4 ms·

Here's one negative thing you can now associate with mass surveillance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paral

Here's one negative thing you can now associate with mass surveillance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

treis 5y ago
I don't see that as a clearly negative thing. At worst it's controversial and theoretically could lead to negative things. But I don't see any concrete harm to associate with that practice.
- pope_meat 5y ago
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree A justice system that contradicts itself like that can't be just.
jackpirate 5y ago
The problem is that most ordinary people view that as a positive, not a negative.
- pope_meat 5y ago
  Sigh. What is the road to hell paved with? That's right, good intentions. See you in hell, folks, when the laws change and your perfectly legal existence up until that point becomes a problem to the state, and then the good cops will break a few little constitutional protections to build a parallel case against you...which of course, ordinary people view as a positive, not a negative. Sometimes I think I should run away to another place that isn't turning in to a fascists police state, but then I realize ordinary scared people act predictably, so I guess I welcome our fascist overlords, hand me an arm band, let's clean up these streets of the checks notes trash. lots of sarcasm included for free.
kelnos 5y ago
I don't think most people think of that as negative. I believe most people would read that Wikipedia article, and think "great, law enforcement sometimes gets hamstrung in how it can collect evidence, and this lets them get the bad guys even when the legal process makes it difficult". The bit that you seem to have missed in the parent post is that most people will not consider something bad unless that bad thing has directly negatively impacted them. Some people will go further and make excuses for the bad thing, even when it has negatively impacted them: "yeah, it's really bad that I got falsely accused because of this bad thing, but I think it's still a useful tool, and law enforcement just needs to be more careful using it so they only snare the real bad guys". Most people seem to have no opinion on mass surveillance, or a positive one. They've done nothing bad, so they have nothing to hide, right? And even when someone gets caught up in it by mistake, the error rate is low enough such that we'll never get mass denouncements from regular people.

Here's one negative thing you can now associate with mass surveillance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

treis 5y ago

I don't see that as a clearly negative thing. At worst it's controversial and theoretically could lead to negative things. But I don't see any concrete harm to associate with that practice.

pope_meat 5y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree A justice system that contradicts itself like that can't be just.

jackpirate 5y ago

The problem is that most ordinary people view that as a positive, not a negative.

pope_meat 5y ago
Sigh. What is the road to hell paved with? That's right, good intentions. See you in hell, folks, when the laws change and your perfectly legal existence up until that point becomes a problem to the state, and then the good cops will break a few little constitutional protections to build a parallel case against you...which of course, ordinary people view as a positive, not a negative. Sometimes I think I should run away to another place that isn't turning in to a fascists police state, but then I realize ordinary scared people act predictably, so I guess I welcome our fascist overlords, hand me an arm band, let's clean up these streets of the checks notes trash. lots of sarcasm included for free.

kelnos 5y ago

I don't think most people think of that as negative. I believe most people would read that Wikipedia article, and think "great, law enforcement sometimes gets hamstrung in how it can collect evidence, and this lets them get the bad guys even when the legal process makes it difficult". The bit that you seem to have missed in the parent post is that most people will not consider something bad unless that bad thing has directly negatively impacted them. Some people will go further and make excuses for the bad thing, even when it has negatively impacted them: "yeah, it's really bad that I got falsely accused because of this bad thing, but I think it's still a useful tool, and law enforcement just needs to be more careful using it so they only snare the real bad guys". Most people seem to have no opinion on mass surveillance, or a positive one. They've done nothing bad, so they have nothing to hide, right? And even when someone gets caught up in it by mistake, the error rate is low enough such that we'll never get mass denouncements from regular people.