11 ms·

We've fallen quite far from the tradition of policing by consent as developed by Sir Robert Peel: - Whether the police are effective is not measured on the num

We've fallen quite far from the tradition of policing by consent as developed by Sir Robert Peel: - Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime. - An effective authority figure knows trust and accountability are paramount. Hence, "The police are the public and the public are the police." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles Edit: another choice quote from that article, from the Home Office itself in 2012: "The Home Office defined the legitimacy of policing, in the eyes of the public, as based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so."

p0w3n3d 2y ago
The problem is the people nowadays can be easily convinced that everything should be accessible, because Ekhm They have nothing to hide and... Ekhm They will be more safe Thus the arguments about fighting terrorism and paedophilia...
- johnisgood 2y ago
  And in reality it has nothing to do with terrorism, nor paedophilia.
  - dkdbejwi383 2y ago
    What does it have to do with in reality?
    - Gud 2y ago
      Obedient workers.
      - dkdbejwi383 2y ago
        Can you expand on that? I don’t follow, sorry
        bayindirh 2y ago
        When you're frightened and live in a glass house, you stay silent and obedient to prevent any stones from inadvertently hitting your house. Since it's transparent, you can't do anything which others don't like anyway, and if you even manage, you'll be taken away silently. IOW, read 1984 and Brave New World and create a synthesis of it.
        p0w3n3d 2y ago
        I mean I am not against the investigations at all. Also I believe that in such cases (terrorism) better way of extracting the secret key is sourcing it from the suspect him(or her)self. I.e. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
        bayindirh 2y ago
        We're on the same page. As one step further, I don't support "advanced interrogation techniques".
        p0w3n3d 2y ago
        I do neither, however what I wanted to highlight (in this black humour way) that the burden of de-encrypting lies on the police/govt. Also opening some encryption on ever person's device just because some government wants to check a few people is stupid. First of all: today it's let's say "good government" and tomorrow it'll be the "bad government", and secondly it can be used to fight the opposition (non-democratic behaviour)
        pixl97 2y ago
        >I am not against the investigations at all. I mean, investigations when you're a suspect is one thing. A system setup to monitor everyone and everything that treats everyone like a suspect is another.
      - tim333 2y ago
        I don't buy that. I've met uk politicians and they are not really like that. However it may be more about being able to say to the voters that we are taking action against terror and paedos than actually catching any.
        johnisgood 2y ago
        It is definitely partly about just to be able to claim "we did something".
    - eesmith 2y ago
      The naive belief that having more data means the organization will be more effective at carrying out its goals. Doesn't matter what data - the algorithms/AI will figure it out. Doesn't matter how messy the data - the algorithms/AI will figure it out. Post-9/11 governance is filled with the CYA view that if we collect enough data we can connect the dots before another event happens. Privacy issues aren't important, as the organization's goals are good, with strong guards against corruption. (While DOGE accesses highly personal data entrusted to the IRS.) While the world's data centers are smothered in unused data, collected because it's too hard to figure out what not to save and the Thiel and his malign ilk promise that their tools are good for us.
    - 93po 2y ago
