This is a point that almost never gets made: These violent raids with flash-bang grenades, battering rams, weapons drawn, and usually in the wee hours are almost never the best way to arrest anyone, whether they are wanted for minor offenses or major, violent crimes.
It is almost always better to wait until they are walking from the house to the car, from the car to a convenience store, while they are pumping gas, while they are at work, etc, etc. There are plenty of ways for undercover cops to make quick, effective arrests, with minimal violence and minimal risk of death or injury to anyone.
The problem is these other methods take planning, effort, and, worst of all, they are not fun! That is the real deal-breaker.
Ignoring the impossibility of "selective" backdoors, and ignoring Chris Wray's idioticly repetitive insistence on same, there is still a real problem with the repeated insistence on needing "lawful access" to people's private communications.
While something may be permitted, or not prohibited, by law, does not make that something the right, or morally acceptable, thing to do. The frequent disconnect between legality and morality always needs to be taken into account when government types start talking about things like "lawful access."
Corrections / updates positioned appropriately and even italicized / highlighted! Not hidden, swept under the rug, or articles altered with no indication or comment, as is so common in much of the on-line media these days.
Try as we might, we all occasionally make mistakes. It's how we fix them that counts.
Legal but overly taxed cigarettes -> bad cops -> dead Eric Garner.
It seems that I wasn't clear in making my point.
1) Legal / illegal is not necessarily a binary situation. Regulations of all kinds can create a gray area gradient between the two. In the current example, taxes are that regulation.
2) Even going just a little bit into that gray area will likely create some degree of black (gray?) market. In the current example, taxes created a black (light gray?) market.
3) Even some small black (light gray?) market will start to increase the incidence, or likelihood, of "brutality and violence." In the current example, that is cops enforcing the law against selling un-taxed cigarettes, and then killing Eric Garner.
There's police brutality and violence involving black people sitting in their own homes, without any action from the victim other than defending their own home against unknown intruders (and sometimes they don't even get that chance).
This does not seem to have much connection to the point I was trying to make. The article was about police not being a solution to society's failures, and my point was that one of society's greatest failures in recent times has been the immoral "war on drugs," and that it's negative effects on policing have been enormous.
It may, however, have a direct connection to another of society's great failures, and that is the failure to eliminate (probably not possible), or at least minimize (definitely possible), racism, particularly from areas of government that have the power and ability to instantly do irreparable damage, like law enforcement.
Alcohol already is heavily restricted: severely restricted manufacturing, distribution severely restricted in many places, retail sales, bars, restaurants restricted by onerous licensing / zoning / other laws, or retail sales limited to State stores only, sales restricted to those over 21 years old, very heavily taxed.
Old link but it shows that too much regulation largely defeats the whole concept of legalization. As long as there is still a thriving black market, the problems that go along with black markets will still be there, too (excessive prices, poor quality control, "criminal" involvement, etc).
For example:
Legal but overly taxed cigarettes -> bad cops -> dead Eric Garner.
With any luck, federal courts will start demanding more from cops who engage in bullshit stops.
Articles about current SCOTUS case Lange v California can be found here, here and here.
The worrisome part is that in the third article linked, only one Justice, Neil Gorsuch, is mentioned as possibly being in favor of Lange's position.
It is also worth noticing that California did not want to pursue this case, so SCOTUS hired a lawyer to argue California's side. This makes it look, to me anyway, like SCOTUS desperately wanted another opportunity to shred what little is left of the 4th Amendment.
Last year I tried to get some Naloxone (anti-overdose drug) for my first aid kits. I was told I would need a doctor's prescription, and even then they might not sell it to me since I was not a "first responder."
There are several serious problems with restricting the availability of a life-saving drug that has no known abuse or overdose potential:
1) It indicates a policy that would rather drug abusers die.
2) While I would probably never have a need for this drug in my first aid kit (I would hope not), I would also probably never have a need for anything in my first aid kit (again, I hope not). But no one will deny that having a first aid kit handy is probably a very good idea, just in case.
3) "First responders" are almost never the first to respond to anything. The term is a completely propagandistic abuse of language. In the case of a drug overdose, particularly when said drugs are illegal, it is almost certainly going to be the overdoser's friends, family, acquaintances, random other nearby drug users, or strangers passing by, that are the first to respond. Unfortunately, in most cases, their response will be to call 911. This will result in medical assistance arriving, probably too late to do any good, but also with cops arriving, and we all know the various forms of tragedy that often result from that.
