3 ms·

You're confusing accuracy and precision. You want search warrants to be precise, but the only way to guarantee accuracy is to know in advance the fruits of the

You're confusing accuracy and precision. You want search warrants to be precise, but the only way to guarantee accuracy is to know in advance the fruits of the search. You can have a solid foundation for a warrant against an individual, but find out they aren't responsible, a 100% miss rate! But that's the problem, you don't know what you dont know, which is why you need a search warrant (and justification for it) to begin with.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
If you're regularly getting warrants against innocent people, someone needs to be fired and/or jailed. If there's any part of your process that is regularly putting innocent people into the line of fire of police, something is wrong and needs to change. You're entirely too cavalier about the risks associated with this, which was the point of the previous posters 40% metric. IOW, No one is afraid of a gun until it's pointed at them or their loved ones. And that's being fair to your blaise attitude.
- DistractionRect 3y ago
  Again, if you already know with 100% certainty the fruits the search, then there's no need to do it as you can already prove whatever case you're building. People are presumed innocent until proved guilty which is to say search warrants are practically always used against innocent people. And just because a search warrant comes up short does not mean the person is innocent. A person's rights are not absolute. There are limitations, exceptions, and cases where they are taken away. Search warrants are an exception where a persons right to privacy are infringed upon in service of a greater good. It's not done lightly, and it will never be perfectly accurate. Taken to an extreme, if we treat the right to privacy as an absolute, that would mean one could murder with impunity on private property so long as it's out of view. People could strongly suspect, but not prove, the murders without infringing on the right to privacy. On the other hand, a murder occurring doesn't give LE carte Blanche to search the houses and computers of everyone in the county. We have to compromise in between. It's a grey area, but I think in this instance it was perfectly reasonable and narrow. But it could be argued that this is to the left or the right of where the compromise ought to be.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    warrants should not be given out like candy. If you are regularly giving warrants out for innocent people, it means the due diligence is lacking. What you're trying to say is that sometimes it's reasonable to be incorrect. __sometimes__, yes. That's not what your attitude suggests here.
- patrick451 3y ago
  > IOW, No one is afraid of a gun until it's pointed at them or their loved ones. And that's being fair to your blaise attitude. Not to mention the metaphorical gun of just getting investigated. We send innocent people to prison all the time. Just because you did nothing wrong in no way implies you won't go to prison if a DA thinks he get get a conviction.
bsder 3y ago
> You're confusing accuracy and precision. I am not confusing anything. I am pointing out that 2 perfectly innocent people who did a perfectly legal thing wound up as the target of the police through no fault of their own solely thanks to Google. The question is: what safeguard is in place so that those innocent people caught in a too-unspecific dragnet don't wind up with damage being done by the police? And, the answer right now appears to be "Absolutely nothing." This isn't theoretical. Swatting is a thing. People get shot because the police went to the wrong address. etc. No, 60% accuracy is NOT good enough when someone might wind up up dead at the end of the interaction. Sorry. Hard disagree. As if I didn't have enough reason to remove Google from my life, police turning up on my doorstep because Google handed them data should sure drive that home.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

If you're regularly getting warrants against innocent people, someone needs to be fired and/or jailed. If there's any part of your process that is regularly putting innocent people into the line of fire of police, something is wrong and needs to change. You're entirely too cavalier about the risks associated with this, which was the point of the previous posters 40% metric. IOW, No one is afraid of a gun until it's pointed at them or their loved ones. And that's being fair to your blaise attitude.

DistractionRect 3y ago
Again, if you already know with 100% certainty the fruits the search, then there's no need to do it as you can already prove whatever case you're building. People are presumed innocent until proved guilty which is to say search warrants are practically always used against innocent people. And just because a search warrant comes up short does not mean the person is innocent. A person's rights are not absolute. There are limitations, exceptions, and cases where they are taken away. Search warrants are an exception where a persons right to privacy are infringed upon in service of a greater good. It's not done lightly, and it will never be perfectly accurate. Taken to an extreme, if we treat the right to privacy as an absolute, that would mean one could murder with impunity on private property so long as it's out of view. People could strongly suspect, but not prove, the murders without infringing on the right to privacy. On the other hand, a murder occurring doesn't give LE carte Blanche to search the houses and computers of everyone in the county. We have to compromise in between. It's a grey area, but I think in this instance it was perfectly reasonable and narrow. But it could be argued that this is to the left or the right of where the compromise ought to be.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  warrants should not be given out like candy. If you are regularly giving warrants out for innocent people, it means the due diligence is lacking. What you're trying to say is that sometimes it's reasonable to be incorrect. __sometimes__, yes. That's not what your attitude suggests here.
patrick451 3y ago
> IOW, No one is afraid of a gun until it's pointed at them or their loved ones. And that's being fair to your blaise attitude. Not to mention the metaphorical gun of just getting investigated. We send innocent people to prison all the time. Just because you did nothing wrong in no way implies you won't go to prison if a DA thinks he get get a conviction.

bsder 3y ago

> You're confusing accuracy and precision. I am not confusing anything. I am pointing out that 2 perfectly innocent people who did a perfectly legal thing wound up as the target of the police through no fault of their own solely thanks to Google. The question is: what safeguard is in place so that those innocent people caught in a too-unspecific dragnet don't wind up with damage being done by the police? And, the answer right now appears to be "Absolutely nothing." This isn't theoretical. Swatting is a thing. People get shot because the police went to the wrong address. etc. No, 60% accuracy is NOT good enough when someone might wind up up dead at the end of the interaction. Sorry. Hard disagree. As if I didn't have enough reason to remove Google from my life, police turning up on my doorstep because Google handed them data should sure drive that home.