7 ms·

> If the international law enforcement community is really trying to go after "all cryptographers" why do you think we haven't seen more arrests? Why do you thi

> If the international law enforcement community is really trying to go after "all cryptographers" why do you think we haven't seen more arrests? Why do you think they only arrested this guy? Because the standard playbook for "cracking down" is to first win cases against the least sympathetic, most prosecutable targets. Once that's under your belt, you gradually expand outwards to increasingly ordinary people. It's why slippery slope is such a big deal in civil liberties and constitutional law. When drug prohibition started, they started by arresting kingpin gangstas not students with dime bags. As abortion laws restart, states won't begin by arresting anyone who's ever donated to Planned Parenthood. But if left unchecked, some will eventually get there.

chitowneats 4y ago
"Some will ... arrest anyone who's ever donated to Planned Parenthood" This is a hysterical prediction.
- f38zf5vdt 4y ago
  Various states already prohibit using public money to fund abortions, a prohibition on private funds for an act they consider extremely illegal and equivalent to murder is not a stretch. "12 states prohibit state family planning funds from going to any entity that provides abortions." https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-family-planning-funding-restrictions https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-family...
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    And you believe it will be legal for them to arrest you for donations you made before those laws were in place? That's assuming you're correct they would try to ban private funds. A big assumption.
    - f38zf5vdt 4y ago
      IANAL. No, ex post facto laws aren't legal. If the state law says so, yes, you could get an out-of-state charge for providing financial aid to an abortion operation after contributing to an organization that funds them. With Roe v Wade gone, I am not sure there is a federal precedent for how to handle crimes relating to committing a murder in one state that is not considered a murder in another state.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    If planned parenthood isn't performing any abortions in a state where it is illegal, how could funding them ever be made illegal? None of this makes sense.
    - f38zf5vdt 4y ago
      People from illegal states already cross state lines to get abortions and then return to their home states. While it's not presently illegal, without Roe v Wade, I think that may quickly change. > No state has yet enacted a law to ban this travel. But it has been attempted: In Missouri, a bill is pending that would enforce abortion restrictions through civil lawsuits if the abortion is administered outside the state. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/can-states-punish-women-for-traveling-out-of-state-to-get-an-abortion/ https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/can-states-punish...
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        > enforce abortion restrictions through civil lawsuits I wonder how long it will be before SCOTUS kills off these attempts to use civil litigation to end-run the Constitution. The Texas law matched the court's ideology, so they let it stand, but now that Roe is overturned I expect the court to dispense with the law before places like California can use it to render the 2A moot. If they let this continue, the court will become irrelevant in a hurry. They may have granted themselves sweeping authority a long while back, but that can be changed easily via legislation.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    You can prohibit public money for any reason - and we do all the time, eg forcing the state to buy only US made cars. You can't prohibit private money use in a situation like this - especially not for a political funding thing. That is actually a freedom of speech issue.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  a) Interesting choice of words b) Donating to PP is aiding murder (née abortions), it's a small step to abetment.
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    It's hysterical in both senses of the word.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    Personhood is a prerequisite to murder. No jurisdiction has granted this to the unborn, but it's an interesting thought experiment if some chose to: thinking up "unforeseen" second- and third-order effects is a fun exercise (life insurance, HOV lanes, tax deductions, censuses & electoral maps, broken websites which assume all persons have names, birthdates in the future, null birthdays on death certificates)
- lalaland1125 4y ago
