4 ms·
I'd be miffed if the police sidestepped the law and tracked my whereabouts just because I was in an organisation where a couple of other members have suspicions
by n4r9 3y ago
I'd be miffed if the police sidestepped the law and tracked my whereabouts just because I was in an organisation where a couple of other members have suspicions raised about them.
- krageon 3y agoThere is a dragnet law, this will happen to you and it is legal
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoI think that's exactly how it works. If you associate with sketchy people or groups, you automatically become a target for surveillance.
- bilbo0s 3y agoI was just thinking this. I mean, we're talking about tracking those hanging out at places where terrorists are known to gather, and associating with said terrorists, however casually? That's just military sense. Are we just supposed to let the known terrorist go to the bar, have his/her coded conversations with an unknown subject, and then let that subject go on his/her merry way without looking any further into the matter? That would be naive in the extreme.
- repelsteeltje 3y agoMight be a legitimate concern, but not enough evidence for Police surveillance. You mention "military sense", but this isn't a war. If there is terrorist suspicion, I'd say it is more in the intelligence jurisdiction.
- n4r9 3y agoFirstly we're not talking about "terrorists" but people who intelligence services have "received a signal" about. That's pretty ambiguous but sounds like it could mean an anonymous tip-off or information from another department. Secondly, no one's suggesting that they let everyone go their merry way without looking into anything. Only that widespread surveillance must be justified e.g. the evidence must pass some threshold and other responses have been ruled out.
- ramon156 3y agoThis shouldn't be news to anyone
- blueflow 3y agoGuilt by association? Also, some tiny question: People you think you associate with or people the Police think you associate with?
- VoodooJuJu 3y agoNo, you're not guilty by associating, you're potentially useful and potentially sus. When investigating serious crimes, there is no such thing as too much information. If you say hello and chit-chat with Bomberman every Sunday, I want to know what you talk about, I want to know what he wears, when he was sick and didn't show up, I want to know how he smells, I want to know everything, and given that you associate with him, I was hoping you could provide some information.
- input_sh 3y agoBeing at the same spot doesn't make you "associated" with everyone else that's in that same spot. I'm no religious person, but I would imagine praying in a mosque is very different to personally knowing everyone else that's praying in the same mosque. Even if you do meet everyone it's not like they're gonna introduce themselves with "hi, I'm $stereotypicalMuslimName, and I plan on doing a terrorist attack next month". The connection needs to be far more substantial than that to warrant surveillance.
- BurningFrog 3y agoNot religious either, but my understanding is that churches/mosques/etc are often the hub of social life for religious people, and the regulars definitely know each other.
- n4r9 3y agoA mosque can have hundreds of worshippers who turn up every Friday like clockwork. Each might know the 20-30 other people from a similar geographic background and barely talk to the rest, let alone have any idea that they're up to something nefarious.
- jacobgkau 3y agoAs someone who attended a couple of churches for many years, it's not necessarily "the hub of social life." Plenty of people show up, sit through the sermon/mass/whatever, and then leave afterwards. If you're really social, you might stick around for a coffee afterwards, but you're probably sitting at a table with the same few people every week. It's similar to a school. You might have a social group of a dozen peers you're familiar with, and you might or might not ever do anything outside of school with those people. There are also hundreds of other students in different sets or levels of classes who you might not ever learn the name of. Of course, it will vary between large churches and small churches, and probably between areas with lots of churches and areas with only a few. But I wanted to explain that since it sounds like you had at least an exaggerated idea of how religious people socialize via their places of worship.
- femiagbabiaka 3y agoI don’t think we have to live in that kind of world. The problem with that is $GOOD_GROUP and $BAD_GROUP are subjective judgements. That’s why you need cause for an investigation.
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoOne person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. See also this famous "Our Blessed Homeland" comic: https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/355/607/670 https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/002/355/607/670
- coryrc 3y agoYes, nothing different between our homeland and theirs, it's not like women are literally property and they have millions of slaves.
- tomrod 3y agoSome aspects of every culture are morally reprehensible. This is orthogonal to legality, socially taboo, and other categorizations.
- Thiez 3y agoAre you referring to the US, where women have no freedom to decide what happens inside their uterus and slavery is still allowed for their millions of prisoners?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- repelsteeltje 3y agoSuspicion by association. I guess I'm a suspect for doing banking at a large bank know to also cater for criminals. Should probably look for a different bank. ...Oh, wait.
- arp242 3y agoThis really depends on the details. If, say, one member of a mosque is under surveillance for good reasons and then you extend that to everyone attending the mosque for no particular reason other than "well, maybe we'll catch something, doesn't to try": that's probably not a good thing. On the other hand, if the imam is preaching violent rhetoric, multiple members are under surveillance for good reasons, and there's good reasons to believe that the violence is an important part of the mosque community in the first place (rather than a relatively small detail): then that's perhaps not such a bad thing. You don't "accidentally" associate with that kind of thing. Or: you probably don't need detailed reasons to put someone in Don Corleone's employ under surveillance.
- n4r9 3y agoSidestepping the law is unjustified regardless of the details.
- arp242 3y agoI was just addressing the "tracked my whereabouts just because I was in an organisation where a couple of other members have suspicions raised about them" bit.
- n4r9 3y agoBut then you're addressing a different point to the one I made! I don't disagree with what you're saying inherently. But the "sidestepping legal process" is crucial to why this is so problematic.