8 ms·

Good, that is the way it should have been the whole time. The default view of government by businesses and people should be as an adversary. It is the duty of

Good, that is the way it should have been the whole time. The default view of government by businesses and people should be as an adversary. It is the duty of everybody to tell the government to stuff it when they aren't following the rules we have laid out for them.

ijhuygft776 3y ago
They will still be able to access the data... using secret laws this time.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Going to a judge for a warrant is not a "secret law." The intelligence community is legally barred from collecting on US persons anyway, and they also DGAF about petty crime, because they have more important national security-related fish to fry.
  - smolder 3y ago
    > The intelligence community is legally barred from collecting on US persons Only for their made-up definition of the word "collecting", which in some cases is "retrieving the data which we have already collected and stored".
- quirk 3y ago
  Yes this is the weird part. Since this activity was always voluntary, I wonder about the real reason for this policy change.
- paxys 3y ago
  We are taking about a random local cop here, not the NSA.
  - ijhuygft776 3y ago
    You obviously haven't heard about parallel construction (or evidence laundering)....
sandworm101 3y ago
This isnt a traffic stop. Companies of size have daily relationships with law enfocement. While they certainly have obligations to customers, we cannot expect companies to be aggressively confrontational in every situation.
- ddoolin 3y ago
  I don't think it needs to be confrontational to say "no" when it's not required by law. In the US we have been led to believe that it's confrontational to stand up for your rights to police (e.g. to deny IDing yourself when asked without being detained, etc in most states).
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    But what if one is wrong about one's rights? A person mistakenly asserting themselves might have a car window smashed and spend a night in jail for obstruction. But a company mistakenly asserting rights can see equipment seized, fines, civil liabiliy, and possibly very negative regulator treatment. It is not unreasonable for a company to be very careful when saying no to US law enforcement. Cassually telling the cops to "stuff it" is a protest best left to individuals at the roadside.
    - FireBeyond 3y ago
      It is unreasonable. But it is a broken system. I mean, in general, there shouldn't be situations that are described as "mistakenly asserting rights". But as you say, the alignment and incentives are opposed, and it's too easy, not better, for companies to choose the path of least resistance, rights be damned.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      If the cops are asking, it means they need your permission and you have the right to say no. They might be dicks about it but if they’re asking, you can say no. Conversely if they don’t need your permission, they won’t bother asking. And you can always verbally tell them you don’t consent to searches; you only really get in trouble for physically interfering. Also, companies in particular have lawyers whose entire full time job is to know when to tell the government to “stuff it” (though usually in much classier terms). Apple famously did this with the FBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute
nashashmi 3y ago
Plot twist: they want the officers to ask amazon directly (for a fee). Cut out the person who actually owns the device. And who supposedly owns the recording.
jibe 3y ago
program that had allowed law enforcement to seek footage from users on a voluntary basis This was a voluntary program though. Blocking the police from asking for help is unnecessarily adversarial. You are right about police collecting video from Ring without user involvement, but this was transparent and voluntary.
- _ea1k 3y ago
  Yeah, if someone commits a crime at my neighbor's house, I appreciate that there's an easy way to collect data from any cameras that might be used to catch them. This kind of thing is far more useful for good things than for bad. It isn't like they were pulling videos without consent to send tickets for rolling stops. Although if they did, they could collect enough revenue to fix every road in the country. :lol
  - vineyardmike 3y ago
    I have a friend who’s abusive and manipulative partner setup ring cameras around the house. After they broke up, the bad ex then took videos of day to day life and sent them to the police as evidence of physical abuse. A good lawyer got the case dropped pretty quick, but not before she spent a weekend in jail, got fired as a teacher, and spent thousands on legal fees. The police had “video evidence” and therefore refused to drop the case even when the ex retracted the claims, and required months of fighting the legal system. Beyond that awful freak incident, there’s tons of cases of police planting evidence, police ignoring real evidence, and police using an individual’s voluntary will to help them catch one crime to implicate an innocent person in a petty crime unexpectedly. There’d have to be a pretty big crime for me to voluntarily show the police any video of myself.
    - _ea1k 3y ago
      I'm confused. If you are being falsely accused, wouldn't you want video evidence? Otherwise it becomes one person's word vs another, which often comes with its own biases (first to call the police wins, better lawyer wins, etc).
the_other 3y ago
> The default view of government by businesses and people should be as an adversary. This is ridiculous. The default view in a parliamentary democracy should be that government is your employee and that its job is to watch out for you. Where your interests collide with those of your fellow citizens, government or judiciary should be mediating and managing, seeking consensus or compromise, ideally with your involvement. Yes, this is naive. But it's the core function we should be able to rely on; it should be the measure we use to assess the efficacy of our governments. Anything else and you're replicating feudalism or dictatorship. If you default to government being your adversary, your system is broken and you should be working to fix it rather than giving up and calling it the enemy. Frankly, this labelling of government as the enemy is exactly what allows opportunists to sieze power.
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  adversary - one that contends with, opposes, or resists It is a matter of trust of other humans with power. Government can do good but is made of flawed humans. Trusting the government to always be good and stay good is a recipe for disaster. For government to stay trustworthy it requires people to oppose oversteps. It is an adversarial relationship. That isn't a bad thing. It is necessary for everything to work and stay working.
- RobRivera 3y ago
  When the government behaves as an adverse actor, they lose this trust. Would you like datapoints about times the government lied and subverted communities? Bc I have data points. Many data points. From many cultures that were illegally infringed upon hy the government. And practices Just say the word.
  - aspenmayer 3y ago
    > Just say the word. Please share, if you please.
    - RobRivera 3y ago
      Jacksons handling of the Cherokee Jim Crow laws Nypd use of stingers to violate your privacy then replicate a criminal investigation independent of the stinger information to subvert DoJ processes and the rights of protection against unlawful search and seizures. internment of US citizens due to their Japanese heritage. CIA involvement in the Iran Contra debacle fueling the cocaine epidemic The burning of unarmed civilians at Waco Texas Would you like more?
zer00eyz 3y ago
>> Good, that is the way it should have been the whole time. The corpse of John Adams probably has a smirk. > government ... people ... as an adversary. Adams had some interesting views, ones the courts dont share but he did. In his thought, the final check on power was the jury. It did not matter what the LAW said, it matters what the jury thought, that a jury at any point could just choose to nullify a law. In many places talking about this near courts will get you held in contempt. But at lest one of the founding fathers though "telling the government to stuff it" was the right thing to do.
- grow2grow 3y ago
  Thanks for reminding us about this. Also another reminder, for everybody throwing a lasso around everything and hating on it, you're actually upset with the bureaucracy (which contains law enforcement). Remember folks, the U.S. gov't is split into four parts: 1. Legislative branch (makes laws for the executive branch to approve, and for the judicial branch to possibly overturn, and creates functions within the bureaucracy) 2. Judicial branch (throws away or reenforces work done by the legislative+executive branch) 3. Executive branch (controls the bureaucracy, great filter for the legislative branch) 4. Bureaucracy network (the informal branch of the gov't of employees rendering services for the citizens, most people end up complaining about: law enforcement, department workers, the postoffice and military) So yes, tell the bureaucracy to stuff it. Telling one of the other three branches to stuff it probably doesn't fly too well.
paxys 3y ago
> The default view of government by businesses and people should be as an adversary This is never ever going to be the default unless it is legislated. A business has much more to gain by aligning itself with the government than with the general population.

