3 ms·

I think this is a case of, tools used to fight one type of crime are being used to fight another type of crime that disrupting the community. Kind of an unfores

• giantg2 11mo ago
  "Kind of an unforeseen consequences situation." This type of use and expansion of scope was totally foreseeable by anyone paying attention to history. It always starts as some targeted thing, then it becomes the path of least resistance for similar subsequent things as the barrier to entry is extremely low.
  • christophilus 11mo ago
    Exactly. Same goes for expansion of presidential powers. It’s all fun and games as long as your “good” team controls the executive, but there will come a time when bad guy takes over. A good system of government limits the impact any single bad player might have.
  • pseudalopex 11mo ago
    > It always starts as some targeted thing, then it becomes the path of least resistance for similar subsequent things as the barrier to entry is extremely low. This new technology will improve existing procedures. How can you oppose it? This new procedure will use existing technologies. How can you oppose it?
• antonvs 11mo ago
  You have to be covering your eyes, plugging your ears, and shutting down your brain to not be able to foresee these consequences.
• vkou 11mo ago
  They are being used to perform another kind of crime. Much of ICE behaviour this past year has been highly criminal. Redmond is under no obligation to assist them.
  • Slava_Propanei 11mo ago
    [dead]
• mulmen 11mo ago
  > Kind of an unforeseen consequences situation. This is the most foreseeable consequence I can imagine. It’s up there with “When I throw this baseball where will it land?”. It shouldn’t even require conscious thought.
• expedition32 11mo ago
  In my country you'd have to get a warrant. You'll get pretty much carte blanche for an Amber Alert but the judge isn't going to let you hunt down brown people. But I guess if you elect judges pretty much all bets are off, no? Just find yourself a card carrying MAGA judge willing to sign off.
  • pseudalopex 11mo ago
    Some states elect state judges. Some states appoint state judges. Federal judges are appointed. Appointed judges in the US and other countries show the same problems as elected judges.
    • crote 11mo ago
      The appointed federal judges in the US are nominated by a political President, and confirmed by a simple majority in a two-party-system Senate, and serve for life. They have (unsurprisingly) become quite political, with either party appointing judges who'd be likely to judge in their favour. This is not at all comparable to appointed judges in other countries, where politicians usually don't have any input on the appointment process. Usually they are chosen by the current judges at that level, or by an entity like a bar association. After all, how can you have a Trias Politica if the three branches aren't independent?
      • trelane 11mo ago
        > Usually they are chosen by the current judges at that level, or by an entity like a bar association. So the judiciary is completely isolated from external accountability? I do not see how this is a superior approach.
      • pseudalopex 11mo ago
        Some governments reject separation of powers. Some countries have politicians select judges openly. Some countries' politicians worked around or subverted the systems intended to prevent politicians influencing judge selection. Appointment is the most common method of selecting lower- and higher-court judges in common-law countries, and for supreme and constitutional courts in civil- and mixed-system countries. In most countries, this appointment is by the executive, but there are systems that assign the minister of justice and members of the judiciary a role in the appointment process.[1] [1] https://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/judicial-selection https://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/judicial-selection
• reaperducer 11mo ago
  Kind of an unforeseen consequences situation. According to the article, it was foreseen. But the people who brought it up were ignored.