It is difficult to get the truth when you have all three branches of government involved in covering-up government wrongdoing:
Legislative Branch creates huge holes in open records laws.
Executive Branch makes maximum use of these holes, and stretches them even larger.
Judicial Branch says all of this is just hunky-dory, at least until it doesn't matter anymore, adhering closely to the "justice delayed is justice denied" principle.
You can read CJ Ciaramella's article about this situation here. Key point is in the penultimate paragraph:
Unlike typical government stonewalling tactics, which put the onus on requesters to sue for records, these lawsuits instead make the information seekers bear the costs and time of going to trial to defend their right to know what their government is doing. This is an overt use of courts to drag more of the public business back into the shadows and enforce a type of sub rosa censorship.
In any case,it's still a problem with the system and incentives...
True that. Bad incentives yield bad results. Bad cops get commended & promoted. Good cops get harassed, demoted, made to do extra / undesirable work, etc. or are fired.
See my comment below about intake not reflecting the general population.
I doubt it's that cops are in some way selected such that they're all terrible people.
This kind of misses the reality. What happens is that cops largely "self-select" in such a way that all of them end up being terrible people, even if they may not all have started out that way.
Short version:
Prospective cops see they system the way it is, and has been for generations (corrupt, all bad cops). Bad prospects are eager to sign up. Most potentially good prospects shy away from joining such a corrupt organization. The few good prospects who do sign up are eventually either converted to bad cops, or expelled.
This is how we wind up with the current situation where all cops are bad people (see ACAB).
If it is not fun or profitable, the cops don't want to be bothered. Actually doing their job properly generally doesn't fall into either category. This sort of behavior is disgustingly common. It is only because this was a particularly egregious example that it made the news at all.
Cellebrite, perhaps the most sophisticated MDFT, can compare a facial image, such as from a police database, to any of the faces in photos stored on the phone. Others MDFTs classify text conversations by topic, such as drugs, money or family.
I thought that encryption algorithms like 3DES, AES, and RSA were largely unbreakable unless enormous computing resources were employed, and even then it would take a prohibitive length of time. But it sounds like these MDFTs are effectively bypassing them at will. Is this a fault of the phone encryption implementations? Are the phones not really encrypting the data at all and just encrypting the file system's metadata that is used to access the actual data?
I absolutely agree, and your point applies to so much (most?) of what government people say and do!
In somewhat the same vein, I find it particularly disgusting when politicians spout this kind of un-american, authoritarian $#!t while wearing the de rigueur flag lapel pin.
I have always wondered why so many people in a supposedly advanced civilization put such stock in brightly colored bits of cloth, while at the same time absolutely trashing the important and worthy principles that those bits of cloth are supposed to represent.
Why would anyone expect a law enforcement agency to answer any questions honestly? The only reason I can think of to even bother asking them questions would be to catch them in the inevitable lying response. And since that has been done ad nauseam to no effect, why even bother with that anymore? The whole exercise seems quite pointless.
Wouldn't it just be more efficient to publish their false statements, along with evidence of the truth, and cut out the middleman?
I once lived in a jurisdiction where private prosecutions were still allowed. I had a situation where I looked into the possibility of doing just that, since the government prosecutor was not interested in pursuing the case. I was advised by my lawyer that it was extremely risky, in that if I did not prevail (ie if the crook was not found guilty, or even if a conviction was overturned on appeal) that the crook could then sue me for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, etc, etc, and demand big $$ settlement. The crook could likely get a lawyer to take the case on a contingency basis (the 40% lawyers), but I would have to pay for my own defense (more big $$). I was told the odds of this happening, and me losing, were much greater than getting a conviction, and having it survive appeal. Of course, government prosecutors are covered by absolute immunity from such suits.
Bottom line: If the government prosecutor does not want to prosecute, even if private prosecution is still technically allowed, you are still basically SOL, unless you are fabulously wealthy and can afford to take such risks. But if you are that rich, the government prosecutors will likely be on your side to begin with, so the question is moot.
