3 ms·
We're not claiming a police state, and certainly not the Stasi. I typically assume good faith on all sides, and I do genuinely believe that the program is being
by morisy 12y ago
We're not claiming a police state, and certainly not the Stasi. I typically assume good faith on all sides, and I do genuinely believe that the program is being promoted by people with either the best intentions or simply trying to make a buck with easy federal money flowing, no sinister plot for a police state intended.
But it's now pretty well documented that the federal government is currently encouraging, sometimes by force, local agencies to violate their state laws in order to keep secret a widespread federal program that has, at least by one circuit court, been found illegal.
Given past experience, it's probably also incredibly wasteful, and without this you're giving local police that can literally barely operate a thumb drive the surveillance equivalent of a flamethrower, and just hoping nothing goes wrong.
In other words, I don't think we're trying to expose a New World Order so much as a lot of legal and practical problems just waiting to explode.
- mpyne 12y agoYes, I should have made it more clear that I was piggybacking on this story to make a more general observation. As a member of the military myself, the increasing militarization of law enforcement in the U.S. is something that has me concerned, which is why I hope your efforts are successful in identifying (and fixing!) any of the legal and practical problems with new technologies in the hands of untrained police departments.
- virtue3 12y agoHey it's not like there's script kiddies out there that like to send over militiarized and bored SWAT teams into unsuspecting houses for no reason at all. Oh, right. https://news.vice.com/video/swatting https://news.vice.com/video/swatting Because well-off suburban NJ needs a federally granted armored vehicle for... who knows what. You and me both are terrified.