3 ms·

Minority report was about arresting people based on the word of psychics. There is a big difference between that and having evidence someone intends to commit a

Minority report was about arresting people based on the word of psychics. There is a big difference between that and having evidence someone intends to commit a crime in the future. Of course it is possible to abuse such things, which is why its important to have reasonable definitions for these things.

logicchains 2y ago
It's not "evidence someone intends to commit a crime in the future", it's evidence "leading to a belief someone intends to commit a crime in the future". With no objective standard for that "belief".
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  As Richelieu once put it: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
  - wickedsight 2y ago
    Interestingly, this works both for how people interpret this law and how the law might interpret the writing of suspects.
simianparrot 2y ago
A "belief" that someone "may commit a future crime" is practically speaking psychic nonsense.
- wickedsight 2y ago
  > “objective, verifiable information” leading to a belief Is very different from 'a belief'. What you're doing is wordsmithing this into something that sounds much worse than the actual text, which is textbook misinformation spreading.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - boffinAudio 2y ago
    No it isn't. This "objective, verifiable information" is an open door to using misinformation to frame innocent people of crimes they have not committed.
    - wickedsight 2y ago
      This type of information is already being used to prevent crimes. People get arrested for planning robberies or murders all the time. Those investigations start based on beliefs that are based on 'objective, verifiable information'. After that intent has to be proven in court with evidence that has been found during an investigation. In many cases it also leads to a case being dismissed because no evidence is found. I'm honestly pretty surprised that people think this is a new concept.
      - exe34 2y ago
        > In many cases it also leads to a case being dismissed because no evidence is found. Good luck piecing back together your life at that point, after years of being unemployable and unable to find rental accomodation (and the house that you bought with your life savings is gone, the bank sold it while you were fighting for your freedom).
      - jonathanstrange 2y ago
        There is no mention of probable cause and oversight by a judge. The way this is phrased doesn't even meet the standards for normal police investigations. It's basically a carte blanche for surveillance and secret suspect lists on which nearly anyone can be put.
  - komali2 2y ago
    Anti war activists have been called "terrorist supporters" since at least 2001. Before the 90s were Communist supporters (same thing). I think people give too much credit to governments. "Of course they'll only use for-sure for-sure objectively terrorist intent verifiable information." No, historically what they'll do is throw you on the list because you followed a hot commie girl to a meetup in college, or attended a protest, or hell bought a watch terrorists happen to use to set timers in bombs.
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  Reasonable predictions are "psychic"? No, one legitimate concern is over the amount of information gathering and sharing that's needed to establish sufficient “objective, verifiable information” and how that competes with other goods.
gillesjacobs 2y ago
1. Three years ago, you liked some tweets of someone who you didn't know was a political seperatist. Now, his group had been classified a terror organisation. 2. You went to buy some acetone as a solvent for a project. There is now material evidence and intent for a terrorist attack using TATP bombs. You and your family are on a no-fly list and are being watched. All digital platforms have to automatically turn over all your personal data to intelligence services. They will share it with every other intelligence service in the union. During automated analysis, a CASM detector finds bath-time pictures of your child. A criminal trial for the production of child pornography is initiated.
- exe34 2y ago
  Your bank accounts are frozen and credit cards blocked. Your amazon video library is also gone, as is your gmail account.
- tomrod 2y ago
  The law is malleable. All laws will be abused, and by corollary, all laws are societal negotiations, one court room at a time. Those in the legal field grok this. Those with less experience in the legal field typically fear the law for its seeming black-and-white attribute when it's really a lot of grey.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    People take the worst case because statistically it will happen to someone. You can't average risk in your life like you can with insurance.
    - gillesjacobs 2y ago
      Additionally, for laws like this that specifically take away democratic control this argument is entirely moot. Any claimed benefit or justification is entirely nullified for regular people if their oversight and transparency processes are being negated.
    - tomrod 2y ago

logicchains 2y ago

It's not "evidence someone intends to commit a crime in the future", it's evidence "leading to a belief someone intends to commit a crime in the future". With no objective standard for that "belief".

Dalewyn 2y ago
As Richelieu once put it: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
- wickedsight 2y ago
  Interestingly, this works both for how people interpret this law and how the law might interpret the writing of suspects.

simianparrot 2y ago

A "belief" that someone "may commit a future crime" is practically speaking psychic nonsense.

wickedsight 2y ago
> “objective, verifiable information” leading to a belief Is very different from 'a belief'. What you're doing is wordsmithing this into something that sounds much worse than the actual text, which is textbook misinformation spreading.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- boffinAudio 2y ago
  No it isn't. This "objective, verifiable information" is an open door to using misinformation to frame innocent people of crimes they have not committed.
  - wickedsight 2y ago
    This type of information is already being used to prevent crimes. People get arrested for planning robberies or murders all the time. Those investigations start based on beliefs that are based on 'objective, verifiable information'. After that intent has to be proven in court with evidence that has been found during an investigation. In many cases it also leads to a case being dismissed because no evidence is found. I'm honestly pretty surprised that people think this is a new concept.
    - exe34 2y ago
      > In many cases it also leads to a case being dismissed because no evidence is found. Good luck piecing back together your life at that point, after years of being unemployable and unable to find rental accomodation (and the house that you bought with your life savings is gone, the bank sold it while you were fighting for your freedom).
    - jonathanstrange 2y ago
      There is no mention of probable cause and oversight by a judge. The way this is phrased doesn't even meet the standards for normal police investigations. It's basically a carte blanche for surveillance and secret suspect lists on which nearly anyone can be put.
- komali2 2y ago
  Anti war activists have been called "terrorist supporters" since at least 2001. Before the 90s were Communist supporters (same thing). I think people give too much credit to governments. "Of course they'll only use for-sure for-sure objectively terrorist intent verifiable information." No, historically what they'll do is throw you on the list because you followed a hot commie girl to a meetup in college, or attended a protest, or hell bought a watch terrorists happen to use to set timers in bombs.
lo_zamoyski 2y ago
Reasonable predictions are "psychic"? No, one legitimate concern is over the amount of information gathering and sharing that's needed to establish sufficient “objective, verifiable information” and how that competes with other goods.

gillesjacobs 2y ago

1. Three years ago, you liked some tweets of someone who you didn't know was a political seperatist. Now, his group had been classified a terror organisation. 2. You went to buy some acetone as a solvent for a project. There is now material evidence and intent for a terrorist attack using TATP bombs. You and your family are on a no-fly list and are being watched. All digital platforms have to automatically turn over all your personal data to intelligence services. They will share it with every other intelligence service in the union. During automated analysis, a CASM detector finds bath-time pictures of your child. A criminal trial for the production of child pornography is initiated.

exe34 2y ago
Your bank accounts are frozen and credit cards blocked. Your amazon video library is also gone, as is your gmail account.
tomrod 2y ago
The law is malleable. All laws will be abused, and by corollary, all laws are societal negotiations, one court room at a time. Those in the legal field grok this. Those with less experience in the legal field typically fear the law for its seeming black-and-white attribute when it's really a lot of grey.
- throwaway48476 2y ago
  People take the worst case because statistically it will happen to someone. You can't average risk in your life like you can with insurance.
  - gillesjacobs 2y ago
    Additionally, for laws like this that specifically take away democratic control this argument is entirely moot. Any claimed benefit or justification is entirely nullified for regular people if their oversight and transparency processes are being negated.
  - tomrod 2y ago