7 ms·

It sounds like this was a piece of software where you uploaded a PDF of “proof” that you had the authority to track anyone in America, and then it let you. And

It sounds like this was a piece of software where you uploaded a PDF of “proof” that you had the authority to track anyone in America, and then it let you. And someone finally bothered to look at the proof and it was a blank page. This is why I’m against giving the government the power to intercept communications or middle-man encryption. They always pitch it like “This power will be protected by courts and warrants and Fort Knox level security!!” and then it’s a checkbox that any bureaucrat can use to violate civil liberties en masse.

bjornsing 3y ago
Yea I sometimes get a feeling that a large portion of the population just doesn’t understand conditionals. If you tell them “you have the authority to do X if Y”, they just ignore the Y part.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  People who are drunk on power subscribe to the "ask for forgiveness, not permission" philosophy. They think everything they do is right and just. They cannot understand or even believe people would not trust them and see the conditional as a pointless hindrance, bureaucratic red tape meant to stifle upstanding people like them.
  - vjk800 3y ago
    Also, the system doesn't really penalize this philosophy. Try to do everything by the book and you find that you can't really get anything done. Cut some corners, you get shit done and, in the worst case, you get a mild slap on the wrist several years later.
    - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
      And completely break down some walls, injuring others in the process? Get a promotion, and if caught just move somewhere else to do the same thing over again.
  - mopenstein 3y ago
    People love to wield power over those they oppose and don't care if the system they implement is abused until they're the targets of the abuse. For example: most people love the police when they coercing wealth from strangers to fund their projects but hate when the same police step on their chest until they stop breathing during a traffic stop.
    - vacuity 3y ago
      Your first sentence is generally true but > when they coercing wealth from strangers to fund their projects I have no idea what you're referencing here, so I can't say if it's abuse or not.
- vjk800 3y ago
  It's not about understanding, it's about seeing these sort of rules bent dozens of times first and then finally doing it yourself. Rules are only as strong as their enforcement and in many cases it turns out that no-one has neither the incentive nor the ability to enforce them very hard.
  - bjornsing 3y ago
    After some bantering with Swedish police officers on Twitter I’ve come to believe that many of them simply do not make a distinction between what they have the authority to do, and what they can get away with in practice.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    One of the things that would help this if anytime any of these surveillance powers get used, they have to be used as part of a specific ongoing investigation, and when that investigation is closed, everything related to it becomes a matter of public record. And then you have some hard rules like, investigations are automatically closed after the statute of limitations runs, or if the target of the investigation dies, or the victim chooses not to press charges etc. Things not in the control of the investigators, so they can't keep an investigation open forever to prevent their abuses from becoming public.
    - zozbot234 3y ago
      This is unworkable, sadly. I don't want my past location data to become a "matter of public record" merely because I have been caught up as a bystander in some random law enforcement investigation and it all ends up in the case file.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Obviously personally identifying information could be redacted without doing so for the request itself. But you're just reiterating the problem that third parties are collecting the location data of innocent bystanders. Otherwise it wouldn't exist to be in the file.
- kelipso 3y ago
  Because the government and pretty much all those power ignore Y, and whenever they get caught, vast majority of cases they don't get punished. Of course anyone remotely intelligent would ignore the Y part too. Only extremely gullible people with their blind trust in government would look at Y part and nod along. This particular case very much the exception.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
See also LOVEINT. Every once in a while, some NSA spy gets caught spying on their loved ones. Not even incompetence, just plain malice and abuse. Looks like they don't even face any criminal charges either. Governments are essentially adversaries, enemies we have to defend against. It must be mathematically impossible for them to abuse their power. Anything short of that is not enough.
- wpietri 3y ago
  > Anything short of that is not enough. I like that in spirit, but not as a practical standard. A major function of government is to prevent abuses of power. So I'm more inclined to shoot for overall minimization of abuse.
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    Well, in this case a random law enforcement deputy could get sensitive location information about random people with no meaningful cross-check of any sort - and this has only come to light after the fact, as part of a criminal investigation. So there's reason to be highly skeptical that the status quo is the best we can do when it comes to preventing abuse across the board.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > A major function of government is to prevent abuses of power. But they can still do this. If you want to know where someone is, instead of compelling devices or carriers to spy on everyone at all times, you attach a tracker to the suspect's vehicle, or assign an agent to follow them. That's more expensive -- which is the deterrent to abuse. A bad cop doesn't have time to follow around their ex all day. They do have time to follow around the subject of an official investigation, because that's their job. Tracking devices cost money, so it limits the number of people who can be tracked at once and prevents mass surveillance. The argument for compulsory backdoors is purely an efficiency case, but efficiency is less important than preventing abuse.
    - zozbot234 3y ago
runlevel1 3y ago
Ironically, some of the documents he uploaded included award certificates and a list of justifications for a merit promotion. Referenced in paragraph 13, but unfortunately not attached: https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/07/14/pena_indictment_0.pdf https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/0...
paddw 3y ago
> and someone finally bothered to look at the proof and it was a blank page. I think I agree more than not with your worldview, but it seems like in this case this was the first time the person tried to improperly use the system... and he was caught and is now being sentenced. So I would say this is an example of the system "working". I'm sure there are civil rights abuses that happen much more frequently, which we don't here about, but this specific incident seems like something that should be cheered.
- asdfasdlfkj 3y ago
  According to the second sentence of the article, the officer tracked multiple people and their locations. He clearly wasn't caught the first time he used the tool inappropriately because he was found guilty of using it illegally multiple times. The officer very clearly was not forthcoming with the investigation, judging from him falsifying documents after the investigation started. So he may have other undetected crimes. In fact, the only fair conclusion I think you can draw is that some officer(s) use the tool inappropriately. Because it's not clear if all uses are audited, or this officer was found on a random check. But in my opinion saying "the system worked" is inappropriate given the lack of data.
- kelipso 3y ago
  Is this some kind of parody? He got caught because it was a literal blank piece of paper. Anyone with any sense would write some bullshit paragraph and I'm sure plenty did and got away with it.
HWR_14 3y ago
I read it the exact opposite way. It turns out that when you punish people with a decade in prison for lying, you can just operate on their word and verify later. I don't need a system that never gives data to a malicious user. It doesn't need to be Fort Knox. It needs to be logged and audited regularly and for people who abuse it to be punished severely. I'm sure there are lots of technical measures keeping my bank account safe. But, the greatest measure is that if you take the money the US government will throw you in jail.
raxxorraxor 3y ago
Courts are also sometimes full of work so any request by the executive will be granted by default. The chances of repercussions are much smaller to decide this way.

