4 ms·

I'm not sure I agree with these laws. They are very difficult to actually enforce to an objective standard. They also transfer the burden of law enforcement awa

I'm not sure I agree with these laws. They are very difficult to actually enforce to an objective standard. They also transfer the burden of law enforcement away from police departments and on to private organizations. What it translates to in practice is a bunch of (mostly irrelevant) mandatory training for employees, and an approval from an auditor who isn't very familiar with the business. I think police (and no one else) should do policing.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
> What it translates to in practice is a bunch of (mostly irrelevant) mandatory training for employees, and an approval from an auditor who isn't very familiar with the business. In the context of ensuring a bank doesn't transfer money to terrorists, this is completely wrong. Banks have a whole list of operations and processes, and failing this is enforced by actual jail time. This is why "know your customer" exists in banking. In the context of terrorism, there is no police enforcement regarding terrorists; often, we are talking military enforcement.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  Yes, but my point is that "transferring money to someone" is not a true crime. It doesn't have a victim. And yes, our governments should use military/diplomatic channels to fight terrorism directly - that's what they're for.
  - PuppyTailWags 4y ago
    > Yes, but my point is that "transferring money to someone" is not a true crime. It doesn't have a victim. This is also incorrect. Transferring money to a terrorist organization is a crime because countries have declared it illegal. Of course well-funded terrorists have victims and enablement of well-funded terrorism has clear victims. And yes, the government is using military and diplomatic channels to fight terrorism directly-- by ensuring the resources they have access to are limited.
wpietri 4y ago
There are two possible things you could mean by that. One is that you think a lot of things just shouldn't be enforced, and that we should allow a lot more harm than we do now. Genocide? The other is that you think we should have a lot more police to take over the harm-reducing regulatory actions now in place. That we should take the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of social media moderators now working, but make them government employees and give them guns. I can't decide which is more cartoonishly evil.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  I don't see why people working in an office need guns, but yes, enforcement of laws should be done by... law enforcement. This isn't too controversial really, if I make a credible threat to someone online, it's a criminal matter for the police. Just as if I had sent it in the mail. The same should be true for all other types of crime (fraud, money laundering, etc.). Police should (and do) conduct investigations and arrest offenders. Social media moderators exist to protect the public image of the platform, and enforce community guidelines. They should not be burdened with law enforcement simply because we can't be arsed to do proper police work.
riversflow 4y ago
You realize that other groups already do policing? IRS, EPA, OSHA, USPS, hell the secret service will get involved if you are forging currency.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

> What it translates to in practice is a bunch of (mostly irrelevant) mandatory training for employees, and an approval from an auditor who isn't very familiar with the business. In the context of ensuring a bank doesn't transfer money to terrorists, this is completely wrong. Banks have a whole list of operations and processes, and failing this is enforced by actual jail time. This is why "know your customer" exists in banking. In the context of terrorism, there is no police enforcement regarding terrorists; often, we are talking military enforcement.

thegrimmest 4y ago
Yes, but my point is that "transferring money to someone" is not a true crime. It doesn't have a victim. And yes, our governments should use military/diplomatic channels to fight terrorism directly - that's what they're for.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  > Yes, but my point is that "transferring money to someone" is not a true crime. It doesn't have a victim. This is also incorrect. Transferring money to a terrorist organization is a crime because countries have declared it illegal. Of course well-funded terrorists have victims and enablement of well-funded terrorism has clear victims. And yes, the government is using military and diplomatic channels to fight terrorism directly-- by ensuring the resources they have access to are limited.

wpietri 4y ago

There are two possible things you could mean by that. One is that you think a lot of things just shouldn't be enforced, and that we should allow a lot more harm than we do now. Genocide? The other is that you think we should have a lot more police to take over the harm-reducing regulatory actions now in place. That we should take the tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of social media moderators now working, but make them government employees and give them guns. I can't decide which is more cartoonishly evil.

thegrimmest 4y ago
I don't see why people working in an office need guns, but yes, enforcement of laws should be done by... law enforcement. This isn't too controversial really, if I make a credible threat to someone online, it's a criminal matter for the police. Just as if I had sent it in the mail. The same should be true for all other types of crime (fraud, money laundering, etc.). Police should (and do) conduct investigations and arrest offenders. Social media moderators exist to protect the public image of the platform, and enforce community guidelines. They should not be burdened with law enforcement simply because we can't be arsed to do proper police work.

riversflow 4y ago

You realize that other groups already do policing? IRS, EPA, OSHA, USPS, hell the secret service will get involved if you are forging currency.