4 ms·

It is strange how far things have come. Many years (1980-90s) ago when people would start these long rants about how "the US is a police state" etc everyone wou

It is strange how far things have come. Many years (1980-90s) ago when people would start these long rants about how "the US is a police state" etc everyone would just look at them like they were a little unhinged, then after 9/11 everyone started joking about how it was "true," now everyone has stopped laughing and when the topic comes up the tone is what I would call "genuine concern" mixed with nervous laughter. The US police have become extremely militarised. The TSA and CBP have turned damn right hostile. And it seems like nobody in any kind of authority position has any common sense left, I still remember when that chick from MIT entered the airport with a bunch of LED in a t-shirt and how instead of everyone laughing about the "funny misunderstanding" everyone was condemning her and she got charged with some nonsense "crime." Seriously has the whole world gone insane? I feel like I am the only one left with any concept of proportionality and understanding of the difference between a legitimate threat and a misunderstanding. On a related note: Why are SWAT now being used in no-knock arrests when there is no knowledge of weapons on the property and they often aren't even collecting time critical evidence? Why can cops not just knock on the door politely and arrest a suspect?

sandstrom 13y ago
I agree with you that things are worse now. I wouldn't say that the world has gone insane though, rather that the US attitudes have shifted over time. There are countries that does things differently though. For example, the worlds fourth and eight largest economies: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-l... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398
- notahacker 13y ago
  If the US government followed the example of the Japan or the UK in banning virtually all domestic firearm ownership, the cries of "police state" would be even more deafening...
  - elemeno 13y ago
    It's not strictly accurate to say that "virtually all domestic firearm ownership" is banned in the UK - it's just highly controlled and restricted. There's roughly 800,000 people in Great Britain (Northern Ireland has it's own, separate, firearms laws) with firearms licences about 80% of which are for shotguns. In practical terms, firearm ownership is restricted to shotguns and rifles and you've got to be able to demonstrate why you wish to own a firearm - i.e. pest control, sports shooting, etc - and you've got to have a clean criminal record and pass a background check by the police. It's also at the discretion of your local police force to grant you the licence or not, which is likely to depend on things like how suitable the choice of firearm is to it's stated purpose - you'd be unlikely to get a licence for .50 calibre rifle if your stated purpose is hunting rabbits for example. While the UK doesn't have a huge gun-culture, they're far from banned - as evidenced by there being roughly 1 legally held gun for every 70 people in Great Britain (GB - The UK less Northern Ireland, as noted above NI has different licensing laws). - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firearms-law-guidance-to-the-police-2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firearms-law-guid...
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    It's more about culture than guns. Russia is violent despite strict gun laws, and you could probably give every Japanese a handgun and a case of ammo and nothing bad would happen. This is not to say Russia would do better with more guns, or that America would not benefit from more controls. But changing the culture might be even more effective than laws.
- angersock 13y ago
  So, here's the best bit from the BBC article: "Arming the force would, say opponents, undermine the principle of policing by consent - the notion that the force owes its primary duty to the public, rather than to the state, as in other countries." That's what we're missing more of in the US.
devx 13y ago
The thing about visionaries is that they can see trends long before the others, too, while the others can look at the same thing and see nothing - and therefore think they're crazy. They can see trends when stuff goes from 0.001%, to 0.002% the next year, then 0.003% the year after that and so on. Most other people see a trend only when it rises from 5%, to 10%, to 15%, etc. People hear some police unit bought a tank, and think "ok, but it's not a police state". Then they see more units buying tanks and other war equipment, and they still think "ok, but it's not a police state yet". Then they see the police using the same equipment against protesters, and still say "ok, but it's still not a police state yet. America is not Russia! etc". Then, they start barging into people's home for things they've searched online, and for protests they "liked" online, and start thinking "ok, maybe we are a police state now". The problem is now it's going to be a very hard uphill battle to roll everything back. Now only do you have the police units wanting to keep all that equipment they bought, and thinking they now absolutely need it to "keep them safe", but you also have contracts lobbying to keep the police buying such equipment from them, and the federal government supporting it, too, and so on and so on. And all of that perhaps could've been stopped early on 10-15 years ago, if people actually believed the people who started saying US is becoming a police state, and didn't wait until the very last moment, until nothing can be rolled back anymore, just like with the NSA spying. There are at least 2 trends that are starting now, that you can start fighting early, before it goes too far: domestic drone surveillance, and NSA collaboration with domestic agencies. These trends are very early, and most people are still probably thinking "ok, but let's see how it goes first, before we get outraged". Sure, you can do that. But before you know it, drones will surveil everything from the sky for the government, and NSA sharing with DEA, FBI, DHS, and even the police will be done "as a matter of fact". Don't believe me? Look how DoJ thinks about this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/doj-if-we-can-track-one-american-we-can-track-all-americans/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/doj-if-we-can-tra... You have to start fighting the abuses at the very first signs, not when the abuses are already an "entrenched system" and a culture of doing things for the authorities.
- borplk 13y ago
  Very well said. I guess another way to think about it is the famous story about 'how to boil a frog'. People tolerate small incremental changes until it is far too late, like the frog that tolerated small incremental increase in the water temperature and now it is boiling...
ams6110 13y ago
Why are SWAT now being used in no-knock arrests Because they exist, and employing them justifies their existence. In past decades, SWAT was only found in large urban police departments. Now many cities that rarely if ever have criminal activity requiring a SWAT-like response have some form of SWAT, critical incident, etc. teams that need something to do.
- legutierr 13y ago
  If they didn't have SWAT, they'd be missing out on federal "Homeland Security" subsidies. Any local politician would be remiss to pass up that kind of money, and the jobs it creates.
appleflaxen 13y ago
A bit off topic, but this is the real way that movies and video games are harmful: police officers see an urban gun battle unfold in some blockbuster flick, and they translate that to "oh; that's how a 'real' police department works". It affects everyone who makes decisions in the PD, so decisions to "make our department real" get approved all the way up. The real warning labels on video games and movies needs to be "not approved for viewing by law enforcement".
- mhurron 13y ago
  No, the clear response to your assertion would be to ban all violent video games and movies. Since they're causing all this violence, you simply remove the cause.
- mikestew 13y ago
  Because when you watched the movie Swordfish, you said to yourself, "that's how a real hacker does it" instead of "what a load of crap", right?
frost_knight 13y ago
"That chick from MIT"? C'mon, man, where's the respect? Her name is Star Simpson.
- Two9A 13y ago
  So let's say you didn't remember that off-hand, and had to search for it. What set of keywords would you use in your search, that wouldn't garner attention from certain authorities?
  - Anechoic 13y ago
    "https://www.google.com/search?q=mit+airport+arrest" https://www.google.com/search?q=mit+airport+arrest"
    - philsnow 13y ago
      Even https://www.google.com/search?q=that+chick+from+mit+with+leds+in+her+shirt https://www.google.com/search?q=that+chick+from+mit+with+led... gets you what you want.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    What set of keywords do you think is going to garner attention? It might be fun to cry out that the FBI is monitoring the internet for people searching for bomb, but they really aren't. They might make a note of it if something else triggers an investigation.
- UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
  Not at all disrespectful. I didn't know her name, no different than "That dude from MIT" (had it been a guy). Sorry if you dislike the vernacular but not at all disrespectful. Plus I'm almost certain you wouldn't have made that post if I had have said "That dude from MIT." You might have posted the name, but you certainly wouldn't have turned it into a respect thing (not least of all because it isn't actually disrespectful).

