3 ms·

Problem is history has shown that the mere existence of such information is too much of a temptation to resist. The "extraordinary" circumstances used to justif

Problem is history has shown that the mere existence of such information is too much of a temptation to resist. The "extraordinary" circumstances used to justify getting this data has a way of expanding over time until it becomes almost any routine reason being justification enough. The only way to combat this is for the information to not exist. Yes, in some cases this means a guilty person will go free but we have a long standing belief in western legal culture that it is better for some of the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty. Invading everyone's privacy in the name of catching the small minority that engage in criminal activities is punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

Sleepytime 6y ago
>The "extraordinary" circumstances used to justify getting this data has a way of expanding over time until it becomes almost any routine reason being justification enough. One need to look no further than the widespread use of swat teams and no knock raids for mundane purposes, when even 50 years ago most cities didn't even have a swat team.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  That's use it or lose it budgeting for you. Kind of hard to justify the "APC maintenance" line item if the answer to "how much did you use that thing" is "never" so things like MRAPs and the swat team get used in situations they shouldn't be just to inflate their usefulness on paper.
- jfrunyon 6y ago
  People wouldn't think the world is so much more dangerous than 50 years ago if we didn't use the SWAT so often. And if people didn't think the world is more dangerous, then those in power wouldn't be able to get away with nearly as much money.
kelnos 6y ago
> Yes, in some cases this means a guilty person will go free but we have a long standing belief in western legal culture that it is better for some of the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty. I think that's a fine ideal (that I agree with), but I don't think any reverence for it is shared by many in law enforcement or the legal profession in general. Conviction rates are king, and incentives are often not aligned with true justice.

Sleepytime 6y ago

>The "extraordinary" circumstances used to justify getting this data has a way of expanding over time until it becomes almost any routine reason being justification enough. One need to look no further than the widespread use of swat teams and no knock raids for mundane purposes, when even 50 years ago most cities didn't even have a swat team.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
That's use it or lose it budgeting for you. Kind of hard to justify the "APC maintenance" line item if the answer to "how much did you use that thing" is "never" so things like MRAPs and the swat team get used in situations they shouldn't be just to inflate their usefulness on paper.
jfrunyon 6y ago
People wouldn't think the world is so much more dangerous than 50 years ago if we didn't use the SWAT so often. And if people didn't think the world is more dangerous, then those in power wouldn't be able to get away with nearly as much money.

kelnos 6y ago

> Yes, in some cases this means a guilty person will go free but we have a long standing belief in western legal culture that it is better for some of the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty. I think that's a fine ideal (that I agree with), but I don't think any reverence for it is shared by many in law enforcement or the legal profession in general. Conviction rates are king, and incentives are often not aligned with true justice.