"Cops are still the wonderful, self-sacrificing people they've always been, he says. It's the American public that's gone downhill."
Most officers are wonderful, self-sacrificing people; or at least average people who want to do their jobs well.
It's just that dealing with a random officer these days feels like playing Russian roulette. (That's a much better comparison than it might seem at first: Spin the cylinder, put the pistol to your head, and five-of-six times the chamber is empty, which is great. But if you should happen to draw the officer in that sixth chamber...)
Deputy Matt needs to take a less biased look at what's going on. People magnify bad news. When was the last time you saw a story about a cop who rescued someone, or arrested the right person, or helped someone who needed help? Right. The news about the good cops doesn't travel at all.
The most popular restaurant in town can be destroyed by one cockroach special. The customer yells, "There's a cockroach on my plate!!!", and all the customers leave. All the customers tell their friends about it. Their friends tell their friends...and before you know it, no one in town is going to the restaurant. The good news that the customer who yelled is going to prison for fraud, because he brought his own cockroach, isn't going to travel nearly fast enough to outrun the bad news.
That's human nature: Nothing travels faster than bad news. The comparative few bad apples in the police forces really give all officers a bad name, disproportionately bad, because it is only the bad news that travels.
I understand the list. But there's fundamental problems with the case, and I'll explain it this way:
You have a house that you rent. You rent to an individual who promptly uses the kitchen in your rental house to cook meth. Should you be sent to prison for conspiracy to manufacture meth?
You might say that convicting you is unfair; that you didn't have anything to do with the meth. But you provided the house, so you're guilty, aren't you?
This is the theory behind the prosecution of Dotcom. He had a web site. Someone uploaded something to his web site. The law says he can only be held liable for that if he doesn't take it down on demand; if he follows DMCA requests he is not liable. The government is asserting he is liable anyway.
For someone else's upload. Even though he followed the law.
Back to you and your rental house. You want to prove you didn't have anything to do with it. You want to show receipts for all the rentals you did, where no one cooked meth. You want to show that you didn't give any money to the renter for cooking meth. You want to show that your phone records prove you didn't call the meth cook or any of his customers. You want to show your GPS records that prove you never even went near the house after renting it out.
Unfortunately for you, the government destroyed all your receipts, destroyed your bank account records, destroyed all your phone records, destroyed your GPS records, destroyed your rental house, and, to make sure they didn't miss anything, now they want to destroy the house you live in.
This is the government's action with Dotcom: He needs records from his system to show that he did what the law required him to do. The government has destroyed (or at least tried to destroy) that data utterly, on the grounds that it's not relevant to the government's case.
I repeat: The government destroyed/is destroying evidence...an action which is not dependent on the evidence supporting the governments case. Evidence is evidence, whether it supports the prosecutor or the defense.
If you claim your rental house example is a persecution instead of a prosecution, based on innuendo rather than evidence, well, you are Dotcom.
In fact, pretty much the only thing the government has not done in this case is extraordinary rendition Dotcom to Syria so he can be taught how confession is good for the soul. (They're probably kicking themselves now because, with the ISIL thing in Syria, they missed their best chance.)
In the TV show The Good Wife, an NSA agent was "framed" by the simple expedient of placing his work phone number on one of those supermarket-type "Car for Sale" advertisements...except that, in the show, the ad was posted on the bulletin board at a mosque. The ensuing flood of phone calls from Muslims to the NSA agent's work phone resulted in suspicion being aroused and the agent being suspended.
So, Mr. Alexander, I ask you: How would you avoid suspicion if...someone...were to post your phone number on a "Car for Sale" ad, in a mosque? If you agree that might raise a false suspicion (or two) against you: perhaps you should rethink the system that would place you on an endless merry-go-round of suspicion over something so trivial.
The bottom line is that your "one simple thing" doesn't work, with the system the way it is. There will always be people who wind up on the merry-go-round of suspicion because of something idiotic over which they had no control.
I really would like to know which of the following uses of the data from a phone Sinnigen would consider improper: Seizing the phone owner's bank accounts using the banking app on the phone? Publishing an adult's selfie nudes for profit? Offering to sell drugs in the owner's name...and then arresting the owner for offering to sell drugs?
This Facebook scheme certainly seems improper to me; so improper that anyone but a LEO would be prosecuted for identity theft.
With all the profitable schemes people like Sinnigen can come up with, no wonder people like him don't want phones to be encrypted.
I don't think the government will delay this time. They'll take the people off the list, inform them of that, and the case will be closed.
Then the government will add the plaintiffs back onto the list (or onto another list, since the government has many of these lists) and the plaintiffs will have to start from scratch.
So they recognize that licencing is needed: I bet that is so that competitors like Uber and Lyft can be kept out. We shan't have our profit interfered with, but we still need to keep those bad old competitors out.
Even though the TLAs likely have everything on the phone (via cloud, cell tower, and static communications taps) they're in a panic because they'll no longer be able to look directly on the device.
