3 ms·

> It is proposed that this arrangement be modified to include a warrant requirement. That defeats the entire point of this arrangement, which allows them to in

> It is proposed that this arrangement be modified to include a warrant requirement. That defeats the entire point of this arrangement, which allows them to investigate in situations where the legal requirements for obtaining a warrant are not met. (Which is the elephant in the room: the entire premise of this system is to bypass established legal thresholds). > Although I am comfortable accepting that your agency demonstrates the integrity you indicate I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. As you mention, system abuse by law enforcement is incredibly common at agencies across the country. If you talk to any person at one of those agencies, they will almost invariably tell you that their coworkers take their job seriously, that they never abuse their own power, and that they can't imagine their coworkers doing the same.

CodeAndCuffs 3y ago
> That defeats the entire point of this arrangement, which allows them to investigate in situations where the legal requirements for obtaining a warrant are not met. (Which is the elephant in the room: the entire premise of this system is to bypass established legal thresholds). This is just 100% false. If im pulling a prescription from a pharmacy its because Doctor Adams told me "I never wrote a prescription for Bill Barnes for percocet, but this state maintained record says that he filled a prescription for percocet at CVS #12345 on main street". That statement alone is enough to get a warrant for said pharmacy records.
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > That statement alone is enough to get a warrant for said pharmacy records. Great, then get a warrant. The entire reason this story exists is because people are surprised and - rightfully - upset that law enforcement is able to access this information without one.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    >> That statement alone is enough to get a warrant for said pharmacy records. > Great, then get a warrant. I agree with my whole heart. This is the meat and bone of the discussion. And an important side note: The assertions "can't access without a warrant" and "can't access at all" need to be clearly distinct at all times. Once the 1st gets translated as the 2nd, the good faith portion of this discussion is lost.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
>> Although I am comfortable accepting that your agency demonstrates the integrity you indicate > I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. As you mention, system abuse by law enforcement is incredibly common at agencies across the country. I feel a benefit of the doubt costs us little in this instance and I feel we need a familiarity with what responsible policing looks like. To me, the OPs recounting provides that. Past that, I believe that the widespread bad behavior of other agencies is insufficient reason for mistrust here. And casually using others' bad behavior to justify mistrust - this is something we reasonably criticize police for.
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > I feel we need a familiarity with what responsible policing looks like. To me, the OPs recounting provides that. The point is that nearly every cop you talk to will sound like OP. That doesn't mean anything about the integrity of them or their coworkers; it just means that they're capable of articulating their own behavior in a way that makes them sound reasonable with no context. That's an incredibly low bar, one that nearly every abusive cop will clear. To repeat what I said in a separate comment: Having worked extensively in this area, I'll be blunt and say that anytime someone who works in law enforcement says that there are no abuses of power in their workplace, that means either they were so oblivious that they never saw abuses that are occurring around them, or they were so mired in the system that they are incapable of recognizing the abuses of power that they themselves are participating in. > Past that, I believe that the widespread bad behavior of other agencies is insufficient reason for mistrust here. On the contrary, that's exactly what "systemic abuse of power" means. It means that the bad behavior is so ingrained in the operations of the system that individuals' actions contribute to its operations, whether or not they recognize or even understand it.
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    And you may well have the right of it. I'd agree that federal and state LEO serve their govs, unilaterally and universally. They exist to advance the interests of the party in power and campaign contributors. As a public-of-individuals, our best interests may get occasionally get served by accident but our actual welfare is never, ever, not-ever the primary focus. All that said, I still avoid Cops Suck as the default. Broadly speaking: The more local the force, the less certain is the system-serving corruption. You can get to a place with an ethical+competent commissioner/chief/sheriff. Under them, officers can be allowed to focus on being ethical+competent. I have personally witnessed this. Where those officers might exist, I want to be fair.

CodeAndCuffs 3y ago

> That defeats the entire point of this arrangement, which allows them to investigate in situations where the legal requirements for obtaining a warrant are not met. (Which is the elephant in the room: the entire premise of this system is to bypass established legal thresholds). This is just 100% false. If im pulling a prescription from a pharmacy its because Doctor Adams told me "I never wrote a prescription for Bill Barnes for percocet, but this state maintained record says that he filled a prescription for percocet at CVS #12345 on main street". That statement alone is enough to get a warrant for said pharmacy records.

chimeracoder 3y ago
> That statement alone is enough to get a warrant for said pharmacy records. Great, then get a warrant. The entire reason this story exists is because people are surprised and - rightfully - upset that law enforcement is able to access this information without one.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  >> That statement alone is enough to get a warrant for said pharmacy records. > Great, then get a warrant. I agree with my whole heart. This is the meat and bone of the discussion. And an important side note: The assertions "can't access without a warrant" and "can't access at all" need to be clearly distinct at all times. Once the 1st gets translated as the 2nd, the good faith portion of this discussion is lost.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

>> Although I am comfortable accepting that your agency demonstrates the integrity you indicate > I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. As you mention, system abuse by law enforcement is incredibly common at agencies across the country. I feel a benefit of the doubt costs us little in this instance and I feel we need a familiarity with what responsible policing looks like. To me, the OPs recounting provides that. Past that, I believe that the widespread bad behavior of other agencies is insufficient reason for mistrust here. And casually using others' bad behavior to justify mistrust - this is something we reasonably criticize police for.

chimeracoder 3y ago
> I feel we need a familiarity with what responsible policing looks like. To me, the OPs recounting provides that. The point is that nearly every cop you talk to will sound like OP. That doesn't mean anything about the integrity of them or their coworkers; it just means that they're capable of articulating their own behavior in a way that makes them sound reasonable with no context. That's an incredibly low bar, one that nearly every abusive cop will clear. To repeat what I said in a separate comment: Having worked extensively in this area, I'll be blunt and say that anytime someone who works in law enforcement says that there are no abuses of power in their workplace, that means either they were so oblivious that they never saw abuses that are occurring around them, or they were so mired in the system that they are incapable of recognizing the abuses of power that they themselves are participating in. > Past that, I believe that the widespread bad behavior of other agencies is insufficient reason for mistrust here. On the contrary, that's exactly what "systemic abuse of power" means. It means that the bad behavior is so ingrained in the operations of the system that individuals' actions contribute to its operations, whether or not they recognize or even understand it.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  And you may well have the right of it. I'd agree that federal and state LEO serve their govs, unilaterally and universally. They exist to advance the interests of the party in power and campaign contributors. As a public-of-individuals, our best interests may get occasionally get served by accident but our actual welfare is never, ever, not-ever the primary focus. All that said, I still avoid Cops Suck as the default. Broadly speaking: The more local the force, the less certain is the system-serving corruption. You can get to a place with an ethical+competent commissioner/chief/sheriff. Under them, officers can be allowed to focus on being ethical+competent. I have personally witnessed this. Where those officers might exist, I want to be fair.