3 ms·

Red Flag Laws Are As Good as the Data. Mass shooters don't hide their intentions

6 points by Bostonian 4y ago

Bostonian 4y ago
https://archive.ph/1MK8K#selection-4085.5-4089.73 https://archive.ph/1MK8K#selection-4085.5-4089.73
MBCook 4y ago
> But electronic text messages, including those designed to disappear as soon as read, are not private in relation to the carrier. The intended recipient may never see them but the carrier always does. This is not true of iMessage or other end-to-end encrypted services.
bediger4000 4y ago
In that case, the data will become the battleground. Ever hear of the Dickey Amendment? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment If Red Flag laws become a thing, you'll hear a lot more about the Dickey Amendment.
krapp 4y ago
Having algorithms study people's social media data (including their PMs) to try to profile potential shooters will just have people screaming bloody murder the way they were with Apple's recent CSAM debacle, or literally anything else to do with social media platforms. Remember when we all wanted to make algorithms illegal and force social media platforms to get a court order to be able to do anything, lest they be held legally liable for all user-submitted content? And that was just because they were moderating content. Imagine if they actually profiled your private data under laws which allowed the government to confiscate your guns? Americans would probably riot and burn Facebook's campus down. The Federal government can't pass such laws because of the Second Amendment, and few American states are willing to confiscate guns under any circumstances[0]. Oklahoma even passed an anti red-flag law. None of this is going to happen. Nice try, though. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law
- john_the_writer 4y ago
  I hope so. I mean imagine actually believing, giving up your privacy would be a good thing. I don't often think people are stupid, but using 1984 as a guide really makes it hard to avoid. Also, giving up privacy would be an excellent bit of proof that guns are in fact needed.
john_the_writer 4y ago
My favourite bit of this article. "Google, until a few years ago, scanned your private email to show you ads. Many email carriers still do. If private electronic messages can be scanned for one purpose, they can be scanned for any purpose." I love that idea. I say.. we add cameras to all TV's and watch what you watch. We then make it super hard to get a notebook and a pen (because we cannot monitor those, and clearly we must). It all sounds reasonable. Oh wait, I have read this book about how to do this right... For the life of me I can't remember what it was called. I bet the Disinformation Governance Board will know the name of the book. I think it's part of their required reading.
- john_the_writer 4y ago
  which privacy restrictions would have to be relaxed.
- version_five 4y ago
  > "Google, until a few years ago, scanned your private email to show you ads. Many email carriers still do. If private electronic messages can be scanned for one purpose, they can be scanned for any purpose." I find this very ironic because I suspect the same people who think this way would also jump on critics for committing a "slippery slope fallacy" or dismiss criticism as "what's the big deal" but then are happy to use whatever victory they have as a beachhead for more abuses
logicalmonster 4y ago
> Mass shooters don't hide their intentions So what was the Vegas mass shooting about then? That guy was basically a totally private individual (I think there's only like 4 publicized photos of him) and his motive was apparently a total mystery to this day. PS: From a rights perspective, Red Flag legislation definitely feels like it can be abused. To give an example that most people are probably familiar with: think of the Department of Pre-Crime from the movie Minority Report. This is basically what we're doing with Red Flag legislation: taking somebody's rights because we suspect they might commit a crime. I can easily see how it can be abused. Presumption of innocence before guilt and the right to due process by a jury of peers is not something that should be casually given up.
- Bostonian 4y ago
  Yes. The full title and subtitle, which I needed to shorten to post, are Red Flag Laws Are As Good as the Data: School shooters only hide their intentions from those who aren’t looking. The author says this: "A disciplined, hardened terrorist, or an odd fish like the Las Vegas mass-murderer Stephen Paddock, might not otherwise betray his murderous intentions, but the typical gun-fetishizing, mass shooter-admiring obsessive copycat will. This has been made clear in excruciating episode after excruciating episode. As the Texas atrocity showed again, killers of this ilk advertise their inclinations online and offline. They advertise their acquisition of weapons. They give voice to threats because making threats meets the same psychological need that acting on those threats does."

