4 ms·

I don’t disagree with anything you said - I just think it’s a case of missing the forest for the trees if we single out government purchases when many of these

by kbos87 3y ago

I don’t disagree with anything you said - I just think it’s a case of missing the forest for the trees if we single out government purchases when many of these tools are well on their way to broad availability anyway. It feels like suspicion of and focus on government is occluding the larger problem here. The public may not have the legal authority to break down doors and generally take matters into their own hands, but that certainly doesn’t stop people from doing so.

Eisenstein 3y ago
Access to the tools by the public seems like a thorny legislative issue. There are no new laws that need to be passed to require cops to tell everyone how they found evidence. That they call these 'investigative tools' and don't disclose their use is something very fixable. Law enforcement can't think they don't have to be transparent from those who hold them accountable (including defense lawyers -- remember that 'free on a technicality' means that someone in the justice system did something very wrong and got called on it).