Unfortunately, for many lawyers and analysts, problems like those we are discussing equate to job security and profit. So they are often much more interested in perpetuating those problems than resolving them.
Ditto for politicians, many NGOs, charities, lobbyists, professional activists ... the list is long.
Aren't we still only talking about a civil trial, where even if the cops are found guilty (not at all a given) of violating Kendole Joseph's civil rights, the result will be merely a judgement of $$ to be paid by the City of Gretna taxpayers, or possibly by the city's insurance company, to the surviving plaintiffs?
What really needs to happen is a murder trial for all 12 officers involved. And it needs to take place in a judicial, social, and political environment where, with the clear video evidence, physical evidence, and the testimony of the convenience store manager (and any other witnesses), a conviction is virtually assured, and these 12 cops are sentenced to (probably) life in prison.
Getting rid of QI will be a good first step in the right direction, and we will be in a better position than we have been for a long time, but we will still be very far from where we need to be.
assumed that the cops would be honest, competent and diligent.
But now that we have decades of evidence that this is rarely, if ever, the case, shouldn't judges be more receptive to corrective measures?
Of course, that makes the assumption that judges would be honest, competent, and diligent, but we are increasingly seeing that is rarely the case, too.
This just adds to the pile of evidence that law enforcement in the US is really just a government-favored criminal gang and private standing army. Unfortunately, our soon-to-be new POTUS and his/her veep have between them a combined ~77 year history of supporting this criminal gang.
Mens Rea, or intent went out of fashion as a legal concept a long time ago. It was a slow death by a thousand cuts, but the immoral drug war put the final nail in it's coffin when they started passing laws that said possession of more than a certain quantity of whatever automatically constituted "intent to distribute," with no actual evidence of actual intent required. "Intent to distribute" any proscribed substance was, and still is, always viewed as far more heinous than simple possession or use, and is therefor subject to much more draconian penalties. Actual intent is hard to prove (or manufacture / falsify), whereas mere possession of a certain over-the-limit quantity is not hard to prove (or manufacture / falsify).
Re: How many are executed in the field by law enforcers?
Yeah, our government and it's agents kill a lot of people every year, but I still think China has us beat, by far. You have to remember that the estimates of government killings in China are just that, estimates. While our cops manage to cover up a lot of their killings, or make them appear justified, I tend to think that the same sh*t surely happens in China, but probably on a much grander scale. Think orders of magnitude. I doubt there is any way to get even an educated guess of those numbers. China is still one of the more closed and secretive countries in the world these days. Sure, you can do business there, and have all your products made there, and go there as a tourist (at least in the Before Times), but don't even think of looking behind the curtain.
I generally agree with your post, but there is one other point that should be made:
While the US prison population is outrageously high, whether expressed as raw numbers or per capita, the US almost certainly does not execute or "disappear" nearly as many people as China. While reliable data on just how many people China executes or "disappears" each year is impossible to obtain, phrases such as "many thousands" and "more than the rest of the countries in the world combined" show up regularly in reports on the subject. Were this not the case, the disparity in prison populations would not be nearly so dramatic, and might even skew in the other direction.
This is a good example of why getting rid of the travesty of QI should be considered just a first, small, baby step toward holding bad cops accountable. This ruling only allows a civil suit to go forward. Even if the cops lose, which is far from certain, any monetary damages that are awarded will be paid by the taxpayers, not the bad cops. The cops will likely go on with their lives and careers as though nothing happened. In order to effect real change and have real accountability, we need to be able to have cops such as these criminally charged, with several serious felonies, just as any non-LEO citizen who engaged in such behavior would be. Only when cops face serious time in the same prisons with other vicious criminals, some of whom those cops may have helped put in those prisons, will we have any real, meaningful deterrent to the kind of egregious behavior described in this article.
Groceries:
Once for the food
Once for the refrigerator
Once for the electricity to run the refrigerator
Once for the pots and pans
Once for the stove
Once for the electricity or gas to run the stove
Once for the plate
Once for the utensils
Once for the toilet
Once for the toilet paper
Once for the water to flush
....