bjornsing 3y ago

Yea I sometimes get a feeling that a large portion of the population just doesn’t understand conditionals. If you tell them “you have the authority to do X if Y”, they just ignore the Y part.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
People who are drunk on power subscribe to the "ask for forgiveness, not permission" philosophy. They think everything they do is right and just. They cannot understand or even believe people would not trust them and see the conditional as a pointless hindrance, bureaucratic red tape meant to stifle upstanding people like them.
- vjk800 3y ago
  Also, the system doesn't really penalize this philosophy. Try to do everything by the book and you find that you can't really get anything done. Cut some corners, you get shit done and, in the worst case, you get a mild slap on the wrist several years later.
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    And completely break down some walls, injuring others in the process? Get a promotion, and if caught just move somewhere else to do the same thing over again.
- mopenstein 3y ago
  People love to wield power over those they oppose and don't care if the system they implement is abused until they're the targets of the abuse. For example: most people love the police when they coercing wealth from strangers to fund their projects but hate when the same police step on their chest until they stop breathing during a traffic stop.
  - vacuity 3y ago
    Your first sentence is generally true but > when they coercing wealth from strangers to fund their projects I have no idea what you're referencing here, so I can't say if it's abuse or not.
vjk800 3y ago
It's not about understanding, it's about seeing these sort of rules bent dozens of times first and then finally doing it yourself. Rules are only as strong as their enforcement and in many cases it turns out that no-one has neither the incentive nor the ability to enforce them very hard.
- bjornsing 3y ago
  After some bantering with Swedish police officers on Twitter I’ve come to believe that many of them simply do not make a distinction between what they have the authority to do, and what they can get away with in practice.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  One of the things that would help this if anytime any of these surveillance powers get used, they have to be used as part of a specific ongoing investigation, and when that investigation is closed, everything related to it becomes a matter of public record. And then you have some hard rules like, investigations are automatically closed after the statute of limitations runs, or if the target of the investigation dies, or the victim chooses not to press charges etc. Things not in the control of the investigators, so they can't keep an investigation open forever to prevent their abuses from becoming public.
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    This is unworkable, sadly. I don't want my past location data to become a "matter of public record" merely because I have been caught up as a bystander in some random law enforcement investigation and it all ends up in the case file.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Obviously personally identifying information could be redacted without doing so for the request itself. But you're just reiterating the problem that third parties are collecting the location data of innocent bystanders. Otherwise it wouldn't exist to be in the file.
kelipso 3y ago
Because the government and pretty much all those power ignore Y, and whenever they get caught, vast majority of cases they don't get punished. Of course anyone remotely intelligent would ignore the Y part too. Only extremely gullible people with their blind trust in government would look at Y part and nod along. This particular case very much the exception.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