However there are some drugs that are destructive enough to the user they shouldn't be widely available like meth without a medical professional administering the dose in a safe controlled environment.
Yeah, and alcohol, too. There's no way normal adults should have access to so much of that stuff so cheaply that they can, and often do, harm themselves or others while under it's influence. A medical professional serving micro-shots in a rubber isolation room would be soooo much better.
Tim Cushing kind of said it all in his sub-head in the linked page:
"from the a-police-state-is-a-team-effort dept"
Another unmistakable indication that we live in a police state: When all three branches of government aggressively participate, in concert.
The Legislature making laws against "...speech well in the heartland of First Amendment protection."
The Executive enforcing those laws way beyond any reasonable interpretation of those laws. That is, if there is any such thing as "reasonable interpretation" of such blatantly absurd and unconstitutional laws.
The lower Court saying "No problem with this." Higher Court kicking the can back to the lower Court. Lower Court saying "We saw no problem the first time, and we still see no problem."
And there are still those who wonder why so many of us have lost faith in government. Wow.
Their primary purpose is, and has been for many decades, drug enforcement.
The answer is simple, and has been known for as long as drugs have been illegal: Legalize drugs.
suggest heroin/cocaine/meth be legalized, and watch that person's face.
This is because people have been propagandized for so long that "Drugs are the boogeyman! Drug dealers are evil incarnate!" Just look at every TV cop show since, basically, Adam-12. The "pusher drug dealer poisoning our youth" has been the default, go-to bad guy. The D.A.R.E crap in schools. The politicians screaming "Drugs are the Devil! Ban them! It's for the children!"
When people have been exposed to this BS their whole lives it is difficult for many of them to think critically about the subject.
Policing has always been bad, but it got much, much worse as a result of the immoral "war on drugs." Everywhere legalization (even with excessive regulation), or even just de-criminalization, has been tried it has been a resounding success. Less addiction, fewer diseases and other health problems, less crime, etc. The only losers have been those in the law enforcement / incarceration / industrial complex.
I am not sure where you are getting your data / estimates (although I have my suspicions), but I think this figure makes Pollyanna look like a pessimist.
Re: Re: We have to take what little improve we can get, at least
While it is true that the justices (and I think we necessarily use that term loosely here) have changed since QI was first established, the evolving SCOTUS lineup has, until just recently, expanded and strengthened QI at every opportunity. What was originally presented as a doctrine to keep cops from worrying about lawsuits for "legal performance of their duties" (key word being "legal"), has been effectively transformed by the various SCOTUS lineups into "unqualified impunity."
Also, with few exceptions, the SCOTUS has become increasingly statist since the early 80's, not that it wasn't already quite statist back then.
Don't call the police...unless you are absolutely, positively sure they cannot make the situation any worse. It is becoming nearly impossible to make that determination.
Given that, I think Coises has a valid point. I might add that, by similar logic, since the citizens pay the police via tax money, anyone calling the police (who then subsequently killed someone) could be charged not only as an accessory to murder, but could also be charged with murder-for-hire, as well.
We have to take what little improve we can get, at least for now
its expansion of the qualified immunity defense is encouraging courts to give law enforcement officers a pass even when it's painfully clear rights have been violated.
Gee, who could have possibly seen that coming? Surely not the nine most powerful and qualified jurists in the country!
Or did they? This is another situation where I do not think it is even remotely appropriate to give them the benefit of the "Hanlon's Razor" doubt. I think they knew exactly where they wanted this to go over the last 40+ years, and they are only now backtracking (even if just a little bit) because the widespread media coverage of so many of these outrageous abuses has finally started to open the sleepy eyes of public opinion.
Of course, if the real purpose of the program is to create a massive database of facial photos and personal information, it's been a tremendous success.
Stated objectives are often wildly different from true objectives. In many cases, particularly when government is involved, they can be diametrically opposed. Just as we should always look at what politicians do rather than what they say, we should also always look closely at what any given program actually accomplishes, versus what we are told the program is supposed to accomplish.
Just because you can do it doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Similarly: Just because you have the right to do a thing doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
These ideas can be applied to a very broad range of situations. In the context of this article they could be applied to creating Facebook itself, to participating in Facebook, to deciding what to post on Facebook, to deciding whether or not to collect and sell user information (or how much to collect, or who to sell it to), to moderating content, to not moderating content, and so on.
