4 ms·

Do you assume that the techniques used for something most would assume to be reasonable will not ever be used in less desirable ways?

by alan_cx 13y ago

skwirl 13y ago
Police "techniques" involve guns, tear gas, helicopters, etc. At any time the police could in theory fly to your house, launch tear gas into your windows, and shoot you in the head as you run out. And I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly worried about that happening to the point where I want to take guns, tear gas, and helicopters away from the police. This is the FBI taking down criminals engaging in a clear criminal activity, and it is silly to implicitly compare it to the NSA fishing for terrorists. All the evidence gathered here will be presented in a court of law, all the techniques used will have to be approved by judges as in accordance with laws and the constitution or the gathered evidence will be thrown out. The suspect and any other future suspects will get a trial if they want. It will be out in the open. If you are upset that the software you thought was secure and anonymous isn't as secure and anonymous as you thought, that isn't the FBI's fault.
- kazagistar 13y ago
  I would actually quite like to take military grade weaponry, as you described, away from the police, or at least significantly scale it down. That level of armament is a sign of something dreadfully wrong with American society, and certainly not helpful towards fixing it.
- abk 13y ago
  IANAL, but I'd be surprised if the police was allowed to raid me, launch tear gas through my window and shoot me in the head. Even with a warrant. I'm not worried about this happening, because it doesn't. If it did, I'm sure it would blow up into a huge scandal. I am worried about government agencies intercepting my traffic / communications because it does happen, it's really hard to find out unless you know what you're looking for, and they don't have a warrant on every American citizen that happens to get caught.
  - a3n 13y ago
    > Even with a warrant. I'm not worried about this happening, because it doesn't. Spend a little time in here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=warrant+no+knock+raid+mistake&t=canonical https://duckduckgo.com/?q=warrant+no+knock+raid+mistake&t=ca... Or here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=warrant++raid+mistake+death&t=canonical https://duckduckgo.com/?q=warrant++raid+mistake+death&t=cano... Or here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/swat-team-nation.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/swat-t... I'm still waiting for the scandal.
    - sigkill 13y ago
      Is there a difference between ddg and startpage.com principles? Because I find startpage to be more in-line with the results I want to see.
      - a3n 13y ago
        startpage serves you google results, anonymized. It's sort of like scroogle was, I suppose. ddg, I think, does their own spidering and also serves bing and other results (but not google), but that's from dusty memory and it could be wrong or changed. ddg will however forward your request to google if you want, and you'll get a results page from google itself. In fact I use ddg as a front end for google when I want to use google. startpage is Dutch/American, ddg is American. https://startpage.com/eng/company-background.html https://startpage.com/eng/company-background.html https://duckduckgo.com/about https://duckduckgo.com/about http://dontbubble.us/ http://dontbubble.us/ ddg's Gabriel Weinberg posts here on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=epi0Bauqu https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=epi0Bauqu
  - serf 13y ago
    > If it did, I'm sure it would blow up into a huge scandal. how are you sure of that? Do you honestly think the public is privy to the movements of the people in charge?
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  Actually no, they exploited and stole data from any user visiting any Freedom Hosted site. Get an education about what FH is rather than jumping to "save the children" to talk down to people.
- mkmkmmmmm 13y ago
  Police having military weapons and vehicles is actually a huge problem, especially when they are punished with no more than a paid vacation for misusing them.
- kropotkin 13y ago
  At any time the police could in theory fly to your house, launch tear gas into your windows, and shoot you in the head as you run out. And I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly worried about that happening to the point where I want to take guns, tear gas, and helicopters away from the police. You might want to rethink your position: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/13/25_years_ago_philadelphia_police_bombs http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/13/25_years_ago_philadelp...
  - makomk 13y ago
    Don't worry, I doubt he'll have to rethink his position - after all, he's almost certainly white.
- atmosx 13y ago
  The FBI as every state organization is a position of power give by the state and it's citizen to protect them from illicit activities. All of them, not some of them. When the FBI engages in unethical and illicit practice, it's like stating that rules do not apply for them. Given for granted that they are in a position of power a priori, it's hard for me to see how this is good thing and how accountability can be held. Also you seem to be convinced that the judge and court will apply the rule of law to the FBI as they would have done with you and me.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    It is unethical or illicit for me to tap someone's phone or install malware on their computer. That doesn't mean it's illicit or unethical for the FBI to do so. The whole point of having a state is to trust it with powers that individuals should not exercise on their own authority.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      "The whole point of having a state is to trust it with powers that individuals should not exercise on their own authority." Also to address collective-action problems (like defense).
    - atmosx 13y ago
      Right, and when the FBI goes rogue (because that's whats happening) what?
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        Obama fires the FBI director? If they're not following his policies or the law, why hasn't he?
- unclebucknasty 13y ago
  >I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly worried about that happening to the point where I want to take guns, tear gas, and helicopters away from the police. If we were to learn that they found it to be acceptable practice to use these weapons indiscriminately on innocent people in their efforts to catch the bad guys, I might want to take away their guns, tear gas, and helicopters.