It's like the knee reflex: They can't see anything that isn't already "theirs," without throwing a tantrum, "I Want it!!! I want it!!! I want it!!!"
Upskirt would be protected if Texas wrote the law correctly; that is, if it had been written as a privacy violation.
Instead as I read it, the law is written to ban "dirty pictures", which is unconstitutional because some dirty pictures are protected by the First Amendment.
It's actually quite typical of the conservative mindset, to be more concerned about people "thinking dirty thoughts" than about details like personal privacy.
The last couple of weeks has established that all the data on the device is backed up to the Cloud. Law enforcement no longer needs to access the device; they can get it all from Apple, possibly from a web page download.
That seems to me to make accessing the device completely unnecessary. Even better from LEO perspective, having the physical device itself--and making the owner suspicious--isn't needed either. Perfect for warrantless secret investigations.
It seems to me that all the hoopla is just and only smoke.
As usual, if the legislation is in support of a "consumer right," it's toothless. Oh, yes, in theory it protects you...
But it'll be up to you to bring a lawsuit and get the clause struck from the unconscionable contract, and get an order to get your money back, and then for the additional orders you'll need after the company ignores the first orders.
And good luck getting your attorney fees paid for all your trouble. Your chances of that are nil.
In the meantime, the company will continue to use the same egregious terms against other customers, because the court ruling won't even apply across the board; each consumer will have to fight their own battle.
I'm surprised the NFL hasn't sent some official toadies around to simply confiscate the tape, on threat of arrest or lawsuit. It was, after all, almost certainly recorded "illegally" (in the NFL's view).
Operational security requires any organization concerned with interception of messages assume worst case. Anyone paying attention "knows" that NSA/CIA/FBI/etc. has been listening on all channels since the before the days of Echelon rumors.
It is stupid to assume anything else if a government is looking to crush you.
If the TLA's ever thought otherwise, well that would fit my usual opinion of their "intelligence". But I don't think that's the case: instead I think it's just a cynical justification for pathological secrecy.
Combine that copper catalyst process that converts carbon monoxide to ethanol, with this Brookhaven room temperature process for converting carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide, and you would really have something.
On the post: Police Officer Blames Everyone Else But Police Officers For The Public's General Distrust Of Law Enforcement
Most officers are wonderful, self-sacrificing people; or at least average people who want to do their jobs well.
It's just that dealing with a random officer these days feels like playing Russian roulette. (That's a much better comparison than it might seem at first: Spin the cylinder, put the pistol to your head, and five-of-six times the chamber is empty, which is great. But if you should happen to draw the officer in that sixth chamber...)
Deputy Matt needs to take a less biased look at what's going on. People magnify bad news. When was the last time you saw a story about a cop who rescued someone, or arrested the right person, or helped someone who needed help? Right. The news about the good cops doesn't travel at all.
The most popular restaurant in town can be destroyed by one cockroach special. The customer yells, "There's a cockroach on my plate!!!", and all the customers leave. All the customers tell their friends about it. Their friends tell their friends...and before you know it, no one in town is going to the restaurant. The good news that the customer who yelled is going to prison for fraud, because he brought his own cockroach, isn't going to travel nearly fast enough to outrun the bad news.
That's human nature: Nothing travels faster than bad news. The comparative few bad apples in the police forces really give all officers a bad name, disproportionately bad, because it is only the bad news that travels.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have a house that you rent. You rent to an individual who promptly uses the kitchen in your rental house to cook meth. Should you be sent to prison for conspiracy to manufacture meth?
You might say that convicting you is unfair; that you didn't have anything to do with the meth. But you provided the house, so you're guilty, aren't you?
This is the theory behind the prosecution of Dotcom. He had a web site. Someone uploaded something to his web site. The law says he can only be held liable for that if he doesn't take it down on demand; if he follows DMCA requests he is not liable. The government is asserting he is liable anyway.
For someone else's upload. Even though he followed the law.
Back to you and your rental house. You want to prove you didn't have anything to do with it. You want to show receipts for all the rentals you did, where no one cooked meth. You want to show that you didn't give any money to the renter for cooking meth. You want to show that your phone records prove you didn't call the meth cook or any of his customers. You want to show your GPS records that prove you never even went near the house after renting it out.
Unfortunately for you, the government destroyed all your receipts, destroyed your bank account records, destroyed all your phone records, destroyed your GPS records, destroyed your rental house, and, to make sure they didn't miss anything, now they want to destroy the house you live in.
This is the government's action with Dotcom: He needs records from his system to show that he did what the law required him to do. The government has destroyed (or at least tried to destroy) that data utterly, on the grounds that it's not relevant to the government's case.
I repeat: The government destroyed/is destroying evidence...an action which is not dependent on the evidence supporting the governments case. Evidence is evidence, whether it supports the prosecutor or the defense.
If you claim your rental house example is a persecution instead of a prosecution, based on innuendo rather than evidence, well, you are Dotcom.
In fact, pretty much the only thing the government has not done in this case is extraordinary rendition Dotcom to Syria so he can be taught how confession is good for the soul. (They're probably kicking themselves now because, with the ISIL thing in Syria, they missed their best chance.)