These two short sound bites provide no answers themselves, but they do provide a couple of easily-remembered starting places in the search for your own answers.
The people of Oldsmar were very lucky, and should be very thankful the meatware was there and caught the hack, rather than just stare at the screen and say "Far out, man!"
Lots (most?) of these kinds of systems are not really meatware monitored at all. They rely on the control system itself to detect problems, and to notify someone if there is a problem. Of course a competent hacker or disgruntled employee could probably disable the self-monitoring and / or notification systems, too.
It is a journalistic practice to seek a position where you're granted classified information, then publicly release classified information without permission in spite of all the agreements you willingly made to get access to it and flee to a foreign power to avoid the results of violating said agreements?
Yes. Or to put it another way: It is like when a cop infiltrates the Mafia, learns their secrets, then tells the courts, violating "Omerta," then hides in the Witness Protection Program to avoid being killed.
(Damn, I wish I could find my notes on strikethrough!)
On the post: John Oliver On Drug Raids: Why Are We Raiding Houses For Drug Quantities That Could Be Easily Flushed Down A Toilet?
Re: Re: Re:
This is a point that almost never gets made: These violent raids with flash-bang grenades, battering rams, weapons drawn, and usually in the wee hours are almost never the best way to arrest anyone, whether they are wanted for minor offenses or major, violent crimes.
It is almost always better to wait until they are walking from the house to the car, from the car to a convenience store, while they are pumping gas, while they are at work, etc, etc. There are plenty of ways for undercover cops to make quick, effective arrests, with minimal violence and minimal risk of death or injury to anyone.
The problem is these other methods take planning, effort, and, worst of all, they are not fun! That is the real deal-breaker.
On the post: FBI Director Uses January 6 Insurrection To, Once Again, Ask For Encryption Backdoors
Legality v Morality
Ignoring the impossibility of "selective" backdoors, and ignoring Chris Wray's idioticly repetitive insistence on same, there is still a real problem with the repeated insistence on needing "lawful access" to people's private communications.
While something may be permitted, or not prohibited, by law, does not make that something the right, or morally acceptable, thing to do. The frequent disconnect between legality and morality always needs to be taken into account when government types start talking about things like "lawful access."
On the post: CIA To FOIA Requester: Assassination Attempts Are Illegal So Of Course We Don't Have Any Records About Our Illegal Assassination Attempts
Re: Fifth Amendment
People have rights. Government agencies have powers. It's an important distinction.
In other words, the CIA does not have any rights that might be protected by the 5th Amendment.
On the post: Judge Presiding Over Arizona Prosecution Of Backpage Denies Discovery Requests Targeting Her Husband, Who Happens To Be State Attorney General
Excellent journalism!
Corrections / updates positioned appropriately and even italicized / highlighted! Not hidden, swept under the rug, or articles altered with no indication or comment, as is so common in much of the on-line media these days.
Try as we might, we all occasionally make mistakes. It's how we fix them that counts.
On the post: Why The Problems With Police And Social Media Both Are Symptoms Of The Same Disease: A Failure Of Society To Actually Help Those In Need
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems that I wasn't clear in making my point.
1) Legal / illegal is not necessarily a binary situation. Regulations of all kinds can create a gray area gradient between the two. In the current example, taxes are that regulation.
2) Even going just a little bit into that gray area will likely create some degree of black (gray?) market. In the current example, taxes created a black (light gray?) market.
3) Even some small black (light gray?) market will start to increase the incidence, or likelihood, of "brutality and violence." In the current example, that is cops enforcing the law against selling un-taxed cigarettes, and then killing Eric Garner.
This does not seem to have much connection to the point I was trying to make. The article was about police not being a solution to society's failures, and my point was that one of society's greatest failures in recent times has been the immoral "war on drugs," and that it's negative effects on policing have been enormous.
It may, however, have a direct connection to another of society's great failures, and that is the failure to eliminate (probably not possible), or at least minimize (definitely possible), racism, particularly from areas of government that have the power and ability to instantly do irreparable damage, like law enforcement.