ijhuygft776 3y ago

They will still be able to access the data... using secret laws this time.

psunavy03 3y ago
Going to a judge for a warrant is not a "secret law." The intelligence community is legally barred from collecting on US persons anyway, and they also DGAF about petty crime, because they have more important national security-related fish to fry.
- smolder 3y ago
  > The intelligence community is legally barred from collecting on US persons Only for their made-up definition of the word "collecting", which in some cases is "retrieving the data which we have already collected and stored".
quirk 3y ago
Yes this is the weird part. Since this activity was always voluntary, I wonder about the real reason for this policy change.
paxys 3y ago
We are taking about a random local cop here, not the NSA.
- ijhuygft776 3y ago
  You obviously haven't heard about parallel construction (or evidence laundering)....

sandworm101 3y ago

This isnt a traffic stop. Companies of size have daily relationships with law enfocement. While they certainly have obligations to customers, we cannot expect companies to be aggressively confrontational in every situation.

ddoolin 3y ago
I don't think it needs to be confrontational to say "no" when it's not required by law. In the US we have been led to believe that it's confrontational to stand up for your rights to police (e.g. to deny IDing yourself when asked without being detained, etc in most states).
- sandworm101 3y ago
  But what if one is wrong about one's rights? A person mistakenly asserting themselves might have a car window smashed and spend a night in jail for obstruction. But a company mistakenly asserting rights can see equipment seized, fines, civil liabiliy, and possibly very negative regulator treatment. It is not unreasonable for a company to be very careful when saying no to US law enforcement. Cassually telling the cops to "stuff it" is a protest best left to individuals at the roadside.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    It is unreasonable. But it is a broken system. I mean, in general, there shouldn't be situations that are described as "mistakenly asserting rights". But as you say, the alignment and incentives are opposed, and it's too easy, not better, for companies to choose the path of least resistance, rights be damned.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    If the cops are asking, it means they need your permission and you have the right to say no. They might be dicks about it but if they’re asking, you can say no. Conversely if they don’t need your permission, they won’t bother asking. And you can always verbally tell them you don’t consent to searches; you only really get in trouble for physically interfering. Also, companies in particular have lawyers whose entire full time job is to know when to tell the government to “stuff it” (though usually in much classier terms). Apple famously did this with the FBI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple–FBI_encryption_dispute

nashashmi 3y ago

Plot twist: they want the officers to ask amazon directly (for a fee). Cut out the person who actually owns the device. And who supposedly owns the recording.

jibe 3y ago

program that had allowed law enforcement to seek footage from users on a voluntary basis This was a voluntary program though. Blocking the police from asking for help is unnecessarily adversarial. You are right about police collecting video from Ring without user involvement, but this was transparent and voluntary.