sandstrom 13y ago

I agree with you that things are worse now. I wouldn't say that the world has gone insane though, rather that the US attitudes have shifted over time. There are countries that does things differently though. For example, the worlds fourth and eight largest economies: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-l... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

notahacker 13y ago
If the US government followed the example of the Japan or the UK in banning virtually all domestic firearm ownership, the cries of "police state" would be even more deafening...
- elemeno 13y ago
  It's not strictly accurate to say that "virtually all domestic firearm ownership" is banned in the UK - it's just highly controlled and restricted. There's roughly 800,000 people in Great Britain (Northern Ireland has it's own, separate, firearms laws) with firearms licences about 80% of which are for shotguns. In practical terms, firearm ownership is restricted to shotguns and rifles and you've got to be able to demonstrate why you wish to own a firearm - i.e. pest control, sports shooting, etc - and you've got to have a clean criminal record and pass a background check by the police. It's also at the discretion of your local police force to grant you the licence or not, which is likely to depend on things like how suitable the choice of firearm is to it's stated purpose - you'd be unlikely to get a licence for .50 calibre rifle if your stated purpose is hunting rabbits for example. While the UK doesn't have a huge gun-culture, they're far from banned - as evidenced by there being roughly 1 legally held gun for every 70 people in Great Britain (GB - The UK less Northern Ireland, as noted above NI has different licensing laws). - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firearms-law-guidance-to-the-police-2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firearms-law-guid...
- Zigurd 13y ago
  It's more about culture than guns. Russia is violent despite strict gun laws, and you could probably give every Japanese a handgun and a case of ammo and nothing bad would happen. This is not to say Russia would do better with more guns, or that America would not benefit from more controls. But changing the culture might be even more effective than laws.
angersock 13y ago
So, here's the best bit from the BBC article: "Arming the force would, say opponents, undermine the principle of policing by consent - the notion that the force owes its primary duty to the public, rather than to the state, as in other countries." That's what we're missing more of in the US.

