6 ms·

Surely you are not contending that Blackstone was of the position that no innocent person should be investigated, however briefly, unless it results in at least

Surely you are not contending that Blackstone was of the position that no innocent person should be investigated, however briefly, unless it results in at least 10 convictions. I very much agree that (some, probably minimal) harm is being done to these people. Pretending that they "suffer" in the sense Blackstone was using the word is disingenuous.

godelski 3y ago
I would contend that Blackstone was of the position that no innocent person who was not of sufficient suspicion of committing a crime should be investigated. These are innocent bystanders. There is nothing suspicious about their activities other than they did something that a suspected criminal did. A perfectly legal activity? To take this to the ridiculous side, are we going to investigate everyone who took a poop at a specific time because a criminal did? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJklHwoYgBQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJklHwoYgBQ
- dllthomas 3y ago
  > Blackstone was of the position that no innocent person who was not of sufficient suspicion of committing a crime should be investigated I expect so. But pretending that's what he was talking about in the quote you were referencing is going to undermine your (our, probably) position with those not already convinced.
  - godelski 3y ago
    I'm not convinced I am taking him out of context[0]. Was Blackstone not also discussing natural rights? I see him as viewing punishments as infringements on ones rights. As a spectrum. And those rights even including the simple aspect of presumption of innocence. My best understanding is that so much is literally about the mundane and simple. Because natural rights are... well... natural. They are things we have until we don't. That's why they are called negative rights, because they need be removed, not given. Punishments (infringements) can be extremely minor to major. But they are still one in the same because it is about the concept in the abstract. Or rather, in generalized form. As far as I can tell, this is explicitly within the context of the quote. That said, I do see your point and appreciate your feedback. Maybe this can be an opportunity to turn this into a lesson? It seems too cumbersome to bring up from the get-go and similarly backfire. But discussing in the abstract is a difficult task when it is neither a natural way of thinking nor is it a common way that is taught. But I still think it is an important tool and something that does distinguish humanity. I am open to suggestions (I think HN of all places is more likely to be successful when discussing things in the abstract, but it is still general public). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39798280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39798280
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Wait. Aren't "innocent bystanders" literally the first people the police wants to get ahold of, to interview and yes, potentially investigate if there's something off? People don't spontaneously become suspects, as if by radioactive decay; some degree of investigation comes first and is what turns "innocent rando" into a suspect.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > Aren't "innocent bystanders" literally the first people the police wants to get ahold of, to interview Yes. But that's not the same > potentially investigate if there's something off? If you're asking information from people who witnessed a crime *and volunteering information* (which is not investigating that person and not accusing them of a crime, nor is lack of volunteering information a suspicious activity) and they then generate suspicious evidence, then yes, that enables capacity for investigation. It is true that things are not static, time exists, and entropy marches on. That's the difference. There is nothing that these people did that warrants suspicion. These people are not being asked or questioned. This was not done voluntarily. They didn't even know this was happening to them. This was a thing imposed upon them, full stop. I want to give a scenario to help make things clear. Suppose I send nudes to my partner. The government intercepts these without my knowledge, looks at these, and deletes them, and literally nothing else happens. Is this okay? I did not know this happened to me. No "harm" has fallen upon me. And as far as I know, nothing has changed in my life. But then later I find out this happened. Let's say 20 years later. I feel upset. Do you not think I am justified in being upset? I think I do. My rights were violated. It is worse that it was done in secrecy because it is difficult for me to seek justice. It is because I have the right to privacy. It is a natural, de facto, negative, but a god given right. They put my information at risk by simply intercepting it and making a copy. It was unnecessary and unjustified.
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Being investigated is a red herring. The problem is from the other end. Your premise is that a person being investigated when they're innocent of the original crime is basically harmless because the investigation will come to naught. The actual issue is that if they can find a pretext to get a list of all of the people who viewed some content they don't approve of, now they have a list of targets with which to play "bring me the man and I'll find you the crime" and that is a harm in need of preventing.
- dllthomas 3y ago
  > Your premise is that a person being investigated when they're innocent of the original crime is basically harmless because the investigation will come to naught. Not at all. I would say that it's usually (not always!) small in the particulars but adds up in aggregate, and that we should be a lot more careful with how much surveillance we allow. I just would also say that the kinds or amounts of harm being done there are manifestly not what Blackstone was talking about in his "formulation" as it leads immediately to absurd conclusions that go very well past the present case. I will not here that "there is a concern here analogous to Blackstone's ratio" is a different thing than, paraphrasing what was up thread, "this is substantially more extreme than Blackstone's ratio should forbid". And in case I haven't said it in thread anywhere, I share concerns about surveillance. I just think if we are enlisting support from historical figures, we should find a quote where they're talking about the question or acknowledge the distance, rather than pretending the quote means something it didn't - that will only turn off those who might be persuaded.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > "there is a concern here analogous to Blackstone's ratio" is a different thing than, paraphrasing what was up thread, "this is substantially more extreme than Blackstone's ratio should forbid". I agree with this. What's happening here is different than the scenario in the original ratio, even though it's a similar concern. > I just would also say that the kinds or amounts of harm being done there are manifestly not what Blackstone was talking about in his "formulation" as it leads immediately to absurd conclusions that go very well past the present case. If we direct ourselves to the case at hand, I'm not sure that a general rule that the government can't compel innocent bystanders to assist an investigation against their will would even be a net negative, much less cause serious problems. When a crime is committed people will generally be inclined to help bring the perpetrators to justice, because who wants thieves and murderers and so on going unpunished? Whereas if someone is disinclined to help, we might consider that they could have a reason, e.g. because the law being enforced is unjust or they believe the investigation is not being conducted in good faith, or they simply don't trust the government with the information, at which point the ability to refuse acts as a reasonable check on government power. > I just think if we are enlisting support from historical figures, we should find a quote where they're talking about the question or acknowledge the distance, rather than pretending the quote means something it didn't - that will only turn off those who might be persuaded. I feel like historical quotes tend to detract from discussions in general, because they're effectively an appeal to authority and then the discussion turns to exactly where we are now, debating whether the current situation can be distinguished from the original, which is a separate matter from whether what's happening in the modern case is reasonable or satisfactory in its own right.