_ea1k 3y ago
Yeah, if someone commits a crime at my neighbor's house, I appreciate that there's an easy way to collect data from any cameras that might be used to catch them. This kind of thing is far more useful for good things than for bad. It isn't like they were pulling videos without consent to send tickets for rolling stops. Although if they did, they could collect enough revenue to fix every road in the country. :lol
- vineyardmike 3y ago
  I have a friend who’s abusive and manipulative partner setup ring cameras around the house. After they broke up, the bad ex then took videos of day to day life and sent them to the police as evidence of physical abuse. A good lawyer got the case dropped pretty quick, but not before she spent a weekend in jail, got fired as a teacher, and spent thousands on legal fees. The police had “video evidence” and therefore refused to drop the case even when the ex retracted the claims, and required months of fighting the legal system. Beyond that awful freak incident, there’s tons of cases of police planting evidence, police ignoring real evidence, and police using an individual’s voluntary will to help them catch one crime to implicate an innocent person in a petty crime unexpectedly. There’d have to be a pretty big crime for me to voluntarily show the police any video of myself.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    I'm confused. If you are being falsely accused, wouldn't you want video evidence? Otherwise it becomes one person's word vs another, which often comes with its own biases (first to call the police wins, better lawyer wins, etc).

the_other 3y ago

> The default view of government by businesses and people should be as an adversary. This is ridiculous. The default view in a parliamentary democracy should be that government is your employee and that its job is to watch out for you. Where your interests collide with those of your fellow citizens, government or judiciary should be mediating and managing, seeking consensus or compromise, ideally with your involvement. Yes, this is naive. But it's the core function we should be able to rely on; it should be the measure we use to assess the efficacy of our governments. Anything else and you're replicating feudalism or dictatorship. If you default to government being your adversary, your system is broken and you should be working to fix it rather than giving up and calling it the enemy. Frankly, this labelling of government as the enemy is exactly what allows opportunists to sieze power.

tastyfreeze 3y ago
adversary - one that contends with, opposes, or resists It is a matter of trust of other humans with power. Government can do good but is made of flawed humans. Trusting the government to always be good and stay good is a recipe for disaster. For government to stay trustworthy it requires people to oppose oversteps. It is an adversarial relationship. That isn't a bad thing. It is necessary for everything to work and stay working.
RobRivera 3y ago
When the government behaves as an adverse actor, they lose this trust. Would you like datapoints about times the government lied and subverted communities? Bc I have data points. Many data points. From many cultures that were illegally infringed upon hy the government. And practices Just say the word.
- aspenmayer 3y ago
  > Just say the word. Please share, if you please.
  - RobRivera 3y ago
    Jacksons handling of the Cherokee Jim Crow laws Nypd use of stingers to violate your privacy then replicate a criminal investigation independent of the stinger information to subvert DoJ processes and the rights of protection against unlawful search and seizures. internment of US citizens due to their Japanese heritage. CIA involvement in the Iran Contra debacle fueling the cocaine epidemic The burning of unarmed civilians at Waco Texas Would you like more?

zer00eyz 3y ago

>> Good, that is the way it should have been the whole time. The corpse of John Adams probably has a smirk. > government ... people ... as an adversary. Adams had some interesting views, ones the courts dont share but he did. In his thought, the final check on power was the jury. It did not matter what the LAW said, it matters what the jury thought, that a jury at any point could just choose to nullify a law. In many places talking about this near courts will get you held in contempt. But at lest one of the founding fathers though "telling the government to stuff it" was the right thing to do.

grow2grow 3y ago
Thanks for reminding us about this. Also another reminder, for everybody throwing a lasso around everything and hating on it, you're actually upset with the bureaucracy (which contains law enforcement). Remember folks, the U.S. gov't is split into four parts: 1. Legislative branch (makes laws for the executive branch to approve, and for the judicial branch to possibly overturn, and creates functions within the bureaucracy) 2. Judicial branch (throws away or reenforces work done by the legislative+executive branch) 3. Executive branch (controls the bureaucracy, great filter for the legislative branch) 4. Bureaucracy network (the informal branch of the gov't of employees rendering services for the citizens, most people end up complaining about: law enforcement, department workers, the postoffice and military) So yes, tell the bureaucracy to stuff it. Telling one of the other three branches to stuff it probably doesn't fly too well.

paxys 3y ago

> The default view of government by businesses and people should be as an adversary This is never ever going to be the default unless it is legislated. A business has much more to gain by aligning itself with the government than with the general population.