5 ms·

Are you suggesting that when investigating members of a criminal organization, they should be notified? It seems pretty reasonable for there to be cases where m

Are you suggesting that when investigating members of a criminal organization, they should be notified? It seems pretty reasonable for there to be cases where making a target aware of investigation would be detrimental to proving the illegal activity they are currently engaged in but would likely discontinue if literally told “we are monitoring you specifically now”.

armchairhacker 7mo ago
Yes, but the warrant should be revealed eventually. Worst case, if you can't prove or disprove someone committed a crime after X time, you should alert them to discourage future crime (they may have already done more crimes during X time; besides public interest, it also forces you to cut your losses when the alternative would be to dig a deeper hole). Do these warrants have a fixed maximum duration of secrecy?
- reactordev 7mo ago
  “warrant should be revealed eventually. Worst case, if you can't prove or disprove someone committed a crime after X time” This is the normal thinking, normal brained, route. It’s what we should all strive towards. Anyone who doesn’t agree needs therapy. There should be a window of discovery. 30 days, 90 maybe. But if you don’t have enough to justify notification of investigation, that’s it. No more resources spent. This is how normal precincts work. If they suspect, enough times, to build a large enough case file, to connect the dots and prove you are guilty, they issue a warrant. Normal, brained, behavior.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
lionkor 7mo ago
This isn't about criminal organizations. One person somewhere can decide to target you, monitor you for 30 years with all the government's resources, and never need to tell you or anyone about it. I don't like that personally.
reactordev 7mo ago
What ever happened to hanging around, being a nuisance, and asking them questions? The real problem is cops are scared to cop. A detective used to show up around a place and just make their presence known. That was enough to notify you of investigation prematurely. Now, in the digital surveillance age, they can just sit in the basement eating Cheetos and phone in a SWAT.
- therealpygon 7mo ago
  What happened? We collectively over the course of time decided that the individual right not to be “harassed”, valid or not, overrides the ability to behave in such a manner. That happened because other officers proved they could not be trusted to exercise such power responsibly. “Being a nuisance” is a toe-length away from “harassing an ordinary citizen” when you don’t actually have proof. So, harassing a citizen to gain proof in order to prove it wasn’t harassment has an obvious problem.
  - reactordev 7mo ago
    Bad apples… Yeah, it’s what happened. It’s not what has to happen.
    - ishouldstayaway 7mo ago
      > Bad apples… As always, if you are going to use this expression, you should be required to complete it. Remind me: what do bad apples do?
      - reactordev 7mo ago
        spoils the bunch
  - Teever 7mo ago
    Is that really the case though? I'm not really sure I can think of any major cultural shifts or specific incidences that have changed Canadian law enforcement in the way that you describe. How did these kinds of things happen in Canada and how do they relate specifically to bill C-22?
TheJoeMan 7mo ago
This is an interesting perspective, because from my point of view, the criminals ceasing their illegal activity would be a "win". Whereas, the alternative is the government knowingly allowing illegal activity to continue as they build their case with the goal of a "big bust" and larger jail sentences.
- therealpygon 7mo ago
  If their co-conspirators were also to cease, I would agree. But if that were realistically the case, arresting a single person would stop all crime.
  - snapplebobapple 7mo ago
    Personally, I am rarely concerned about the crime private citizens are committing relative to the crime the government routinely commits. Cumulative historical negative effects are not even close on the two. Also, the vast majority of private crime with broad effects is economically motivated, almost always by laws passed by government making some act people want to do illegal (i.e. drugs, prostitution, gambling) and the solution that is sensible legalization with a focus on making it too inexpensive to be illegally profitable in the context of ensuring product safety (yes, I am aware Canada has already utterly failed at this with marijuana). The solution to those crimes is not more government surveillance and therefore more data to assist the government in doing the crime its representatives appear to be fond of.
p0w3n3d 7mo ago
the problem is that in democracies anybody can be dubbed 'criminal organization'. Today you're pro-life? criminal organization. Tomorrow you're pro-choice? 'criminal organization'. You're making protests in your big trucks? Criminal...
- gzread 7mo ago
  Are you suggesting that police should not be allowed to investigate anyone?
  - danlivingston 7mo ago
    It sounds like they're suggesting that police shouldn't be allowed to bypass your civil liberties.
    - gzread 7mo ago
      One of which is apparently the liberty to not be investigated without your knowledge.
      - irishcule 7mo ago
        Where did they say you can't be "investigated without your knowledge" ?
    - p0w3n3d 7mo ago
      precisely. Especially without warrant. Any blanket surveillance techniques should be banned and penalised

armchairhacker 7mo ago

Yes, but the warrant should be revealed eventually. Worst case, if you can't prove or disprove someone committed a crime after X time, you should alert them to discourage future crime (they may have already done more crimes during X time; besides public interest, it also forces you to cut your losses when the alternative would be to dig a deeper hole). Do these warrants have a fixed maximum duration of secrecy?

