3 ms·
A slight clarification: It's rare that it is caught and prosecuted. It's common enough within authority spies and enforcers that they have a word for it, https:
by superkuh 4y ago
A slight clarification: It's rare that it is caught and prosecuted. It's common enough within authority spies and enforcers that they have a word for it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOVEINT
- r00fus 4y agoGrotesquely orwellian.
- shadowgovt 4y agoThat still makes it rare, since the vast, vast bulk of the citizenry isn't married to / dating spies and enforcers. I'm not implying this should just be a "cost of doing business," but I am implying that most of the citizenry has implicitly accepted it as such, so we can't expect democracy to fix this issue.
- superkuh 4y agoCommon enough in groups of people regularly exposed to (unreliable but scary) polygraph tests and consequences for their actions. In local and state police who don't face oversight or consequences it is way, way, more common.
- shadowgovt 4y agoWhat I mean is even if each of the US's 600,000 domestic law enforcement and law-enforcement-adjacent officers were grossly violating the privileges of their authority to surveil their spouses and SOs in a way that grossly violates their fifth amendment rights... That's a problem directly impacting 0.2% of the population. It's real, real hard to get the polity at the national level to care about a 0.2%-of-the-population issue. I don't think we can expect a democratic solution to this issue.
- superkuh 4y agoThis article we're talking about isn't even about spouses/SOs. It's about dozens of random people the cop attacked.