5 ms·

"14x times" to me sounds like statistically "zero" since I assume the sample size would be in the millions "at least."

by waynecochran 5mo ago

bdangubic 5mo ago
if 1 of those 14 was your daughter, wife, sister, mom you would not be writing this. 14x is exactly 14x too many
- bluGill 5mo ago
  It is a given that any power will be abused. However not giving power out is often worse that the abuse of power. The real question is what do we do to detect and prevent that abuse so it is minimized. All too often people are "this person is mostly on my side so I will overlook their abuse" which is the wrong answer.
  - bdangubic 5mo ago
    I agree but the combination giving power without doing anything to detect and prevent abuse in my opinion is worse than not giving power at all, in 100% of the situations - no exceptions. if 14 detected incidents here end up with 14 convictions and enough time in prison to deter anyone else from doing this ever again (5-10 years, per incident minimum), cool with me. it is no different than any other "law breaking" - people will people and law should be there to protect the citizens. but in our society it is obvious we cannot give power to people of authority cause whenever they abuse that power - there is either no law to charge them against or even if there is one they'd be immune to it
clark_dent 5mo ago
How many millions of police officers do you think there are? How many of those do you think have open and available records for their use of surveillance tech?
mrhottakes 5mo ago
So, as long as something only grievously harms a small percentage of people, it's fine. Good to know.
buellerbueller 5mo ago
Humanity has used strategic nukes a statistically "zero" number of times, therefore nuclear proliferation is not a concern, nor should it be.
fnordfnordfnord 5mo ago
When the IJ says it, they mean they have proof that they will stand behind of 14 examples. They decidedly aren't saying that it only happened 14 times.

"14x times" to me sounds like statistically "zero" since I assume the sample size would be in the millions "at least."

bdangubic 5mo ago

if 1 of those 14 was your daughter, wife, sister, mom you would not be writing this. 14x is exactly 14x too many

bluGill 5mo ago
It is a given that any power will be abused. However not giving power out is often worse that the abuse of power. The real question is what do we do to detect and prevent that abuse so it is minimized. All too often people are "this person is mostly on my side so I will overlook their abuse" which is the wrong answer.
- bdangubic 5mo ago
  I agree but the combination giving power without doing anything to detect and prevent abuse in my opinion is worse than not giving power at all, in 100% of the situations - no exceptions. if 14 detected incidents here end up with 14 convictions and enough time in prison to deter anyone else from doing this ever again (5-10 years, per incident minimum), cool with me. it is no different than any other "law breaking" - people will people and law should be there to protect the citizens. but in our society it is obvious we cannot give power to people of authority cause whenever they abuse that power - there is either no law to charge them against or even if there is one they'd be immune to it

clark_dent 5mo ago

How many millions of police officers do you think there are? How many of those do you think have open and available records for their use of surveillance tech?

mrhottakes 5mo ago

So, as long as something only grievously harms a small percentage of people, it's fine. Good to know.

buellerbueller 5mo ago

Humanity has used strategic nukes a statistically "zero" number of times, therefore nuclear proliferation is not a concern, nor should it be.

fnordfnordfnord 5mo ago

When the IJ says it, they mean they have proof that they will stand behind of 14 examples. They decidedly aren't saying that it only happened 14 times.