See also LOVEINT. Every once in a while, some NSA spy gets caught spying on their loved ones. Not even incompetence, just plain malice and abuse. Looks like they don't even face any criminal charges either. Governments are essentially adversaries, enemies we have to defend against. It must be mathematically impossible for them to abuse their power. Anything short of that is not enough.

wpietri 3y ago
> Anything short of that is not enough. I like that in spirit, but not as a practical standard. A major function of government is to prevent abuses of power. So I'm more inclined to shoot for overall minimization of abuse.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  Well, in this case a random law enforcement deputy could get sensitive location information about random people with no meaningful cross-check of any sort - and this has only come to light after the fact, as part of a criminal investigation. So there's reason to be highly skeptical that the status quo is the best we can do when it comes to preventing abuse across the board.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > A major function of government is to prevent abuses of power. But they can still do this. If you want to know where someone is, instead of compelling devices or carriers to spy on everyone at all times, you attach a tracker to the suspect's vehicle, or assign an agent to follow them. That's more expensive -- which is the deterrent to abuse. A bad cop doesn't have time to follow around their ex all day. They do have time to follow around the subject of an official investigation, because that's their job. Tracking devices cost money, so it limits the number of people who can be tracked at once and prevents mass surveillance. The argument for compulsory backdoors is purely an efficiency case, but efficiency is less important than preventing abuse.
  - zozbot234 3y ago

runlevel1 3y ago

Ironically, some of the documents he uploaded included award certificates and a list of justifications for a merit promotion. Referenced in paragraph 13, but unfortunately not attached: https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/07/14/pena_indictment_0.pdf https://www.justice.gov/d9/press-releases/attachments/2022/0...

paddw 3y ago

> and someone finally bothered to look at the proof and it was a blank page. I think I agree more than not with your worldview, but it seems like in this case this was the first time the person tried to improperly use the system... and he was caught and is now being sentenced. So I would say this is an example of the system "working". I'm sure there are civil rights abuses that happen much more frequently, which we don't here about, but this specific incident seems like something that should be cheered.

asdfasdlfkj 3y ago
According to the second sentence of the article, the officer tracked multiple people and their locations. He clearly wasn't caught the first time he used the tool inappropriately because he was found guilty of using it illegally multiple times. The officer very clearly was not forthcoming with the investigation, judging from him falsifying documents after the investigation started. So he may have other undetected crimes. In fact, the only fair conclusion I think you can draw is that some officer(s) use the tool inappropriately. Because it's not clear if all uses are audited, or this officer was found on a random check. But in my opinion saying "the system worked" is inappropriate given the lack of data.
kelipso 3y ago
Is this some kind of parody? He got caught because it was a literal blank piece of paper. Anyone with any sense would write some bullshit paragraph and I'm sure plenty did and got away with it.

HWR_14 3y ago

I read it the exact opposite way. It turns out that when you punish people with a decade in prison for lying, you can just operate on their word and verify later. I don't need a system that never gives data to a malicious user. It doesn't need to be Fort Knox. It needs to be logged and audited regularly and for people who abuse it to be punished severely. I'm sure there are lots of technical measures keeping my bank account safe. But, the greatest measure is that if you take the money the US government will throw you in jail.

raxxorraxor 3y ago

Courts are also sometimes full of work so any request by the executive will be granted by default. The chances of repercussions are much smaller to decide this way.