On the post: UK Court Blocks Author From Publishing A Book About His Own Sexual Abuse, At Ex-Wife's Request
Re:
On the post: In A First, Commerce Department Fines Intel Subsidiary For Exporting Encryption
Cynic
On the post: NYPD Officer Takes Cash From Man During Stop-And-Frisk; Pepper Sprays Him When He Asks To Have It Returned
Not Oblivious: Dumb
On the post: Former NSA Head Says You Can Avoid Government Spying By Using This One Simple Trick
What about framing?
So, Mr. Alexander, I ask you: How would you avoid suspicion if...someone...were to post your phone number on a "Car for Sale" ad, in a mosque? If you agree that might raise a false suspicion (or two) against you: perhaps you should rethink the system that would place you on an endless merry-go-round of suspicion over something so trivial.
The bottom line is that your "one simple thing" doesn't work, with the system the way it is. There will always be people who wind up on the merry-go-round of suspicion because of something idiotic over which they had no control.
On the post: SWAT Team Raids House And Kills Homeowner Because Criminal Who Burglarized The House Told Them To
It's All Right
But it's okay. Since they can't blame Hook (dead guys can't fry) they'll blame Garrett: He'll soon be up for first degree murder.
On the post: DEA Impersonated Woman, Set Up Fake Facebook Page, Posted Photos From Her Seized Phone To Make It Look Real
Sinnigen's wake
This Facebook scheme certainly seems improper to me; so improper that anyone but a LEO would be prosecuted for identity theft.
With all the profitable schemes people like Sinnigen can come up with, no wonder people like him don't want phones to be encrypted.
On the post: Court Tells DOJ To Stop Stalling And Figure Out If People Suing Over No Fly List Can Get Off
Tilting at windmills
Then the government will add the plaintiffs back onto the list (or onto another list, since the government has many of these lists) and the plaintiffs will have to start from scratch.
On the post: Court Says '5 Second Rule' Used By Police In Ferguson To Arrest Protestors Is Unconstitutional
Stop and arrest
"Stop right there!" Citizen stops, as ordered. 1...2...3...4...5 "You're under arrest for violating the keep moving policy! Meet my nightstick, scum!"
It's hard to imagine a policy more open to abuse.
On the post: EU-Canada Trade Agreement 'Celebrated', Text Officially Released; Even Worse Than Feared
Licensing
On the post: Texas Tosses Out Law Against Peeping Tom Photographs As A First Amendment Violation
Re: Re: Re: Re: What the fuck?
On the post: Absolutely Disgusting: Eric Holder Implies That Mobile Encryption Will Lead To Dead & Abused Kids
TLA knee jerk
It's like the knee reflex: They can't see anything that isn't already "theirs," without throwing a tantrum, "I Want it!!! I want it!!! I want it!!!"
On the post: Texas Tosses Out Law Against Peeping Tom Photographs As A First Amendment Violation
Re: Re: What the fuck?
Instead as I read it, the law is written to ban "dirty pictures", which is unconstitutional because some dirty pictures are protected by the First Amendment.
It's actually quite typical of the conservative mindset, to be more concerned about people "thinking dirty thoughts" than about details like personal privacy.
On the post: Good News: Mobile Devices Now Competing To Be Much More Secure Against Prying Eyes
Re Cloud
That seems to me to make accessing the device completely unnecessary. Even better from LEO perspective, having the physical device itself--and making the owner suspicious--isn't needed either. Perfect for warrantless secret investigations.
It seems to me that all the hoopla is just and only smoke.
On the post: Federal Legislation Introduced To Strengthen Consumer Free Speech Rights Online
As usual
But it'll be up to you to bring a lawsuit and get the clause struck from the unconscionable contract, and get an order to get your money back, and then for the additional orders you'll need after the company ignores the first orders.
And good luck getting your attorney fees paid for all your trouble. Your chances of that are nil.
In the meantime, the company will continue to use the same egregious terms against other customers, because the court ruling won't even apply across the board; each consumer will have to fight their own battle.
Toothless.
On the post: Only Surviving Recording Of The Very First Superbowl Is Because A Fan Recorded It, But You Can't See It, Because Copyright
Surprised
Maybe NFL doesn't have access to MPAA's toadies?
On the post: New Study Says There's No Evidence That Terrorists Changed How They Communicate Post-Snowden
Because they're listening
It is stupid to assume anything else if a government is looking to crush you.
If the TLA's ever thought otherwise, well that would fit my usual opinion of their "intelligence". But I don't think that's the case: instead I think it's just a cynical justification for pathological secrecy.
On the post: Net Neutrality Is Not 'The Government Takeover Of The Internet' -- Or Why Republicans Should Support Reclassification
Wasted argument
So rather than "takeover" being a concern it is the excuse that Republicans have invented for doing what the plutocrats want.
On the post: DailyDirt: Storing Energy In Organic Molecules
Carbon dioxide to ethanol at room temperature
Next >>