On the post: Why The Problems With Police And Social Media Both Are Symptoms Of The Same Disease: A Failure Of Society To Actually Help Those In Need
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Traffic stops
Alcohol already is heavily restricted: severely restricted manufacturing, distribution severely restricted in many places, retail sales, bars, restaurants restricted by onerous licensing / zoning / other laws, or retail sales limited to State stores only, sales restricted to those over 21 years old, very heavily taxed.
On the post: Why The Problems With Police And Social Media Both Are Symptoms Of The Same Disease: A Failure Of Society To Actually Help Those In Need
Re: Re: Re:
Old link but it shows that too much regulation largely defeats the whole concept of legalization. As long as there is still a thriving black market, the problems that go along with black markets will still be there, too (excessive prices, poor quality control, "criminal" involvement, etc).
For example:
Legal but overly taxed cigarettes -> bad cops -> dead Eric Garner.
So, yeah, brutality and violence.
On the post: Oregon Court: A Stop So Pretexual Cops Forgot About The Pretext Is A Rights Violation
Not likely
Articles about current SCOTUS case Lange v California can be found here, here and here.
The worrisome part is that in the third article linked, only one Justice, Neil Gorsuch, is mentioned as possibly being in favor of Lange's position.
It is also worth noticing that California did not want to pursue this case, so SCOTUS hired a lawyer to argue California's side. This makes it look, to me anyway, like SCOTUS desperately wanted another opportunity to shred what little is left of the 4th Amendment.
On the post: Why The Problems With Police And Social Media Both Are Symptoms Of The Same Disease: A Failure Of Society To Actually Help Those In Need
Re:
Last year I tried to get some Naloxone (anti-overdose drug) for my first aid kits. I was told I would need a doctor's prescription, and even then they might not sell it to me since I was not a "first responder."
There are several serious problems with restricting the availability of a life-saving drug that has no known abuse or overdose potential:
1) It indicates a policy that would rather drug abusers die.
2) While I would probably never have a need for this drug in my first aid kit (I would hope not), I would also probably never have a need for anything in my first aid kit (again, I hope not). But no one will deny that having a first aid kit handy is probably a very good idea, just in case.
3) "First responders" are almost never the first to respond to anything. The term is a completely propagandistic abuse of language. In the case of a drug overdose, particularly when said drugs are illegal, it is almost certainly going to be the overdoser's friends, family, acquaintances, random other nearby drug users, or strangers passing by, that are the first to respond. Unfortunately, in most cases, their response will be to call 911. This will result in medical assistance arriving, probably too late to do any good, but also with cops arriving, and we all know the various forms of tragedy that often result from that.
On the post: Why The Problems With Police And Social Media Both Are Symptoms Of The Same Disease: A Failure Of Society To Actually Help Those In Need
Re: Re: Re: Traffic stops
Yeah, and alcohol, too. There's no way normal adults should have access to so much of that stuff so cheaply that they can, and often do, harm themselves or others while under it's influence. A medical professional serving micro-shots in a rubber isolation room would be soooo much better.
And I know the /s is understood by most here.
On the post: Federal Court Says There's Nothing Wrong With Arresting Someone For Parodying A Police Department Facebook Page
Like Tim said
Tim Cushing kind of said it all in his sub-head in the linked page:
"from the a-police-state-is-a-team-effort dept"
Another unmistakable indication that we live in a police state: When all three branches of government aggressively participate, in concert.
The Legislature making laws against "...speech well in the heartland of First Amendment protection."
The Executive enforcing those laws way beyond any reasonable interpretation of those laws. That is, if there is any such thing as "reasonable interpretation" of such blatantly absurd and unconstitutional laws.
The lower Court saying "No problem with this." Higher Court kicking the can back to the lower Court. Lower Court saying "We saw no problem the first time, and we still see no problem."
And there are still those who wonder why so many of us have lost faith in government. Wow.
On the post: Why The Problems With Police And Social Media Both Are Symptoms Of The Same Disease: A Failure Of Society To Actually Help Those In Need
Re: Traffic stops
The answer is simple, and has been known for as long as drugs have been illegal: Legalize drugs.
This is because people have been propagandized for so long that "Drugs are the boogeyman! Drug dealers are evil incarnate!" Just look at every TV cop show since, basically, Adam-12. The "pusher drug dealer poisoning our youth" has been the default, go-to bad guy. The D.A.R.E crap in schools. The politicians screaming "Drugs are the Devil! Ban them! It's for the children!"