6 points by Bostonian 4y ago

https://archive.ph/1MK8K#selection-4085.5-4089.73 https://archive.ph/1MK8K#selection-4085.5-4089.73

> But electronic text messages, including those designed to disappear as soon as read, are not private in relation to the carrier. The intended recipient may never see them but the carrier always does. This is not true of iMessage or other end-to-end encrypted services.

bediger4000 4y ago

In that case, the data will become the battleground. Ever hear of the Dickey Amendment? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment If Red Flag laws become a thing, you'll hear a lot more about the Dickey Amendment.

krapp 4y ago

Having algorithms study people's social media data (including their PMs) to try to profile potential shooters will just have people screaming bloody murder the way they were with Apple's recent CSAM debacle, or literally anything else to do with social media platforms. Remember when we all wanted to make algorithms illegal and force social media platforms to get a court order to be able to do anything, lest they be held legally liable for all user-submitted content? And that was just because they were moderating content. Imagine if they actually profiled your private data under laws which allowed the government to confiscate your guns? Americans would probably riot and burn Facebook's campus down. The Federal government can't pass such laws because of the Second Amendment, and few American states are willing to confiscate guns under any circumstances[0]. Oklahoma even passed an anti red-flag law. None of this is going to happen. Nice try, though. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_law

john_the_writer 4y ago
I hope so. I mean imagine actually believing, giving up your privacy would be a good thing. I don't often think people are stupid, but using 1984 as a guide really makes it hard to avoid. Also, giving up privacy would be an excellent bit of proof that guns are in fact needed.

john_the_writer 4y ago

My favourite bit of this article. "Google, until a few years ago, scanned your private email to show you ads. Many email carriers still do. If private electronic messages can be scanned for one purpose, they can be scanned for any purpose." I love that idea. I say.. we add cameras to all TV's and watch what you watch. We then make it super hard to get a notebook and a pen (because we cannot monitor those, and clearly we must). It all sounds reasonable. Oh wait, I have read this book about how to do this right... For the life of me I can't remember what it was called. I bet the Disinformation Governance Board will know the name of the book. I think it's part of their required reading.

john_the_writer 4y ago
which privacy restrictions would have to be relaxed.
version_five 4y ago
> "Google, until a few years ago, scanned your private email to show you ads. Many email carriers still do. If private electronic messages can be scanned for one purpose, they can be scanned for any purpose." I find this very ironic because I suspect the same people who think this way would also jump on critics for committing a "slippery slope fallacy" or dismiss criticism as "what's the big deal" but then are happy to use whatever victory they have as a beachhead for more abuses

logicalmonster 4y ago

> Mass shooters don't hide their intentions So what was the Vegas mass shooting about then? That guy was basically a totally private individual (I think there's only like 4 publicized photos of him) and his motive was apparently a total mystery to this day. PS: From a rights perspective, Red Flag legislation definitely feels like it can be abused. To give an example that most people are probably familiar with: think of the Department of Pre-Crime from the movie Minority Report. This is basically what we're doing with Red Flag legislation: taking somebody's rights because we suspect they might commit a crime. I can easily see how it can be abused. Presumption of innocence before guilt and the right to due process by a jury of peers is not something that should be casually given up.

Bostonian 4y ago
Yes. The full title and subtitle, which I needed to shorten to post, are Red Flag Laws Are As Good as the Data: School shooters only hide their intentions from those who aren’t looking. The author says this: "A disciplined, hardened terrorist, or an odd fish like the Las Vegas mass-murderer Stephen Paddock, might not otherwise betray his murderous intentions, but the typical gun-fetishizing, mass shooter-admiring obsessive copycat will. This has been made clear in excruciating episode after excruciating episode. As the Texas atrocity showed again, killers of this ilk advertise their inclinations online and offline. They advertise their acquisition of weapons. They give voice to threats because making threats meets the same psychological need that acting on those threats does."