That may be what they say. I think a more accurate description of the goal is to collect as much information as possible about as many people as possible, on the theory that all of this information might some day come in handy to help create the misleading impression that someone was involved in some criminal activity with which they actually had no connection at all. Just as a skilled prosecutor can take virtually anything anyone says and twist it to make the person appear guilty of some crime, so they can also take video and present it in a context which accomplishes the same end. The more video they have, the more raw material they have to work with.
Here is an interesting article on this idea in terms of "taking the 5th."
An Internet search for "why you shouldn't talk to the police" will result in untold number of results, but few present the option outlined in the above linked article. The reasons we shouldn't talk to the police are the same reasons we shouldn't let the police (or other government agencies, or anyone else, for that matter) take video of everything we do and everywhere we go.
The surveillance state has gotten seriously out of hand. We need to do everything we can to rein it in and to not let it continue to grow.
On the post: Sheriff's Office Asks Court To Prevent A Different Gov't Agency From Releasing Records Related To The US Marshals' Killing Of An Antifa Activist
CJ against three Goliaths
It is difficult to get the truth when you have all three branches of government involved in covering-up government wrongdoing:
Legislative Branch creates huge holes in open records laws.
Executive Branch makes maximum use of these holes, and stretches them even larger.
Judicial Branch says all of this is just hunky-dory, at least until it doesn't matter anymore, adhering closely to the "justice delayed is justice denied" principle.
You can read CJ Ciaramella's article about this situation here. Key point is in the penultimate paragraph:
On the post: Eighteen Sheriff's Deputies Waited 500 Yards Away While A Burglar Terrorized A 70-Year-Old Disabled Man
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True that. Bad incentives yield bad results. Bad cops get commended & promoted. Good cops get harassed, demoted, made to do extra / undesirable work, etc. or are fired.
See my comment below about intake not reflecting the general population.
On the post: Eighteen Sheriff's Deputies Waited 500 Yards Away While A Burglar Terrorized A 70-Year-Old Disabled Man
Re: Re: Re:
This kind of misses the reality. What happens is that cops largely "self-select" in such a way that all of them end up being terrible people, even if they may not all have started out that way.
Short version:
Prospective cops see they system the way it is, and has been for generations (corrupt, all bad cops). Bad prospects are eager to sign up. Most potentially good prospects shy away from joining such a corrupt organization. The few good prospects who do sign up are eventually either converted to bad cops, or expelled.
This is how we wind up with the current situation where all cops are bad people (see ACAB).
On the post: Eighteen Sheriff's Deputies Waited 500 Yards Away While A Burglar Terrorized A 70-Year-Old Disabled Man
No $$ and no fun
If it is not fun or profitable, the cops don't want to be bothered. Actually doing their job properly generally doesn't fall into either category. This sort of behavior is disgustingly common. It is only because this was a particularly egregious example that it made the news at all.
On the post: New Report Shows Cellphone Encryption Isn't Really Stopping Cops From Searching Phones
What am I missing?
I thought that encryption algorithms like 3DES, AES, and RSA were largely unbreakable unless enormous computing resources were employed, and even then it would take a prohibitive length of time. But it sounds like these MDFTs are effectively bypassing them at will. Is this a fault of the phone encryption implementations? Are the phones not really encrypting the data at all and just encrypting the file system's metadata that is used to access the actual data?
On the post: Tennessee State Rep Ask US Congress To Ignore Supreme Court Precedent And Outlaw Flag Burning
Re:
"If You Want to Get to Heaven, You Got to Raise a Little Hell"
-- Ozark Mountain Daredevils
On the post: Tennessee State Rep Ask US Congress To Ignore Supreme Court Precedent And Outlaw Flag Burning
Re: Re: its just a piece of plastic/cloth.
I absolutely agree, and your point applies to so much (most?) of what government people say and do!
In somewhat the same vein, I find it particularly disgusting when politicians spout this kind of un-american, authoritarian $#!t while wearing the de rigueur flag lapel pin.