devx 13y ago

The thing about visionaries is that they can see trends long before the others, too, while the others can look at the same thing and see nothing - and therefore think they're crazy. They can see trends when stuff goes from 0.001%, to 0.002% the next year, then 0.003% the year after that and so on. Most other people see a trend only when it rises from 5%, to 10%, to 15%, etc. People hear some police unit bought a tank, and think "ok, but it's not a police state". Then they see more units buying tanks and other war equipment, and they still think "ok, but it's not a police state yet". Then they see the police using the same equipment against protesters, and still say "ok, but it's still not a police state yet. America is not Russia! etc". Then, they start barging into people's home for things they've searched online, and for protests they "liked" online, and start thinking "ok, maybe we are a police state now". The problem is now it's going to be a very hard uphill battle to roll everything back. Now only do you have the police units wanting to keep all that equipment they bought, and thinking they now absolutely need it to "keep them safe", but you also have contracts lobbying to keep the police buying such equipment from them, and the federal government supporting it, too, and so on and so on. And all of that perhaps could've been stopped early on 10-15 years ago, if people actually believed the people who started saying US is becoming a police state, and didn't wait until the very last moment, until nothing can be rolled back anymore, just like with the NSA spying. There are at least 2 trends that are starting now, that you can start fighting early, before it goes too far: domestic drone surveillance, and NSA collaboration with domestic agencies. These trends are very early, and most people are still probably thinking "ok, but let's see how it goes first, before we get outraged". Sure, you can do that. But before you know it, drones will surveil everything from the sky for the government, and NSA sharing with DEA, FBI, DHS, and even the police will be done "as a matter of fact". Don't believe me? Look how DoJ thinks about this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/doj-if-we-can-track-one-american-we-can-track-all-americans/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/doj-if-we-can-tra... You have to start fighting the abuses at the very first signs, not when the abuses are already an "entrenched system" and a culture of doing things for the authorities.

borplk 13y ago
Very well said. I guess another way to think about it is the famous story about 'how to boil a frog'. People tolerate small incremental changes until it is far too late, like the frog that tolerated small incremental increase in the water temperature and now it is boiling...

ams6110 13y ago

Why are SWAT now being used in no-knock arrests Because they exist, and employing them justifies their existence. In past decades, SWAT was only found in large urban police departments. Now many cities that rarely if ever have criminal activity requiring a SWAT-like response have some form of SWAT, critical incident, etc. teams that need something to do.

legutierr 13y ago
If they didn't have SWAT, they'd be missing out on federal "Homeland Security" subsidies. Any local politician would be remiss to pass up that kind of money, and the jobs it creates.

appleflaxen 13y ago

A bit off topic, but this is the real way that movies and video games are harmful: police officers see an urban gun battle unfold in some blockbuster flick, and they translate that to "oh; that's how a 'real' police department works". It affects everyone who makes decisions in the PD, so decisions to "make our department real" get approved all the way up. The real warning labels on video games and movies needs to be "not approved for viewing by law enforcement".

mhurron 13y ago
No, the clear response to your assertion would be to ban all violent video games and movies. Since they're causing all this violence, you simply remove the cause.
mikestew 13y ago
Because when you watched the movie Swordfish, you said to yourself, "that's how a real hacker does it" instead of "what a load of crap", right?

frost_knight 13y ago

"That chick from MIT"? C'mon, man, where's the respect? Her name is Star Simpson.

Two9A 13y ago
So let's say you didn't remember that off-hand, and had to search for it. What set of keywords would you use in your search, that wouldn't garner attention from certain authorities?
- Anechoic 13y ago
  "https://www.google.com/search?q=mit+airport+arrest" https://www.google.com/search?q=mit+airport+arrest"
  - philsnow 13y ago
    Even https://www.google.com/search?q=that+chick+from+mit+with+leds+in+her+shirt https://www.google.com/search?q=that+chick+from+mit+with+led... gets you what you want.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  What set of keywords do you think is going to garner attention? It might be fun to cry out that the FBI is monitoring the internet for people searching for bomb, but they really aren't. They might make a note of it if something else triggers an investigation.
UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
Not at all disrespectful. I didn't know her name, no different than "That dude from MIT" (had it been a guy). Sorry if you dislike the vernacular but not at all disrespectful. Plus I'm almost certain you wouldn't have made that post if I had have said "That dude from MIT." You might have posted the name, but you certainly wouldn't have turned it into a respect thing (not least of all because it isn't actually disrespectful).