godelski 3y ago

I would contend that Blackstone was of the position that no innocent person who was not of sufficient suspicion of committing a crime should be investigated. These are innocent bystanders. There is nothing suspicious about their activities other than they did something that a suspected criminal did. A perfectly legal activity? To take this to the ridiculous side, are we going to investigate everyone who took a poop at a specific time because a criminal did? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJklHwoYgBQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJklHwoYgBQ

dllthomas 3y ago
> Blackstone was of the position that no innocent person who was not of sufficient suspicion of committing a crime should be investigated I expect so. But pretending that's what he was talking about in the quote you were referencing is going to undermine your (our, probably) position with those not already convinced.
- godelski 3y ago
  I'm not convinced I am taking him out of context[0]. Was Blackstone not also discussing natural rights? I see him as viewing punishments as infringements on ones rights. As a spectrum. And those rights even including the simple aspect of presumption of innocence. My best understanding is that so much is literally about the mundane and simple. Because natural rights are... well... natural. They are things we have until we don't. That's why they are called negative rights, because they need be removed, not given. Punishments (infringements) can be extremely minor to major. But they are still one in the same because it is about the concept in the abstract. Or rather, in generalized form. As far as I can tell, this is explicitly within the context of the quote. That said, I do see your point and appreciate your feedback. Maybe this can be an opportunity to turn this into a lesson? It seems too cumbersome to bring up from the get-go and similarly backfire. But discussing in the abstract is a difficult task when it is neither a natural way of thinking nor is it a common way that is taught. But I still think it is an important tool and something that does distinguish humanity. I am open to suggestions (I think HN of all places is more likely to be successful when discussing things in the abstract, but it is still general public). [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39798280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39798280
TeMPOraL 3y ago
Wait. Aren't "innocent bystanders" literally the first people the police wants to get ahold of, to interview and yes, potentially investigate if there's something off? People don't spontaneously become suspects, as if by radioactive decay; some degree of investigation comes first and is what turns "innocent rando" into a suspect.
- godelski 3y ago
  > Aren't "innocent bystanders" literally the first people the police wants to get ahold of, to interview Yes. But that's not the same > potentially investigate if there's something off? If you're asking information from people who witnessed a crime *and volunteering information* (which is not investigating that person and not accusing them of a crime, nor is lack of volunteering information a suspicious activity) and they then generate suspicious evidence, then yes, that enables capacity for investigation. It is true that things are not static, time exists, and entropy marches on. That's the difference. There is nothing that these people did that warrants suspicion. These people are not being asked or questioned. This was not done voluntarily. They didn't even know this was happening to them. This was a thing imposed upon them, full stop. I want to give a scenario to help make things clear. Suppose I send nudes to my partner. The government intercepts these without my knowledge, looks at these, and deletes them, and literally nothing else happens. Is this okay? I did not know this happened to me. No "harm" has fallen upon me. And as far as I know, nothing has changed in my life. But then later I find out this happened. Let's say 20 years later. I feel upset. Do you not think I am justified in being upset? I think I do. My rights were violated. It is worse that it was done in secrecy because it is difficult for me to seek justice. It is because I have the right to privacy. It is a natural, de facto, negative, but a god given right. They put my information at risk by simply intercepting it and making a copy. It was unnecessary and unjustified.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