On the post: Tennessee State Rep Ask US Congress To Ignore Supreme Court Precedent And Outlaw Flag Burning
Misplaced priorities
I have always wondered why so many people in a supposedly advanced civilization put such stock in brightly colored bits of cloth, while at the same time absolutely trashing the important and worthy principles that those bits of cloth are supposed to represent.
On the post: New Orleans PD Finally Admits It Uses Facial Recognition Tech After Denying It For Years
??
Why would anyone expect a law enforcement agency to answer any questions honestly? The only reason I can think of to even bother asking them questions would be to catch them in the inevitable lying response. And since that has been done ad nauseam to no effect, why even bother with that anymore? The whole exercise seems quite pointless.
Wouldn't it just be more efficient to publish their false statements, along with evidence of the truth, and cut out the middleman?
On the post: Fifth Circuit Denies Immunity To Cops Who Beat And Tased An Unresisting Man To Death
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is still insufficient
I once lived in a jurisdiction where private prosecutions were still allowed. I had a situation where I looked into the possibility of doing just that, since the government prosecutor was not interested in pursuing the case. I was advised by my lawyer that it was extremely risky, in that if I did not prevail (ie if the crook was not found guilty, or even if a conviction was overturned on appeal) that the crook could then sue me for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, etc, etc, and demand big $$ settlement. The crook could likely get a lawyer to take the case on a contingency basis (the 40% lawyers), but I would have to pay for my own defense (more big $$). I was told the odds of this happening, and me losing, were much greater than getting a conviction, and having it survive appeal. Of course, government prosecutors are covered by absolute immunity from such suits.
Bottom line: If the government prosecutor does not want to prosecute, even if private prosecution is still technically allowed, you are still basically SOL, unless you are fabulously wealthy and can afford to take such risks. But if you are that rich, the government prosecutors will likely be on your side to begin with, so the question is moot.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Denies Immunity To Cops Who Beat And Tased An Unresisting Man To Death
Re: "Quick fixes are usually flawed somehow"
Unfortunately, for many lawyers and analysts, problems like those we are discussing equate to job security and profit. So they are often much more interested in perpetuating those problems than resolving them.
Ditto for politicians, many NGOs, charities, lobbyists, professional activists ... the list is long.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Denies Immunity To Cops Who Beat And Tased An Unresisting Man To Death
It is still insufficient
Aren't we still only talking about a civil trial, where even if the cops are found guilty (not at all a given) of violating Kendole Joseph's civil rights, the result will be merely a judgement of $$ to be paid by the City of Gretna taxpayers, or possibly by the city's insurance company, to the surviving plaintiffs?
What really needs to happen is a murder trial for all 12 officers involved. And it needs to take place in a judicial, social, and political environment where, with the clear video evidence, physical evidence, and the testimony of the convenience store manager (and any other witnesses), a conviction is virtually assured, and these 12 cops are sentenced to (probably) life in prison.
Getting rid of QI will be a good first step in the right direction, and we will be in a better position than we have been for a long time, but we will still be very far from where we need to be.
On the post: Kentucky Judges Reject Proposal For More Warrant Approval Transparency
Re: Re:
But now that we have decades of evidence that this is rarely, if ever, the case, shouldn't judges be more receptive to corrective measures?
Of course, that makes the assumption that judges would be honest, competent, and diligent, but we are increasingly seeing that is rarely the case, too.
On the post: Despite Not Finding Drugs Nearly 95 Percent Of The Time, Judges Keep Approving Drug Warrants For Chicago Cops
Just another criminal gang
This just adds to the pile of evidence that law enforcement in the US is really just a government-favored criminal gang and private standing army. Unfortunately, our soon-to-be new POTUS and his/her veep have between them a combined ~77 year history of supporting this criminal gang.
