5 ms·

This is so obvious it’s sickening. Everyone associated should be fired. What an affront against the constitution.

hamhock666 3y ago
We need someone in the executive branch willing to enforce the constitution for anything to happen
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> so obvious it’s sickening It’s really not. The Third Party Doctrine has muddied the Fourth Amendment’s legal boundaries. The fact that a district judge originally ruled in the FBI’s favour should show that. > Everyone associated should be fired If they continue to think they did the right thing, sure. That’s incapacitation. But prioritising retribution isn’t helpful when restitution and deterrence are unfulfilled.
- bmulcahy 3y ago
  One way of understanding the previous comment in light of what you've said is: the third-party doctrine is so obviously wrong it's sickening.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the third-party doctrine is so obviously wrong it's sickening Perhaps I’m overindexing on the term “sickening,” but it seems unhelpful to bring an emotion like disgust into a technical legal discussion. Where one has (and doesn’t have) a reasonable expectation of privacy isn’t trivial. I think it’s obvious that a cop who recognizes a fugitive in public is acting reasonably while the same cop doing a facial-recognition search at a public school parking lot may not. Where does searching public Twitter photos lie? What if they’re only accessible with a login? If you can’t tell, I think the third-party doctrine as presently interpreted is wrong. But the history leading up to it is incredibly reasonable, recent and well documented.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - indymike 3y ago
      > Perhaps I’m overindexing on the term “sickening,” but it seems unhelpful to bring an emotion like disgust into a technical legal discussion. When true is redefined to false, it tends to raise emotions to a high level. Injustice often results in people's lives being disrupted and ruined where the ruin never should have happened. We should be disgusted by injustice.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > We should be disgusted by injustice Sure, do that. This isn’t that. Being “disgusted” by the Third Party Doctrine, broadly, isn’t the same as being offended by injustice.
        indymike 3y ago
        The third party doctrine is disgustingly unjust.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > I think it’s obvious that a cop who recognizes a fugitive in public is acting reasonably while the same cop doing a facial-recognition search at a public school parking lot may not. Where does searching public Twitter photos lie? What if they’re only accessible with a login? There are some pretty obvious and reasonable lines we could draw here. For example, is the thing available to the general population, or only to specific parties who haven't chosen to make it public? This doesn't necessarily answer your question, because you might e.g. have a reasonable expectation that data which is ephemerally available to the general population is not being recorded en masse and indexed into a central database, but it provides a boundary that would have eliminated a large swath of the trouble.
- indymike 3y ago
  > The Third Party Doctrine has muddied the Fourth Amendment’s legal boundaries. No, the third party doctrine was a mistake. > But prioritising retribution isn’t helpful when restitution I'm not sure in this case, that is what is going on. The sequence of decisions at the FBI and DOJ were so terrifyingly bad that the carriers of the ideas leading to those decisions need to be removed from the institution. They are a cancer.
- lmm 3y ago
  > If they continue to think they did the right thing, sure. That’s incapacitation. But prioritising retribution isn’t helpful when restitution and deterrence are unfulfilled. Firing would be a deterrent. Given qualified immunity, the consequences for this kind of abuse of power are small, and that's a factor in why so much of it happens.
mindslight 3y ago
"Fired" ?! I think you mean thrown in prison for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Being unconstitutional thus illegal, these actions could not have been carried out under governmental authority. Thus these actions should be prosecuted as anyone else's would be. I'm not necessarily a fan of creating such high stakes setups. But until these institutions are reformed around the concept of equity such that their victims are routinely and predictably reimbursed for the harms perpetrated by the institutions, we should fall back to insisting on criminal punishment for the individuals who enable them.
- SllX 3y ago
  Yeah, but wait till you hear about qualified immunity.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    I've certainly heard of it and it's one part of the cancer creating this state of societal breakdown. The concept needs to be soundly rejected. Any immunity shield should be narrowly scoped based on following written procedures. Acting within those procedures should mean that liability falls only on the institution. Acting outside those procedures should mean the institution and the agent are jointly/severally liable. One of the foundations of our society is that nobody is above the law, and government agencies need to stop being given this cheat code where they harm innocent victims and then just walk away from the situation unless it is especially egregious.
    - SllX 3y ago
      You’re preaching to the choir but the issue is that a lot of people “reject” it, and it is still an active part of American jurisprudence.
      - mindslight 3y ago
        Sure, the comment I was responding to ("fired") wasn't grounded in how things actually are either. The point is if we're talking about what ought to be, then let's aim for actual reform and actual justice rather than some token firings.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