Being investigated is a red herring. The problem is from the other end. Your premise is that a person being investigated when they're innocent of the original crime is basically harmless because the investigation will come to naught. The actual issue is that if they can find a pretext to get a list of all of the people who viewed some content they don't approve of, now they have a list of targets with which to play "bring me the man and I'll find you the crime" and that is a harm in need of preventing.

dllthomas 3y ago
> Your premise is that a person being investigated when they're innocent of the original crime is basically harmless because the investigation will come to naught. Not at all. I would say that it's usually (not always!) small in the particulars but adds up in aggregate, and that we should be a lot more careful with how much surveillance we allow. I just would also say that the kinds or amounts of harm being done there are manifestly not what Blackstone was talking about in his "formulation" as it leads immediately to absurd conclusions that go very well past the present case. I will not here that "there is a concern here analogous to Blackstone's ratio" is a different thing than, paraphrasing what was up thread, "this is substantially more extreme than Blackstone's ratio should forbid". And in case I haven't said it in thread anywhere, I share concerns about surveillance. I just think if we are enlisting support from historical figures, we should find a quote where they're talking about the question or acknowledge the distance, rather than pretending the quote means something it didn't - that will only turn off those who might be persuaded.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > "there is a concern here analogous to Blackstone's ratio" is a different thing than, paraphrasing what was up thread, "this is substantially more extreme than Blackstone's ratio should forbid". I agree with this. What's happening here is different than the scenario in the original ratio, even though it's a similar concern. > I just would also say that the kinds or amounts of harm being done there are manifestly not what Blackstone was talking about in his "formulation" as it leads immediately to absurd conclusions that go very well past the present case. If we direct ourselves to the case at hand, I'm not sure that a general rule that the government can't compel innocent bystanders to assist an investigation against their will would even be a net negative, much less cause serious problems. When a crime is committed people will generally be inclined to help bring the perpetrators to justice, because who wants thieves and murderers and so on going unpunished? Whereas if someone is disinclined to help, we might consider that they could have a reason, e.g. because the law being enforced is unjust or they believe the investigation is not being conducted in good faith, or they simply don't trust the government with the information, at which point the ability to refuse acts as a reasonable check on government power. > I just think if we are enlisting support from historical figures, we should find a quote where they're talking about the question or acknowledge the distance, rather than pretending the quote means something it didn't - that will only turn off those who might be persuaded. I feel like historical quotes tend to detract from discussions in general, because they're effectively an appeal to authority and then the discussion turns to exactly where we are now, debating whether the current situation can be distinguished from the original, which is a separate matter from whether what's happening in the modern case is reasonable or satisfactory in its own right.