On the post: FBI Turns A Man With Mental Health Issues Into A 'Terrorist,' Busts Him For Using The Internet
Re: 18 USC 875(c)
Mens Rea, or intent went out of fashion as a legal concept a long time ago. It was a slow death by a thousand cuts, but the immoral drug war put the final nail in it's coffin when they started passing laws that said possession of more than a certain quantity of whatever automatically constituted "intent to distribute," with no actual evidence of actual intent required. "Intent to distribute" any proscribed substance was, and still is, always viewed as far more heinous than simple possession or use, and is therefor subject to much more draconian penalties. Actual intent is hard to prove (or manufacture / falsify), whereas mere possession of a certain over-the-limit quantity is not hard to prove (or manufacture / falsify).
On the post: Appeals Court Strips Immunity From Detectives Who Turned A Rape Report Into 18 Hours Of Terror For The Victim
Re: How many are executed in the field by law enforcers?
Yeah, our government and it's agents kill a lot of people every year, but I still think China has us beat, by far. You have to remember that the estimates of government killings in China are just that, estimates. While our cops manage to cover up a lot of their killings, or make them appear justified, I tend to think that the same sh*t surely happens in China, but probably on a much grander scale. Think orders of magnitude. I doubt there is any way to get even an educated guess of those numbers. China is still one of the more closed and secretive countries in the world these days. Sure, you can do business there, and have all your products made there, and go there as a tourist (at least in the Before Times), but don't even think of looking behind the curtain.
On the post: Appeals Court Strips Immunity From Detectives Who Turned A Rape Report Into 18 Hours Of Terror For The Victim
Re: Re: Bruno's girlfriend
I generally agree with your post, but there is one other point that should be made:
While the US prison population is outrageously high, whether expressed as raw numbers or per capita, the US almost certainly does not execute or "disappear" nearly as many people as China. While reliable data on just how many people China executes or "disappears" each year is impossible to obtain, phrases such as "many thousands" and "more than the rest of the countries in the world combined" show up regularly in reports on the subject. Were this not the case, the disparity in prison populations would not be nearly so dramatic, and might even skew in the other direction.
On the post: Appeals Court Strips Immunity From Detectives Who Turned A Rape Report Into 18 Hours Of Terror For The Victim
A drop in the bucket
This is a good example of why getting rid of the travesty of QI should be considered just a first, small, baby step toward holding bad cops accountable. This ruling only allows a civil suit to go forward. Even if the cops lose, which is far from certain, any monetary damages that are awarded will be paid by the taxpayers, not the bad cops. The cops will likely go on with their lives and careers as though nothing happened. In order to effect real change and have real accountability, we need to be able to have cops such as these criminally charged, with several serious felonies, just as any non-LEO citizen who engaged in such behavior would be. Only when cops face serious time in the same prisons with other vicious criminals, some of whom those cops may have helped put in those prisons, will we have any real, meaningful deterrent to the kind of egregious behavior described in this article.
On the post: Netflix Gets Cute Using DMCA Notices To Take Down Tweets Critical Of 'Cuties'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Groceries:
Once for the food
Once for the refrigerator
Once for the electricity to run the refrigerator
Once for the pots and pans
Once for the stove
Once for the electricity or gas to run the stove
Once for the plate
Once for the utensils
Once for the toilet
Once for the toilet paper
Once for the water to flush
....
On the post: Mississippi City Trying To Turn Residents' Doorbell Cameras Into Law Enforcement Surveillance Network
The real goal
That may be what they say. I think a more accurate description of the goal is to collect as much information as possible about as many people as possible, on the theory that all of this information might some day come in handy to help create the misleading impression that someone was involved in some criminal activity with which they actually had no connection at all. Just as a skilled prosecutor can take virtually anything anyone says and twist it to make the person appear guilty of some crime, so they can also take video and present it in a context which accomplishes the same end. The more video they have, the more raw material they have to work with.
Here is an interesting article on this idea in terms of "taking the 5th."
An Internet search for "why you shouldn't talk to the police" will result in untold number of results, but few present the option outlined in the above linked article. The reasons we shouldn't talk to the police are the same reasons we shouldn't let the police (or other government agencies, or anyone else, for that matter) take video of everything we do and everywhere we go.
The surveillance state has gotten seriously out of hand. We need to do everything we can to rein it in and to not let it continue to grow.
Next >>