      exerting control over powerful people who aren't as politically connected as the people who have access to this private data, in addition to finding excuses to spend money on military stuff (with kickbacks)
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  I find this argument incredibly frustrating. My view is that wide access to strong encryption carries non-obvious trade-offs, in particular with regards to organized crime. And I don't particularly mean paedophile rings, scooter gangs in London and professional burglars are organized crime too. It's not that I have nothing to hide, therefore want the government to have unfettered access to everything. I want to ensure that properly overseen law enforcement and justice have access to normal info they need to prosecute crime, and if I have to give up a bit of privacy for it, so be it.
  - nradov 2y ago
    OK but how exactly do you propose to make that work? With current encryption technology there is no way to give up a bit of privacy: it's all or nothing. Either you have the keys or you don't. If a government has the key then it will inevitably be leaked or misused. The UK government in particular has long been heavily penetrated by Soviet / Russian intelligence.
    - tim333 2y ago
      They can physically search a device (like silk road) put malware on a device, use encrypted metadata on who's calling who and so on. If you really want to catch serious criminals like mafia you have to do something they are not really expecting.
  - randomcarbloke 2y ago
    I don't trust anyone to handle my private details properly, especially not an institution that will suffer no repercussions should it mishandle those data.
  - jjav 2y ago
    Bits on a storage device can never (in anywhere remotely resembling a free society) be a crime by itself. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for unfettered access to it. If someone has done a crime, they must have done something, other than store bits on a disk. So go catch them in that act, the way criminals used to be caught before computers existed. If there is no act, there is no crime.
deepsun 2y ago
How to measure "lack of crime" if depends mostly on people responsibility than policing? You cannot put a policeman watching everyone and themselves. E.g. I believe Oaxaca must have lower crime rates than Tampico simply because one is convenient drug port and other is not, not because better police.
- trollbridge 2y ago
  Measuring this relatively simple - sociologists take a survey, sample appropriately, and find out how many people are victims of crime, including ones not reported to police.
  - deepsun 2y ago
    Ok, let's say it shows that Tampico has way higher number of crime victims. Is their police better or worse than another place with a lower number?
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > How to measure "lack of crime" if depends mostly on people responsibility than policing? The thing is, a holistic approach to policing is key, and it's not just about putting bobbies on the street, it's far far FAR more what's needed to create a healthy society. You need a social safety net for the unemployed, decent housing to prevent homelessness and its associated side effects (such as people taking dumps on the sidewalk), an accessible and affordable system of physical and mental health care, accessible options for education (not just of children but also for adults who need to switch careers for whatever reason), assistance programs for released convicts to find stable employment and a place to live, "third places" for the needs of all generations from young to old... Police as an institution is absolutely needed, but in a healthy society it should be a matter of last resort, not a routine tool that kills or otherwise hurts people. When you as a government have to resort to hiring ever more (and ever more dumb, because the supply of smart people is limited) police to keep the peace, something has gone very wrong at the foundations of the stack that we call society.
  - 2y ago