We need someone in the executive branch willing to enforce the constitution for anything to happen

> so obvious it’s sickening It’s really not. The Third Party Doctrine has muddied the Fourth Amendment’s legal boundaries. The fact that a district judge originally ruled in the FBI’s favour should show that. > Everyone associated should be fired If they continue to think they did the right thing, sure. That’s incapacitation. But prioritising retribution isn’t helpful when restitution and deterrence are unfulfilled.

bmulcahy 3y ago
One way of understanding the previous comment in light of what you've said is: the third-party doctrine is so obviously wrong it's sickening.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > the third-party doctrine is so obviously wrong it's sickening Perhaps I’m overindexing on the term “sickening,” but it seems unhelpful to bring an emotion like disgust into a technical legal discussion. Where one has (and doesn’t have) a reasonable expectation of privacy isn’t trivial. I think it’s obvious that a cop who recognizes a fugitive in public is acting reasonably while the same cop doing a facial-recognition search at a public school parking lot may not. Where does searching public Twitter photos lie? What if they’re only accessible with a login? If you can’t tell, I think the third-party doctrine as presently interpreted is wrong. But the history leading up to it is incredibly reasonable, recent and well documented.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - indymike 3y ago
    > Perhaps I’m overindexing on the term “sickening,” but it seems unhelpful to bring an emotion like disgust into a technical legal discussion. When true is redefined to false, it tends to raise emotions to a high level. Injustice often results in people's lives being disrupted and ruined where the ruin never should have happened. We should be disgusted by injustice.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > We should be disgusted by injustice Sure, do that. This isn’t that. Being “disgusted” by the Third Party Doctrine, broadly, isn’t the same as being offended by injustice.
      - indymike 3y ago
        The third party doctrine is disgustingly unjust.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > I think it’s obvious that a cop who recognizes a fugitive in public is acting reasonably while the same cop doing a facial-recognition search at a public school parking lot may not. Where does searching public Twitter photos lie? What if they’re only accessible with a login? There are some pretty obvious and reasonable lines we could draw here. For example, is the thing available to the general population, or only to specific parties who haven't chosen to make it public? This doesn't necessarily answer your question, because you might e.g. have a reasonable expectation that data which is ephemerally available to the general population is not being recorded en masse and indexed into a central database, but it provides a boundary that would have eliminated a large swath of the trouble.
indymike 3y ago
> The Third Party Doctrine has muddied the Fourth Amendment’s legal boundaries. No, the third party doctrine was a mistake. > But prioritising retribution isn’t helpful when restitution I'm not sure in this case, that is what is going on. The sequence of decisions at the FBI and DOJ were so terrifyingly bad that the carriers of the ideas leading to those decisions need to be removed from the institution. They are a cancer.
lmm 3y ago
> If they continue to think they did the right thing, sure. That’s incapacitation. But prioritising retribution isn’t helpful when restitution and deterrence are unfulfilled. Firing would be a deterrent. Given qualified immunity, the consequences for this kind of abuse of power are small, and that's a factor in why so much of it happens.

mindslight 3y ago

"Fired" ?! I think you mean thrown in prison for armed robbery and conspiracy to commit armed robbery. Being unconstitutional thus illegal, these actions could not have been carried out under governmental authority. Thus these actions should be prosecuted as anyone else's would be. I'm not necessarily a fan of creating such high stakes setups. But until these institutions are reformed around the concept of equity such that their victims are routinely and predictably reimbursed for the harms perpetrated by the institutions, we should fall back to insisting on criminal punishment for the individuals who enable them.

SllX 3y ago
Yeah, but wait till you hear about qualified immunity.
- mindslight 3y ago
  I've certainly heard of it and it's one part of the cancer creating this state of societal breakdown. The concept needs to be soundly rejected. Any immunity shield should be narrowly scoped based on following written procedures. Acting within those procedures should mean that liability falls only on the institution. Acting outside those procedures should mean the institution and the agent are jointly/severally liable. One of the foundations of our society is that nobody is above the law, and government agencies need to stop being given this cheat code where they harm innocent victims and then just walk away from the situation unless it is especially egregious.
  - SllX 3y ago
    You’re preaching to the choir but the issue is that a lot of people “reject” it, and it is still an active part of American jurisprudence.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      Sure, the comment I was responding to ("fired") wasn't grounded in how things actually are either. The point is if we're talking about what ought to be, then let's aim for actual reform and actual justice rather than some token firings.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]