When people have been exposed to this BS their whole lives it is difficult for many of them to think critically about the subject.
Policing has always been bad, but it got much, much worse as a result of the immoral "war on drugs." Everywhere legalization (even with excessive regulation), or even just de-criminalization, has been tried it has been a resounding success. Less addiction, fewer diseases and other health problems, less crime, etc. The only losers have been those in the law enforcement / incarceration / industrial complex.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Says Tasing A Person Soaked In Gasoline And Setting Them On Fire Isn't An Unreasonable Use Of Force
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not sure where you are getting your data / estimates (although I have my suspicions), but I think this figure makes Pollyanna look like a pessimist.
On the post: Supreme Court Rolls Back Another Horrible Qualified Immunity Decision By The Fifth Circuit
Re: Re: We have to take what little improve we can get, at least
While it is true that the justices (and I think we necessarily use that term loosely here) have changed since QI was first established, the evolving SCOTUS lineup has, until just recently, expanded and strengthened QI at every opportunity. What was originally presented as a doctrine to keep cops from worrying about lawsuits for "legal performance of their duties" (key word being "legal"), has been effectively transformed by the various SCOTUS lineups into "unqualified impunity."
Also, with few exceptions, the SCOTUS has become increasingly statist since the early 80's, not that it wasn't already quite statist back then.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Says Tasing A Person Soaked In Gasoline And Setting Them On Fire Isn't An Unreasonable Use Of Force
The general rule is:
Don't call the police...unless you are absolutely, positively sure they cannot make the situation any worse. It is becoming nearly impossible to make that determination.
Given that, I think Coises has a valid point. I might add that, by similar logic, since the citizens pay the police via tax money, anyone calling the police (who then subsequently killed someone) could be charged not only as an accessory to murder, but could also be charged with murder-for-hire, as well.
On the post: Supreme Court Rolls Back Another Horrible Qualified Immunity Decision By The Fifth Circuit
We have to take what little improve we can get, at least for now
Gee, who could have possibly seen that coming? Surely not the nine most powerful and qualified jurists in the country!
Or did they? This is another situation where I do not think it is even remotely appropriate to give them the benefit of the "Hanlon's Razor" doubt. I think they knew exactly where they wanted this to go over the last 40+ years, and they are only now backtracking (even if just a little bit) because the widespread media coverage of so many of these outrageous abuses has finally started to open the sleepy eyes of public opinion.
On the post: CBP Facial Recognition Program Has Gathered 50 Million Face Photos, Identified Fewer Than 300 Imposters
Key point
Stated objectives are often wildly different from true objectives. In many cases, particularly when government is involved, they can be diametrically opposed. Just as we should always look at what politicians do rather than what they say, we should also always look closely at what any given program actually accomplishes, versus what we are told the program is supposed to accomplish.
On the post: Zuckerberg's Grand Illusion: Understanding The Oversight Board Experiment
Starting places
Just because you can do it doesn't mean it is a good idea.
Similarly: Just because you have the right to do a thing doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
These ideas can be applied to a very broad range of situations. In the context of this article they could be applied to creating Facebook itself, to participating in Facebook, to deciding what to post on Facebook, to deciding whether or not to collect and sell user information (or how much to collect, or who to sell it to), to moderating content, to not moderating content, and so on.
These two short sound bites provide no answers themselves, but they do provide a couple of easily-remembered starting places in the search for your own answers.
On the post: Hacked Florida Water Plant Found To Have Been Using Unsupported Windows 7 Machines And Shared Passwords
The people of Oldsmar were very lucky, and should be very thankful the meatware was there and caught the hack, rather than just stare at the screen and say "Far out, man!"
Lots (most?) of these kinds of systems are not really meatware monitored at all. They rely on the control system itself to detect problems, and to notify someone if there is a problem. Of course a competent hacker or disgruntled employee could probably disable the self-monitoring and / or notification systems, too.
On the post: Civil Rights Groups Argue That Biden Should Drop Assange Prosecution; Noting That It Is An Attack On Journalism
Re:
Yes. Or to put it another way: It is like when a cop infiltrates the Mafia, learns their secrets, then tells the courts, violating "Omerta," then hides in the Witness Protection Program to avoid being killed.
(Damn, I wish I could find my notes on strikethrough!)
Next >>