Do you assume that the techniques used for something most would assume to be reasonable will not ever be used in less desirable ways?

by alan_cx 13y ago

Do you assume that the techniques used for something most would assume to be reasonable will not ever be used in less desirable ways?

skwirl 13y ago

Police "techniques" involve guns, tear gas, helicopters, etc. At any time the police could in theory fly to your house, launch tear gas into your windows, and shoot you in the head as you run out. And I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly worried about that happening to the point where I want to take guns, tear gas, and helicopters away from the police. This is the FBI taking down criminals engaging in a clear criminal activity, and it is silly to implicitly compare it to the NSA fishing for terrorists. All the evidence gathered here will be presented in a court of law, all the techniques used will have to be approved by judges as in accordance with laws and the constitution or the gathered evidence will be thrown out. The suspect and any other future suspects will get a trial if they want. It will be out in the open. If you are upset that the software you thought was secure and anonymous isn't as secure and anonymous as you thought, that isn't the FBI's fault.

kazagistar 13y ago
I would actually quite like to take military grade weaponry, as you described, away from the police, or at least significantly scale it down. That level of armament is a sign of something dreadfully wrong with American society, and certainly not helpful towards fixing it.
abk 13y ago
IANAL, but I'd be surprised if the police was allowed to raid me, launch tear gas through my window and shoot me in the head. Even with a warrant. I'm not worried about this happening, because it doesn't. If it did, I'm sure it would blow up into a huge scandal. I am worried about government agencies intercepting my traffic / communications because it does happen, it's really hard to find out unless you know what you're looking for, and they don't have a warrant on every American citizen that happens to get caught.
- a3n 13y ago
  > Even with a warrant. I'm not worried about this happening, because it doesn't. Spend a little time in here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=warrant+no+knock+raid+mistake&t=canonical https://duckduckgo.com/?q=warrant+no+knock+raid+mistake&t=ca... Or here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=warrant++raid+mistake+death&t=canonical https://duckduckgo.com/?q=warrant++raid+mistake+death&t=cano... Or here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/swat-team-nation.html http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/swat-t... I'm still waiting for the scandal.
  - sigkill 13y ago
    Is there a difference between ddg and startpage.com principles? Because I find startpage to be more in-line with the results I want to see.
    - a3n 13y ago
      startpage serves you google results, anonymized. It's sort of like scroogle was, I suppose. ddg, I think, does their own spidering and also serves bing and other results (but not google), but that's from dusty memory and it could be wrong or changed. ddg will however forward your request to google if you want, and you'll get a results page from google itself. In fact I use ddg as a front end for google when I want to use google. startpage is Dutch/American, ddg is American. https://startpage.com/eng/company-background.html https://startpage.com/eng/company-background.html https://duckduckgo.com/about https://duckduckgo.com/about http://dontbubble.us/ http://dontbubble.us/ ddg's Gabriel Weinberg posts here on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=epi0Bauqu https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=epi0Bauqu
- serf 13y ago
  > If it did, I'm sure it would blow up into a huge scandal. how are you sure of that? Do you honestly think the public is privy to the movements of the people in charge?
drivebyacct2 13y ago
Actually no, they exploited and stole data from any user visiting any Freedom Hosted site. Get an education about what FH is rather than jumping to "save the children" to talk down to people.
mkmkmmmmm 13y ago
Police having military weapons and vehicles is actually a huge problem, especially when they are punished with no more than a paid vacation for misusing them.
kropotkin 13y ago
At any time the police could in theory fly to your house, launch tear gas into your windows, and shoot you in the head as you run out. And I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly worried about that happening to the point where I want to take guns, tear gas, and helicopters away from the police. You might want to rethink your position: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/13/25_years_ago_philadelphia_police_bombs http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/13/25_years_ago_philadelp...
- makomk 13y ago
  Don't worry, I doubt he'll have to rethink his position - after all, he's almost certainly white.
atmosx 13y ago
The FBI as every state organization is a position of power give by the state and it's citizen to protect them from illicit activities. All of them, not some of them. When the FBI engages in unethical and illicit practice, it's like stating that rules do not apply for them. Given for granted that they are in a position of power a priori, it's hard for me to see how this is good thing and how accountability can be held. Also you seem to be convinced that the judge and court will apply the rule of law to the FBI as they would have done with you and me.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  It is unethical or illicit for me to tap someone's phone or install malware on their computer. That doesn't mean it's illicit or unethical for the FBI to do so. The whole point of having a state is to trust it with powers that individuals should not exercise on their own authority.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "The whole point of having a state is to trust it with powers that individuals should not exercise on their own authority." Also to address collective-action problems (like defense).
  - atmosx 13y ago
    Right, and when the FBI goes rogue (because that's whats happening) what?
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      Obama fires the FBI director? If they're not following his policies or the law, why hasn't he?
unclebucknasty 13y ago
>I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly worried about that happening to the point where I want to take guns, tear gas, and helicopters away from the police. If we were to learn that they found it to be acceptable practice to use these weapons indiscriminately on innocent people in their efforts to catch the bad guys, I might want to take away their guns, tear gas, and helicopters.