  Yeah, you can't make postfacto laws. Sure, the government might make it illegal to donate to Planned Parenthood in the future but per the constitution they can't make prior donations illegal.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Unless you find that abortion was never legal because the state statute on "murder" is vague. For instance, if the court re-interprets a murder statute then I believe that would apply to prior cases and then prior donations to any establishment assisting in abortion could be pursued as conspiracy. There's a lot of room to re-interpret laws that were already on the books in ways that make prior "crimes" illegal today when they wouldn't have been interpreted that way when they happened. There's other things that can be done as well, like searching their residence for every single code violation possible, daily police visits, civil asset forfeiture, fine-comb tax auditing, etc. It's a pretty well oiled machine for finding ways to convict people or make their life hell through the legal system if that's the goal.
    - lalaland1125 4y ago
      That's not how our constitution works. Roe v Wade is binding for any actions a person carries out before it got overturned in Dobbs. Even if a court ruling or legal interpretation gets overturned later, that doesn't allow you to prosecute people who were relying on that legal interpretation. Judges aren't mindless machines and they realize the importance of avoiding postfacto prosecutions.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        You have more faith in judges than I do. I've seen judges act as mindless machines. and below still stands: >There's other things that can be done as well, like searching their residence for every single code violation possible, daily police visits, civil asset forfeiture, fine-comb tax auditing, etc. It's a pretty well oiled machine for finding ways to convict people or make their life hell through the legal system if that's the goal. If the powers that be want to punish those who contribute to abortion, they will find a way to do it, even ex-post-facto.
lalaland1125 4y ago
> As abortion laws restart, states won't begin by arresting anyone who's ever donated to Planned Parenthood. But if left unchecked, some will eventually get there. First thing, you can't arrest people for prior donations as postfacto laws are unconstitutional. Second, if abortion is considered murder, why should it be legal to fund illegal abortions? We generally don't allow people to fund criminal activity for good reasons. Do you think it should be legal to donate to criminal organizations? What are your thoughts on donations to Al-Qaeda?
- ROTMetro 4y ago
  TLDR: You have no rights in America other than the ones you can afford to pay a lawyer to force to be enforced. Dude, as someone in the system, ex post facto happens all the time. In my case I can challenge it, but if I get slapped with lets say a completely 'theoretical' $5000 ex post facto "fine" it's going to cost more in lawyers to challenge, plus piss off my judge/PO for wasting time. As someone who can't get a job due to my record and can't afford a lawyer I have 'access' to the court for remedy, but I don't have access to a lawyer for remedy. The Constitution and our government are two different things. If something gets ruled unconstitutional, that doesn't suddenly free prisoners in the USA. Each prisoner needs to then challenge their conviction in court, and get past the high procedural bar (as a Fed prisoner, do you submit to the circuit in which you are now unconstitutionally imprisoned, or the circuit that convicted you unconstitutionally? Depends on the argument you are making, either could be right or wrong. Pick the wrong one and you waste three months minimum (so much for speeding trial, that only applies to your initial trial according the the supreme court) for the court to come back and say 'they don't have jurisdiction'. Not forward to the correct court, just denied for lack of jurisdiction. For you challenging something already found unconstitutional that should just be immediate release upon Supreme Court ruling. And don't forget, you have a time limit to challenge something found unconstitutional. You took too long? To bad, you're now stuck in prison for something found unconstitutional because you didn't understand your rights and navigate the bar placed in the form of the court system in a timely), nevermind hurdles placed in prison (mailroom only open from this time to this time, mail room not certifying your mail or 'losing' it, law library copyers broken, commissary 'out' of law library typewriter ribbons for sale), etc. If the Constitution was law, those people held unconstitutionally would be released upon Supreme Court findings. The fact they aren't and can be kept in prison for 'taking to long' to challenge their Supreme Court determined unconstitutional conviction shows the Constitution is just a 'guideline' in the USA.
altairprime 4y ago
The standard playbook for arresting specific criminals overlaps with the more extreme playbook you described. Whether it’s the former or the latter cannot be determined from this arrest alone.
dylan604 4y ago
Then the community needs to be better about self-policing. If there are people in your group doing shady shit with your group's tech, then get rid of them. Otherwise, you start sounding like the police with "bad apples" but not all are bullshit. If you see someone doing wrong and don't sound the alarm, then you are part of the problem.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

