4 ms·

> I'm only aware of one case where the US government, without warrant, actively hacked its own citizens using a 0day It’s perhaps a bit broader than your defin

> I'm only aware of one case where the US government, without warrant, actively hacked its own citizens using a 0day It’s perhaps a bit broader than your definition there, but illegal exploitation and subsequent whitewashing of personal data by law enforcement is common enough that is has a name. Parallel construction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction Another point. For me, being caught zero times doing an illegal thing is a world apart from being caught one time. The chances on you being caught the only time you ever did s specific illegal act is so small that you pretty much go from assumed innocent if you’ve never been caught, to probably guilty if you’ve been caught even once before. (That’s not an “assumed innocent “ in its legal context, I 100% agree a court should assume 2nd, 3rd, and 100th time convicted people are “innocent until proven guilty” and the prosecution should need to bring a strong enough case ignoring previous conviction to get a fair judgement. But if you’ve been caught using illegal methods before, I’m going to assume it’s something you have convinced yourself is ok, and you’ll do it whenever it suits you so long as you consider the chance of getting caught is low enough.)

enkid 5y ago
This Wikipedia article is awful. It says it can be used to hide illegal evidence collection, but then only gives examples of it being used to hide sources and methods. I don't think there is a problem hiding a source if there is sufficient evidence from other sources and the first source is not illegal.
- YawningAngel 5y ago
  How do you know the first source is not illegal if its validity has not been tested in court?
  - enkid 5y ago
    Testing in court is not the way to enforce legality for police departments. Having someone let go from a crime years after they are arrested based on court proceedings would 1) be too far removed from the illegal behaviour to change that behavior, 2) not catch most illegal behaviour because, as the most likely response would be for the police department to lie about it, 3) not catch behaviour that is illegal but never makes it to court. I would much rather have police departments have strong training about appropriate evidence collection, third party oversight over police behaviour, and technical monitors of behavior such as body cams. Edit: I just want to point out there should be court cases about it, but they should be focused on repercussions for the offending officers instead. With a model where illegal police behaviour is punished by releasing a defendant doesn't actually punish the police and forces the non-police individual pay for illegal police behaviour by being put on trial.
- heavenlyblue 5y ago
  I also like how they are basically admitting that the drug lords can basically use police force to bully their own opponents by acting "as if" they were the anonymous informers of drug trafficking.

enkid 5y ago

This Wikipedia article is awful. It says it can be used to hide illegal evidence collection, but then only gives examples of it being used to hide sources and methods. I don't think there is a problem hiding a source if there is sufficient evidence from other sources and the first source is not illegal.

YawningAngel 5y ago
How do you know the first source is not illegal if its validity has not been tested in court?
- enkid 5y ago
  Testing in court is not the way to enforce legality for police departments. Having someone let go from a crime years after they are arrested based on court proceedings would 1) be too far removed from the illegal behaviour to change that behavior, 2) not catch most illegal behaviour because, as the most likely response would be for the police department to lie about it, 3) not catch behaviour that is illegal but never makes it to court. I would much rather have police departments have strong training about appropriate evidence collection, third party oversight over police behaviour, and technical monitors of behavior such as body cams. Edit: I just want to point out there should be court cases about it, but they should be focused on repercussions for the offending officers instead. With a model where illegal police behaviour is punished by releasing a defendant doesn't actually punish the police and forces the non-police individual pay for illegal police behaviour by being put on trial.
heavenlyblue 5y ago
I also like how they are basically admitting that the drug lords can basically use police force to bully their own opponents by acting "as if" they were the anonymous informers of drug trafficking.