2 ms·
> Is there anybody who doesn't concur with this assessment? It seems like a flat, unambiguous fact. Many things that one person feels are flat and unambiguous
by hackuser 11y ago
> Is there anybody who doesn't concur with this assessment? It seems like a flat, unambiguous fact.
Many things that one person feels are flat and unambiguous are perceived otherwise by other people. To use an extreme example, some people think torture is unambiguously evil; some people think it depends on the circumstances; others think it's legitimate vengence on enemies.
There are very many law enforcement officials who use this tool, legislators who pass these laws, and a large segment of the public who trusts and supports law enforcement; they all might feel otherwise about these practices.
I think good reporting should challenge our perspectives by introducing us to others that are outside our usual worldview. Be suspicious of reporting that doesn't challenge your beliefs; they might be kissing your a--; you might be in an ideological bubble.
> Critics' say?
The idea must come from someplace, and it's important to say from where so that you can judge its credibility. Either the reporter hears someone else say it or invents it him/herself; the latter is the job of op-ed writers.
I do agree this idea can be taken too far ('experts say that the Sun appears first in the East every morning') but I'm not sure it's a problem in this case.
- hobs 11y agoBut the facts support that torture does not produce useful information. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/senate-committee-cia-torture-does-not-work http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/senate-commit... "The report finds that CIA detainees subjected to what were then called “enhanced interrogation techniques” either produced no intelligence, or they “fabricated information, resulting in faulty intelligence”. It says that the CIA’s own interrogators “assessed that the most effective method for acquiring intelligence from detainees, including from detainees the CIA considered to be the most ‘high-value’, was to confront the detainees with information already acquired by the intelligence community”." You can attempt to ignore this fact and argue whether we should or shouldn't torture people, but at that point you are arguing whether we should or should not submit people to gruesome deaths because we think they may have done something wrong (with little to no evidence.)
- jMyles 11y agoEverything you say is true and good. And I'm not saying either that I disagree with the policy or that I view it as likely to fail in an empirical sense (although both are true). Instead, I'm pointing out that the fact that allowing law enforcement to keep the proceeds does indeed create an incentive for LEOs to do the wrong thing. I think everybody agrees on that point. LEOs can point to a number of counter-incentives, as well as their own good intentions, as measures that can ameliorate this bad incentive, but I don't think anybody will disagree that it exists.
- hackuser 11y ago> create an incentive for LEOs to do the wrong thing. What's the "wrong" thing? You and I agree, by the way, but unfortunately I'm pretty certain that many people -- more than I am comfortable with -- do not.
- verbin217 11y agoInstead of just thinking about the issue lets fill our minds with simulations of all the other minds and their thoughts about the issue. That way we can be considerate of everyone's point of view. Then we can assert the insensitivity of anyone who just thinks until everyone is simulating minds that merely simulate other minds and actual thought is entirely eradicated.
- jMyles 11y agoWow. I love this comment. I didn't realize until now how frustrated I've been about this exact phenomenon happening around me, especially in the software community.