chitowneats 4y ago

"Some will ... arrest anyone who's ever donated to Planned Parenthood" This is a hysterical prediction.

f38zf5vdt 4y ago
Various states already prohibit using public money to fund abortions, a prohibition on private funds for an act they consider extremely illegal and equivalent to murder is not a stretch. "12 states prohibit state family planning funds from going to any entity that provides abortions." https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-family-planning-funding-restrictions https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-family...
- chitowneats 4y ago
  And you believe it will be legal for them to arrest you for donations you made before those laws were in place? That's assuming you're correct they would try to ban private funds. A big assumption.
  - f38zf5vdt 4y ago
    IANAL. No, ex post facto laws aren't legal. If the state law says so, yes, you could get an out-of-state charge for providing financial aid to an abortion operation after contributing to an organization that funds them. With Roe v Wade gone, I am not sure there is a federal precedent for how to handle crimes relating to committing a murder in one state that is not considered a murder in another state.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  If planned parenthood isn't performing any abortions in a state where it is illegal, how could funding them ever be made illegal? None of this makes sense.
  - f38zf5vdt 4y ago
    People from illegal states already cross state lines to get abortions and then return to their home states. While it's not presently illegal, without Roe v Wade, I think that may quickly change. > No state has yet enacted a law to ban this travel. But it has been attempted: In Missouri, a bill is pending that would enforce abortion restrictions through civil lawsuits if the abortion is administered outside the state. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/can-states-punish-women-for-traveling-out-of-state-to-get-an-abortion/ https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/can-states-punish...
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      > enforce abortion restrictions through civil lawsuits I wonder how long it will be before SCOTUS kills off these attempts to use civil litigation to end-run the Constitution. The Texas law matched the court's ideology, so they let it stand, but now that Roe is overturned I expect the court to dispense with the law before places like California can use it to render the 2A moot. If they let this continue, the court will become irrelevant in a hurry. They may have granted themselves sweeping authority a long while back, but that can be changed easily via legislation.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  You can prohibit public money for any reason - and we do all the time, eg forcing the state to buy only US made cars. You can't prohibit private money use in a situation like this - especially not for a political funding thing. That is actually a freedom of speech issue.
formerly_proven 4y ago
a) Interesting choice of words b) Donating to PP is aiding murder (née abortions), it's a small step to abetment.
- chitowneats 4y ago
  It's hysterical in both senses of the word.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  Personhood is a prerequisite to murder. No jurisdiction has granted this to the unborn, but it's an interesting thought experiment if some chose to: thinking up "unforeseen" second- and third-order effects is a fun exercise (life insurance, HOV lanes, tax deductions, censuses & electoral maps, broken websites which assume all persons have names, birthdates in the future, null birthdays on death certificates)
lalaland1125 4y ago
Yeah, you can't make postfacto laws. Sure, the government might make it illegal to donate to Planned Parenthood in the future but per the constitution they can't make prior donations illegal.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Unless you find that abortion was never legal because the state statute on "murder" is vague. For instance, if the court re-interprets a murder statute then I believe that would apply to prior cases and then prior donations to any establishment assisting in abortion could be pursued as conspiracy. There's a lot of room to re-interpret laws that were already on the books in ways that make prior "crimes" illegal today when they wouldn't have been interpreted that way when they happened. There's other things that can be done as well, like searching their residence for every single code violation possible, daily police visits, civil asset forfeiture, fine-comb tax auditing, etc. It's a pretty well oiled machine for finding ways to convict people or make their life hell through the legal system if that's the goal.
  - lalaland1125 4y ago
    That's not how our constitution works. Roe v Wade is binding for any actions a person carries out before it got overturned in Dobbs. Even if a court ruling or legal interpretation gets overturned later, that doesn't allow you to prosecute people who were relying on that legal interpretation. Judges aren't mindless machines and they realize the importance of avoiding postfacto prosecutions.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      You have more faith in judges than I do. I've seen judges act as mindless machines. and below still stands: >There's other things that can be done as well, like searching their residence for every single code violation possible, daily police visits, civil asset forfeiture, fine-comb tax auditing, etc. It's a pretty well oiled machine for finding ways to convict people or make their life hell through the legal system if that's the goal. If the powers that be want to punish those who contribute to abortion, they will find a way to do it, even ex-post-facto.

lalaland1125 4y ago

> As abortion laws restart, states won't begin by arresting anyone who's ever donated to Planned Parenthood. But if left unchecked, some will eventually get there. First thing, you can't arrest people for prior donations as postfacto laws are unconstitutional. Second, if abortion is considered murder, why should it be legal to fund illegal abortions? We generally don't allow people to fund criminal activity for good reasons. Do you think it should be legal to donate to criminal organizations? What are your thoughts on donations to Al-Qaeda?

ROTMetro 4y ago
TLDR: You have no rights in America other than the ones you can afford to pay a lawyer to force to be enforced. Dude, as someone in the system, ex post facto happens all the time. In my case I can challenge it, but if I get slapped with lets say a completely 'theoretical' $5000 ex post facto "fine" it's going to cost more in lawyers to challenge, plus piss off my judge/PO for wasting time. As someone who can't get a job due to my record and can't afford a lawyer I have 'access' to the court for remedy, but I don't have access to a lawyer for remedy. The Constitution and our government are two different things. If something gets ruled unconstitutional, that doesn't suddenly free prisoners in the USA. Each prisoner needs to then challenge their conviction in court, and get past the high procedural bar (as a Fed prisoner, do you submit to the circuit in which you are now unconstitutionally imprisoned, or the circuit that convicted you unconstitutionally? Depends on the argument you are making, either could be right or wrong. Pick the wrong one and you waste three months minimum (so much for speeding trial, that only applies to your initial trial according the the supreme court) for the court to come back and say 'they don't have jurisdiction'. Not forward to the correct court, just denied for lack of jurisdiction. For you challenging something already found unconstitutional that should just be immediate release upon Supreme Court ruling. And don't forget, you have a time limit to challenge something found unconstitutional. You took too long? To bad, you're now stuck in prison for something found unconstitutional because you didn't understand your rights and navigate the bar placed in the form of the court system in a timely), nevermind hurdles placed in prison (mailroom only open from this time to this time, mail room not certifying your mail or 'losing' it, law library copyers broken, commissary 'out' of law library typewriter ribbons for sale), etc. If the Constitution was law, those people held unconstitutionally would be released upon Supreme Court findings. The fact they aren't and can be kept in prison for 'taking to long' to challenge their Supreme Court determined unconstitutional conviction shows the Constitution is just a 'guideline' in the USA.

altairprime 4y ago

The standard playbook for arresting specific criminals overlaps with the more extreme playbook you described. Whether it’s the former or the latter cannot be determined from this arrest alone.

dylan604 4y ago

Then the community needs to be better about self-policing. If there are people in your group doing shady shit with your group's tech, then get rid of them. Otherwise, you start sounding like the police with "bad apples" but not all are bullshit. If you see someone doing wrong and don't sound the alarm, then you are part of the problem.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]