reactordev 7mo ago
“warrant should be revealed eventually. Worst case, if you can't prove or disprove someone committed a crime after X time” This is the normal thinking, normal brained, route. It’s what we should all strive towards. Anyone who doesn’t agree needs therapy. There should be a window of discovery. 30 days, 90 maybe. But if you don’t have enough to justify notification of investigation, that’s it. No more resources spent. This is how normal precincts work. If they suspect, enough times, to build a large enough case file, to connect the dots and prove you are guilty, they issue a warrant. Normal, brained, behavior.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]

lionkor 7mo ago

This isn't about criminal organizations. One person somewhere can decide to target you, monitor you for 30 years with all the government's resources, and never need to tell you or anyone about it. I don't like that personally.

reactordev 7mo ago

What ever happened to hanging around, being a nuisance, and asking them questions? The real problem is cops are scared to cop. A detective used to show up around a place and just make their presence known. That was enough to notify you of investigation prematurely. Now, in the digital surveillance age, they can just sit in the basement eating Cheetos and phone in a SWAT.

therealpygon 7mo ago
What happened? We collectively over the course of time decided that the individual right not to be “harassed”, valid or not, overrides the ability to behave in such a manner. That happened because other officers proved they could not be trusted to exercise such power responsibly. “Being a nuisance” is a toe-length away from “harassing an ordinary citizen” when you don’t actually have proof. So, harassing a citizen to gain proof in order to prove it wasn’t harassment has an obvious problem.
- reactordev 7mo ago
  Bad apples… Yeah, it’s what happened. It’s not what has to happen.
  - ishouldstayaway 7mo ago
    > Bad apples… As always, if you are going to use this expression, you should be required to complete it. Remind me: what do bad apples do?
    - reactordev 7mo ago
      spoils the bunch
- Teever 7mo ago
  Is that really the case though? I'm not really sure I can think of any major cultural shifts or specific incidences that have changed Canadian law enforcement in the way that you describe. How did these kinds of things happen in Canada and how do they relate specifically to bill C-22?

TheJoeMan 7mo ago

This is an interesting perspective, because from my point of view, the criminals ceasing their illegal activity would be a "win". Whereas, the alternative is the government knowingly allowing illegal activity to continue as they build their case with the goal of a "big bust" and larger jail sentences.

therealpygon 7mo ago
If their co-conspirators were also to cease, I would agree. But if that were realistically the case, arresting a single person would stop all crime.
- snapplebobapple 7mo ago
  Personally, I am rarely concerned about the crime private citizens are committing relative to the crime the government routinely commits. Cumulative historical negative effects are not even close on the two. Also, the vast majority of private crime with broad effects is economically motivated, almost always by laws passed by government making some act people want to do illegal (i.e. drugs, prostitution, gambling) and the solution that is sensible legalization with a focus on making it too inexpensive to be illegally profitable in the context of ensuring product safety (yes, I am aware Canada has already utterly failed at this with marijuana). The solution to those crimes is not more government surveillance and therefore more data to assist the government in doing the crime its representatives appear to be fond of.

p0w3n3d 7mo ago

the problem is that in democracies anybody can be dubbed 'criminal organization'. Today you're pro-life? criminal organization. Tomorrow you're pro-choice? 'criminal organization'. You're making protests in your big trucks? Criminal...

gzread 7mo ago
Are you suggesting that police should not be allowed to investigate anyone?
- danlivingston 7mo ago
  It sounds like they're suggesting that police shouldn't be allowed to bypass your civil liberties.
  - gzread 7mo ago
    One of which is apparently the liberty to not be investigated without your knowledge.
    - irishcule 7mo ago
      Where did they say you can't be "investigated without your knowledge" ?
  - p0w3n3d 7mo ago
    precisely. Especially without warrant. Any blanket surveillance techniques should be banned and penalised