6y ago
I'm in favor of the Black Mirror approach for politicians; Give the people full transparency into politicians' activities. This shouldn't be so controversial, given that they work for us, but of course, that is when you would see some real concern for privacy!
- dddbbb 6y ago
  > This shouldn't be so controversial, given that they work for us, Pretty suspect line of reasoning when you apply it to literally any other scenario.
  - freshhawk 6y ago
    Sure, if you compare it to scenarios that aren't remotely the same. I think we were supposed to take it as an obvious given that this applies to scenarios where the side giving away the power is watching the side that was given the power.
- dejavuagain 6y ago
  A. They think you work for them. B. They write the laws. For example is illegal for USA politicians to do business with the children of foreign leaders, but it's not illegal for children of USA politicians to do business with foreign leaders.

pmoriarty 6y ago

"The majority of people do not care because the police can legally blow your door of its hinges, kick the shit out of you, drag you into a van, and stuff you in a cell all before you get to the due process part of the justice system. They have accepted that this is fine." No. The majority don't care because it hasn't happened to them or someone they love. Once it does you can believe they'll start caring pretty quick.

suifbwish 6y ago
You will see that even if it happens to 250k people, no one will believe it’s happening just like covid
n0nc3 6y ago
Typically, when something like that happens to an "educated" person they are discredited in some way first. Surveillance makes that process a whole lot easier.
ajmurmann 6y ago
Or someone in their social class even.
int_19h 6y ago
Case in point. Maryland SWAT did that to the mayor of Berwyn Heights, shooting his dogs in the process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor%27s_residence_drug_raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor... So he spearheaded an accountability bill that mandated the state police to publish a yearly report on how often SWAT is deployed, for what reasons, how often lethal force ends up being used etc (it should be noted that police unions fought this tooth and nail, even though it didn't actually hold them accountable for any of it - only exposed how SWAT is actually used most of the time). http://goccp.maryland.gov/reports-publications/law-enforcement-reports/swat/ http://goccp.maryland.gov/reports-publications/law-enforceme... But there's a catch. You might notice from the link above that the reports end in 2014. That's because the law had a 5-year sunset clause, and nobody bothered to renew it. So, even when a fairly influential politician from a privileged background gets involved for personal reasons, that's not still enough long-term.

xd 6y ago

The majority of people do not care because the police can legally blow your door of its hinges, kick the shit out of you, drag you into a van, and stuff you in a cell all before you get to the due process part of the justice system. No, the police can not legally "kick the shit out of you", they can use reasonable force if you decide to ignore or refuse instructions when they have a warrant which has been obtained via the courts. The warrant will only be granted after presenting substantive evidence that the person they are wishing to arrest has committed serious crime i.e. possession / distribution of indecent images of children, drugs, money laundering etc which required rapid entry to secure evidence. They don't get to enter your property for minor offences or on a whim.

hluska 6y ago
Sadly, while this answer is theoretically correct (and should be correct), reality is a lot muddier.
yeahnotreally 6y ago
> No, the police can not legally "kick the shit out of you", they can use reasonable force if you decide to ignore or refuse instructions when they have a warrant which has been obtained via the courts. Ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beating.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beati...
- xd 6y ago
  Yeap, there are bad actors in the police just like in all other walks of life. Do we demonise doctors because of the likes of Harold Shipman?
  - yeahnotreally 6y ago
    >Yeap, there are bad actors in the police just like in all other walks of life. Irrelevant. It's evidence that refutes your earlier claim that police can not legally "kick the shit out of you". They can. Dismissing them as "bad actors" doesn't change that fact.