4 ms·

Are you also going to require a warrant for paramilitary insurgent groups to poll these databases? Maybe you intended to propose for them to be abolished entir

by kragen 11mo ago

Are you also going to require a warrant for paramilitary insurgent groups to poll these databases? Maybe you intended to propose for them to be abolished entirely.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> Are you also going to require a warrant for paramilitary insurgent groups to poll these databases? No. Because this is a straw man. > Maybe you intended to propose for them to be abolished entirely Banks operate with liability for losses resulting from breaches. Unless Flock et al are routinly losing their entire database, this shouldn't be exisential.
- kragen 11mo ago
  It isn't a straw man; paramilitary insurgent groups will just look like normal customers to Flock et al., except when they're stealing their entire database, which will indeed happen routinely.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > paramilitary insurgent groups will just look like normal customers to Flock et al. Existing liability law works just fine for terrorism. (Guns notwithstanding.)
    - kragen 11mo ago
      In what sense? Terrorism, if successful, overturns the court system.
      - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        > In what sense? Knowingly or negligently materially supporting violent crime creates criminal liability under conspiracy statutes. Plenty of states specifically regulate domestic terrorism [1]. And as we've seen with gun violence, by default being involved in acts of violence generates civil liability [2]. [1] https://www.icnl.org/resources/terrorism-laws-in-the-united-states?ki-cf-botcl=1 https://www.icnl.org/resources/terrorism-laws-in-the-united-... [2] https://www.yalejreg.com/wp-content/uploads/Laura-Hallas-Mass-Shootings-and-Mass-Torts_-New-Directions-in-Gun-Manufacturer-Liability-41-Yale-J.-on-Regul.-382-2024.pdf https://www.yalejreg.com/wp-content/uploads/Laura-Hallas-Mas...
        kragen 11mo ago
        Negligence is generally not sufficient for conspiracy statutes, and Flock wouldn't have to be knowing or even negligent. Indeed, there is no possible way they could prevent their services from being used by violent insurgencies except to not sell them at all.
        JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        > Flock wouldn't have to be knowing or even negligent Neither do banks. > there is no possible way they could prevent their services from being used by violent insurgencies except to not sell them at all Prevent? No. Increase the cost of? Yes. Trying to police domestic terrorism by restricting what they see is a bit silly. But if that were a concern, I said "make the database operators strictly liable for breaches and mis-use." Domestic terrorism is mis-use. But it's not precedented mis-use, which makes it a strange priority to get distracted by.
- pseudalopex 11mo ago
  > Banks operate with liability for losses resulting from breaches. Not enough. > Unless Flock et al are routinly losing their entire database, this shouldn't be exisential. The risk of misuse by future governments is too great even if Flock's security was perfect. And allowing anything less than routinely losing the entire database is unreasonably lax even if you don't believe Flock is too risky to exist.
ruined 11mo ago
paramilitary insurgent groups are abolished, actually. it is illegal to operate a paramilitary insurgent group. this is the main way they prevent groups from doing paramilitary insurrection. that, and most military actions are also illegal, if you're not a member of the military following lawful orders. so there's not much paramilitary stuff one can do. and insurgency is like... outlawed

by kragen 11mo ago

Are you also going to require a warrant for paramilitary insurgent groups to poll these databases? Maybe you intended to propose for them to be abolished entirely.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago

> Are you also going to require a warrant for paramilitary insurgent groups to poll these databases? No. Because this is a straw man. > Maybe you intended to propose for them to be abolished entirely Banks operate with liability for losses resulting from breaches. Unless Flock et al are routinly losing their entire database, this shouldn't be exisential.

kragen 11mo ago
It isn't a straw man; paramilitary insurgent groups will just look like normal customers to Flock et al., except when they're stealing their entire database, which will indeed happen routinely.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > paramilitary insurgent groups will just look like normal customers to Flock et al. Existing liability law works just fine for terrorism. (Guns notwithstanding.)
  - kragen 11mo ago
    In what sense? Terrorism, if successful, overturns the court system.
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > In what sense? Knowingly or negligently materially supporting violent crime creates criminal liability under conspiracy statutes. Plenty of states specifically regulate domestic terrorism [1]. And as we've seen with gun violence, by default being involved in acts of violence generates civil liability [2]. [1] https://www.icnl.org/resources/terrorism-laws-in-the-united-states?ki-cf-botcl=1 https://www.icnl.org/resources/terrorism-laws-in-the-united-... [2] https://www.yalejreg.com/wp-content/uploads/Laura-Hallas-Mass-Shootings-and-Mass-Torts_-New-Directions-in-Gun-Manufacturer-Liability-41-Yale-J.-on-Regul.-382-2024.pdf https://www.yalejreg.com/wp-content/uploads/Laura-Hallas-Mas...
      - kragen 11mo ago
        Negligence is generally not sufficient for conspiracy statutes, and Flock wouldn't have to be knowing or even negligent. Indeed, there is no possible way they could prevent their services from being used by violent insurgencies except to not sell them at all.
        JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        > Flock wouldn't have to be knowing or even negligent Neither do banks. > there is no possible way they could prevent their services from being used by violent insurgencies except to not sell them at all Prevent? No. Increase the cost of? Yes. Trying to police domestic terrorism by restricting what they see is a bit silly. But if that were a concern, I said "make the database operators strictly liable for breaches and mis-use." Domestic terrorism is mis-use. But it's not precedented mis-use, which makes it a strange priority to get distracted by.
pseudalopex 11mo ago
> Banks operate with liability for losses resulting from breaches. Not enough. > Unless Flock et al are routinly losing their entire database, this shouldn't be exisential. The risk of misuse by future governments is too great even if Flock's security was perfect. And allowing anything less than routinely losing the entire database is unreasonably lax even if you don't believe Flock is too risky to exist.

ruined 11mo ago

paramilitary insurgent groups are abolished, actually. it is illegal to operate a paramilitary insurgent group. this is the main way they prevent groups from doing paramilitary insurrection. that, and most military actions are also illegal, if you're not a member of the military following lawful orders. so there's not much paramilitary stuff one can do. and insurgency is like... outlawed