6 ms·

I do not understand why we accept such low standards from our governments. A warrant should be required. A warrant should be a cryptosecure signed file from th

I do not understand why we accept such low standards from our governments. A warrant should be required. A warrant should be a cryptosecure signed file from the judge(s). The search tool should validate the signatures. The parameters in question should also be signed across and be the only allowed inputs. Also there should be accountability for the reasonable expectation aspect of warrants. A realistic threshold should be enforced... If an officer or judge starts to dip below the threshold they should be seen as incompetent.

formerly_proven 4y ago
> A warrant should be required. A warrant should be a cryptosecure signed file from the judge(s). The search tool should validate the signatures. The parameters in question should also be signed across and be the only allowed inputs. The issues run deeper. Court orders are widely rubberstamped. Circumventing legal processes like this creates a verneer of judicial review that's meaningless, because "judicial review" should not mean "a judge's eyes have scanned the warrant for the signature line he needs to sign on". As a cherry on top, things like the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are pretty unique to the US - most countries don't have something like it, or only forbid using evidence if the manner in which it was gathered was too egregiously illegal, but otherwise it doesn't matter if prosecutors obtained evidence legally or not. It doesn't take a genius to see how that's not exactly conducive for the LE system to stay in their legal lane.
- SuperKamiyay 4y ago
  > should not mean "a judge's eyes have scanned the warrant for the signature line he needs to sign on". We need CAPCHA for warrants!
  - ccooffee 4y ago
    I wonder what would change in the criminal legal system if all warrant applications must be counter-argued by a public-defender-like-role. I suspect the "defender" would just end being an always-ignored voice in the room, at least based on my understanding of post-patriot-act America.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  >The issues run deeper. Court orders are widely rubberstamped. I wrote the following to try and address that. I agree it's a big problem. > Also there should be accountability for the reasonable expectation aspect of warrants. A realistic threshold should be enforced... If an officer or judge starts to dip below the threshold they should be seen as incompetent.
guerrilla 4y ago
> I do not understand why we accept such low standards from our governments. Do you even? Who would you vote for for that not to happen? As far as I can tell, virtually 100% of both parties everywhere in the country support all of this.
- wmf 4y ago
  People aren't protesting in the streets.
  - banannaise 4y ago
    Well they certainly tried. After a few months of politicians giving lip service to their cause, followed by about 6-12 months of the cops mercilessly beating the shit out of them without consequence, protesting in the streets about policing started to look a lot less interesting and effective.
    - _chu1 4y ago
      Those were riots and riddled with with racial issues that have nothing to do with this.
      - banannaise 4y ago
        1. The line between "protest" and "riot" is fuzzy and arbitrary at best, and that's without considering that police violence against a protest will almost universally turn it into a riot because humans are humans. 2. Are you seriously trying to say that racial issues have nothing to do with excessive police surveillance?
        _chu1 4y ago
        Those riots had absolutely nothing to do with police surveillance.
        4y ago
banannaise 4y ago
> I do not understand why we accept such low standards from our governments. The short answer to that is "the police have effectively executed a soft coup, and no politician or political process can meaningfully oppose them"
- vdqtp3 4y ago
  That implies that the police overthrew the government. The police are the government, and the government has not been on the side of the people for many years.
bjt2n3904 4y ago
Found the guy who thinks technical solutions can solve human problems! Let's put warrants on the block chain while we're at it!
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  no surprise he's on HN . /jk I'm more talking about accountability and auditing (like an audit log of actions)
secabeen 4y ago
Warrants are still required to compel data from companies like cell phone companies. This is different. This is a company expressly setup to sell data they gather to the police. No compulsion is required, they're voluntarily doing it, and the users are "voluntarily" giving that data away, via sketchy apps that only disclose the location data giveaway buried in a ToS.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  But they should require a warrant to get data on me... We need to normalize that entering my data is like entering my home. You require a warrant to inspect things that are default private.
Razengan 4y ago
> I do not understand why we accept such low standards from our government All paths to the dark side start with Fear.

formerly_proven 4y ago

> A warrant should be required. A warrant should be a cryptosecure signed file from the judge(s). The search tool should validate the signatures. The parameters in question should also be signed across and be the only allowed inputs. The issues run deeper. Court orders are widely rubberstamped. Circumventing legal processes like this creates a verneer of judicial review that's meaningless, because "judicial review" should not mean "a judge's eyes have scanned the warrant for the signature line he needs to sign on". As a cherry on top, things like the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine are pretty unique to the US - most countries don't have something like it, or only forbid using evidence if the manner in which it was gathered was too egregiously illegal, but otherwise it doesn't matter if prosecutors obtained evidence legally or not. It doesn't take a genius to see how that's not exactly conducive for the LE system to stay in their legal lane.

SuperKamiyay 4y ago
> should not mean "a judge's eyes have scanned the warrant for the signature line he needs to sign on". We need CAPCHA for warrants!
- ccooffee 4y ago
  I wonder what would change in the criminal legal system if all warrant applications must be counter-argued by a public-defender-like-role. I suspect the "defender" would just end being an always-ignored voice in the room, at least based on my understanding of post-patriot-act America.
maerF0x0 4y ago
>The issues run deeper. Court orders are widely rubberstamped. I wrote the following to try and address that. I agree it's a big problem. > Also there should be accountability for the reasonable expectation aspect of warrants. A realistic threshold should be enforced... If an officer or judge starts to dip below the threshold they should be seen as incompetent.

guerrilla 4y ago

> I do not understand why we accept such low standards from our governments. Do you even? Who would you vote for for that not to happen? As far as I can tell, virtually 100% of both parties everywhere in the country support all of this.

wmf 4y ago
People aren't protesting in the streets.
- banannaise 4y ago
  Well they certainly tried. After a few months of politicians giving lip service to their cause, followed by about 6-12 months of the cops mercilessly beating the shit out of them without consequence, protesting in the streets about policing started to look a lot less interesting and effective.
  - _chu1 4y ago
    Those were riots and riddled with with racial issues that have nothing to do with this.
    - banannaise 4y ago
      1. The line between "protest" and "riot" is fuzzy and arbitrary at best, and that's without considering that police violence against a protest will almost universally turn it into a riot because humans are humans. 2. Are you seriously trying to say that racial issues have nothing to do with excessive police surveillance?
      - _chu1 4y ago
        Those riots had absolutely nothing to do with police surveillance.
        4y ago

banannaise 4y ago

> I do not understand why we accept such low standards from our governments. The short answer to that is "the police have effectively executed a soft coup, and no politician or political process can meaningfully oppose them"

vdqtp3 4y ago
That implies that the police overthrew the government. The police are the government, and the government has not been on the side of the people for many years.

bjt2n3904 4y ago

Found the guy who thinks technical solutions can solve human problems! Let's put warrants on the block chain while we're at it!

maerF0x0 4y ago
no surprise he's on HN . /jk I'm more talking about accountability and auditing (like an audit log of actions)

secabeen 4y ago

Warrants are still required to compel data from companies like cell phone companies. This is different. This is a company expressly setup to sell data they gather to the police. No compulsion is required, they're voluntarily doing it, and the users are "voluntarily" giving that data away, via sketchy apps that only disclose the location data giveaway buried in a ToS.

maerF0x0 4y ago
But they should require a warrant to get data on me... We need to normalize that entering my data is like entering my home. You require a warrant to inspect things that are default private.

Razengan 4y ago

> I do not understand why we accept such low standards from our government All paths to the dark side start with Fear.