4 ms·

"Proper criminals"? What does that even mean? There are hundreds of criminals who are not tech savvy (or not tech savvy enough) who will not have any of the me

"Proper criminals"? What does that even mean? There are hundreds of criminals who are not tech savvy (or not tech savvy enough) who will not have any of the mechanisms you postulate, who are frequently caught by the police and are very much "proper criminals". I don't agree with this law but to say it doesn't do anything against proper criminals is patently false.

dangerface 5y ago
I think its more that proper criminals have no reason to give up their password and incriminate themselves. Only a "Legal" person would comply.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Can't you say this about all laws? 'What's the point of a law against breaking and entering? A criminal will break and enter anyway!'
  - bsd44 5y ago
    Law is more than just Criminal law.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Ok? What difference do you think that makes?
      - bsd44 5y ago
        You said "Can't you say this about all laws?" implying that laws are redundant since criminals won't follow them and obeying citizens don't need them. But that's only true for Criminal law, not for other types of law because people might be breaking the law unintentionally that's why we need it. To give a trivial example, killing someone would be an example of a Criminal law and you would be right. But tearing down a supporting wall in a block of flats to expand the living room would be an example of a law that needs to be written down because it's not obvious and clear to everyone.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > You said "Can't you say this about all laws?" implying that laws are redundant since criminals won't follow them No that's what I was arguing against.
        dangerface 5y ago
        I never said that laws where redundant I argued that any law that requires cooperation to be effective is inherently in-effective on anyone that won't cooperate, namely criminals.
  - dangerface 5y ago
    > What's the point of a law against breaking and entering? A criminal will break and enter anyway!' Laws are about justice not prevention. Other laws are enforced without the criminals cooperation or consent. For example you stab some one, cop finds the knife with your finger prints and the victims blood case closed your off to jail. This law would be like the cops requiring you to hand over the bloody knife and if you say no then the cops will have no evidence and little recourse but to arrest you for the lesser crime of lying to the police, not very effective.
tekknik 5y ago
> I don't agree with this law but to say it doesn't do anything against proper criminals is patently false. It’s not false, we see this with gun control laws 100% of the time. Handguns being illegal in Chicago yet it being rather easy to get one. The laws are followed by noncriminals but criminals don’t care and only get caught after they do something. If at all. So the laws reduce freedoms for noncriminals and criminals just get charged with something else when/if they’re caught. And mind you the criminals don’t care what or how many crimes they’re charged with. At best it deters law abiding citizens, nothing more.

dangerface 5y ago

I think its more that proper criminals have no reason to give up their password and incriminate themselves. Only a "Legal" person would comply.

chrisseaton 5y ago
Can't you say this about all laws? 'What's the point of a law against breaking and entering? A criminal will break and enter anyway!'
- bsd44 5y ago
  Law is more than just Criminal law.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Ok? What difference do you think that makes?
    - bsd44 5y ago
      You said "Can't you say this about all laws?" implying that laws are redundant since criminals won't follow them and obeying citizens don't need them. But that's only true for Criminal law, not for other types of law because people might be breaking the law unintentionally that's why we need it. To give a trivial example, killing someone would be an example of a Criminal law and you would be right. But tearing down a supporting wall in a block of flats to expand the living room would be an example of a law that needs to be written down because it's not obvious and clear to everyone.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        > You said "Can't you say this about all laws?" implying that laws are redundant since criminals won't follow them No that's what I was arguing against.
        dangerface 5y ago
        I never said that laws where redundant I argued that any law that requires cooperation to be effective is inherently in-effective on anyone that won't cooperate, namely criminals.
- dangerface 5y ago
  > What's the point of a law against breaking and entering? A criminal will break and enter anyway!' Laws are about justice not prevention. Other laws are enforced without the criminals cooperation or consent. For example you stab some one, cop finds the knife with your finger prints and the victims blood case closed your off to jail. This law would be like the cops requiring you to hand over the bloody knife and if you say no then the cops will have no evidence and little recourse but to arrest you for the lesser crime of lying to the police, not very effective.

tekknik 5y ago

> I don't agree with this law but to say it doesn't do anything against proper criminals is patently false. It’s not false, we see this with gun control laws 100% of the time. Handguns being illegal in Chicago yet it being rather easy to get one. The laws are followed by noncriminals but criminals don’t care and only get caught after they do something. If at all. So the laws reduce freedoms for noncriminals and criminals just get charged with something else when/if they’re caught. And mind you the criminals don’t care what or how many crimes they’re charged with. At best it deters law abiding citizens, nothing more.