p0w3n3d 2y ago

The problem is the people nowadays can be easily convinced that everything should be accessible, because Ekhm They have nothing to hide and... Ekhm They will be more safe Thus the arguments about fighting terrorism and paedophilia...

johnisgood 2y ago
And in reality it has nothing to do with terrorism, nor paedophilia.
- dkdbejwi383 2y ago
  What does it have to do with in reality?
  - Gud 2y ago
    Obedient workers.
    - dkdbejwi383 2y ago
      Can you expand on that? I don’t follow, sorry
      - bayindirh 2y ago
        When you're frightened and live in a glass house, you stay silent and obedient to prevent any stones from inadvertently hitting your house. Since it's transparent, you can't do anything which others don't like anyway, and if you even manage, you'll be taken away silently. IOW, read 1984 and Brave New World and create a synthesis of it.
        p0w3n3d 2y ago
        I mean I am not against the investigations at all. Also I believe that in such cases (terrorism) better way of extracting the secret key is sourcing it from the suspect him(or her)self. I.e. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
        bayindirh 2y ago
        We're on the same page. As one step further, I don't support "advanced interrogation techniques".
        p0w3n3d 2y ago
        I do neither, however what I wanted to highlight (in this black humour way) that the burden of de-encrypting lies on the police/govt. Also opening some encryption on ever person's device just because some government wants to check a few people is stupid. First of all: today it's let's say "good government" and tomorrow it'll be the "bad government", and secondly it can be used to fight the opposition (non-democratic behaviour)
        pixl97 2y ago
        >I am not against the investigations at all. I mean, investigations when you're a suspect is one thing. A system setup to monitor everyone and everything that treats everyone like a suspect is another.
    - tim333 2y ago
      I don't buy that. I've met uk politicians and they are not really like that. However it may be more about being able to say to the voters that we are taking action against terror and paedos than actually catching any.
      - johnisgood 2y ago
        It is definitely partly about just to be able to claim "we did something".
  - eesmith 2y ago
    The naive belief that having more data means the organization will be more effective at carrying out its goals. Doesn't matter what data - the algorithms/AI will figure it out. Doesn't matter how messy the data - the algorithms/AI will figure it out. Post-9/11 governance is filled with the CYA view that if we collect enough data we can connect the dots before another event happens. Privacy issues aren't important, as the organization's goals are good, with strong guards against corruption. (While DOGE accesses highly personal data entrusted to the IRS.) While the world's data centers are smothered in unused data, collected because it's too hard to figure out what not to save and the Thiel and his malign ilk promise that their tools are good for us.
  - 93po 2y ago
    exerting control over powerful people who aren't as politically connected as the people who have access to this private data, in addition to finding excuses to spend money on military stuff (with kickbacks)
rich_sasha 2y ago
I find this argument incredibly frustrating. My view is that wide access to strong encryption carries non-obvious trade-offs, in particular with regards to organized crime. And I don't particularly mean paedophile rings, scooter gangs in London and professional burglars are organized crime too. It's not that I have nothing to hide, therefore want the government to have unfettered access to everything. I want to ensure that properly overseen law enforcement and justice have access to normal info they need to prosecute crime, and if I have to give up a bit of privacy for it, so be it.
- nradov 2y ago
  OK but how exactly do you propose to make that work? With current encryption technology there is no way to give up a bit of privacy: it's all or nothing. Either you have the keys or you don't. If a government has the key then it will inevitably be leaked or misused. The UK government in particular has long been heavily penetrated by Soviet / Russian intelligence.
  - tim333 2y ago
    They can physically search a device (like silk road) put malware on a device, use encrypted metadata on who's calling who and so on. If you really want to catch serious criminals like mafia you have to do something they are not really expecting.
- randomcarbloke 2y ago
  I don't trust anyone to handle my private details properly, especially not an institution that will suffer no repercussions should it mishandle those data.
- jjav 2y ago
  Bits on a storage device can never (in anywhere remotely resembling a free society) be a crime by itself. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for unfettered access to it. If someone has done a crime, they must have done something, other than store bits on a disk. So go catch them in that act, the way criminals used to be caught before computers existed. If there is no act, there is no crime.

deepsun 2y ago

How to measure "lack of crime" if depends mostly on people responsibility than policing? You cannot put a policeman watching everyone and themselves. E.g. I believe Oaxaca must have lower crime rates than Tampico simply because one is convenient drug port and other is not, not because better police.

trollbridge 2y ago
Measuring this relatively simple - sociologists take a survey, sample appropriately, and find out how many people are victims of crime, including ones not reported to police.
- deepsun 2y ago
  Ok, let's say it shows that Tampico has way higher number of crime victims. Is their police better or worse than another place with a lower number?
mschuster91 2y ago
> How to measure "lack of crime" if depends mostly on people responsibility than policing? The thing is, a holistic approach to policing is key, and it's not just about putting bobbies on the street, it's far far FAR more what's needed to create a healthy society. You need a social safety net for the unemployed, decent housing to prevent homelessness and its associated side effects (such as people taking dumps on the sidewalk), an accessible and affordable system of physical and mental health care, accessible options for education (not just of children but also for adults who need to switch careers for whatever reason), assistance programs for released convicts to find stable employment and a place to live, "third places" for the needs of all generations from young to old... Police as an institution is absolutely needed, but in a healthy society it should be a matter of last resort, not a routine tool that kills or otherwise hurts people. When you as a government have to resort to hiring ever more (and ever more dumb, because the supply of smart people is limited) police to keep the peace, something has gone very wrong at the foundations of the stack that we call society.
- 2y ago