3 ms·

Seems like splitting hairs. If the person using it is registering their assault and the perpetrator is already in the database then the person entering that nam

by nl 4y ago

Seems like splitting hairs. If the person using it is registering their assault and the perpetrator is already in the database then the person entering that name in be notified. The article doesn't need to make the presumption of innocence - it's not a trial, it's showing how this is helpful to a victim of assault. There's no "two sides" argument here. If you check out the the Project Callisto website they outline the protections there are for accused - namely that they can never be named to the lawyers who get involved by the project. That has to be done by the individuals making the accusation to the lawyers. It is - as the article says - a way of letting the victims know they are not alone.

nopenopenopeno 4y ago
>The article doesn't need to make the presumption of innocence Nor does the article have any business making the presumption of guilt, but it does exactly that. I am criticizing what the article actually does, not expecting it to do something more. All it takes is a person registering a name then receiving notification that others have registered the same name, then conflating that with evidence of guilt in the same exact manner the articles does. If the article didn’t set such a good example of how to ruin an innocent person’s life, I wouldn’t be concerned.
- nl 4y ago
  But the person entering the details already thinks the person they are entering it in is guilty, so unclear why getting notified would be "conflating that with evidence of guilt in the same exact manner the articles does". > If the article didn’t set such a good example of how to ruin an innocent person’s life But it doesn't? The accused person is never named publicly - a lawyer is involved to help decide on next steps. It seems you are concerned about fraudulent accusations. But this doesn't seem to do anything to make fraudulent accusations easier in any way because the public accusation is out-of-scope of what it does.

by nl 4y ago

nopenopenopeno 4y ago

>The article doesn't need to make the presumption of innocence Nor does the article have any business making the presumption of guilt, but it does exactly that. I am criticizing what the article actually does, not expecting it to do something more. All it takes is a person registering a name then receiving notification that others have registered the same name, then conflating that with evidence of guilt in the same exact manner the articles does. If the article didn’t set such a good example of how to ruin an innocent person’s life, I wouldn’t be concerned.

nl 4y ago
But the person entering the details already thinks the person they are entering it in is guilty, so unclear why getting notified would be "conflating that with evidence of guilt in the same exact manner the articles does". > If the article didn’t set such a good example of how to ruin an innocent person’s life But it doesn't? The accused person is never named publicly - a lawyer is involved to help decide on next steps. It seems you are concerned about fraudulent accusations. But this doesn't seem to do anything to make fraudulent accusations easier in any way because the public accusation is out-of-scope of what it does.