Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones

#31

Post by fluidcruft »

dragonwriter wrote: post #27
fluidcruft wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime deserve justice, too.

> Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime deserve justice, too. When the power of the executive branch of government is being used as the means seek something, its always about the Constitutional limits on government. No matter what you feel you deserve, the Constitution is the deal by which the outer bounds of the scope of your privilege to have the coercive power of government deplo…

You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the impossible goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice.

It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based on details of how its mechanism works or whether to judge it based on how well it performs the tasks we ask of it.

I'm just saying that within this focus on microtransactions above all else the overall goals are lost and the balance of penalties is wrong. When the government goofs, we let the criminal go and deny the victims justice. The purpose of the justice system is justice. The focus on these microtransactions elevates government as the definition of justice which seems much more expansive than the alternative, IMHO.

Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones

#32

Post by merpnderp »

mattlutze wrote: post #22
ggreer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm aware of the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony, but that's not relevant in this case. The tip came from a known confidential informant, not a random person. The police were going to pursue the lead, stinger or no. The stinger just made it easier for them to verify that the suspects were at their homes. Yes, proper procedures are important. Yes, I doubt this stinger usage was legal. Yes, this was bad police work.…

>> Eyewitnesses are generally pretty terrible at providing a true and accurate accounting of specific details in a sudden situation. For many reasons, informants can be misinformed, confused, incorrect, malicious. > I'm aware of the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony, but that's not relevant in this case. The tip came from a known confidential informant, not a random person. Many informants provide information all th…

The problem is they often verify the information with a SWAT raid on someone's home in the middle of the night. Lots of people have been shot on these kinds of raids and in many of the cases the informant's info was wrong.

Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones

#33

Post by dragonwriter »

fluidcruft wrote: post #31
dragonwriter wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime deserve justice, too. When the power of the executive branch of government is being used as the means seek something, its always about the Constitutional limits on government. No matter what you feel you deserve, the Constitution is the deal by which the outer bounds of the scope of your privilege to have the coercive power of government deplo…

You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the impossible goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice. It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based on details of how its mechanism works or whether to judge it based on how well it performs the tasks we ask of it. I'm just saying that within this focus on microtransactions above all else the overal…

> You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice.

You could also view "justice" in such a way that the claim that a victim of crime "deserves justices" is, to the extent that it is meaningful, completely inapplicable to the concept of criminal punishment.

> It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based on its mechanism or whether to judge it based on how well it achieves the tasks we use it for.

No, even agreeing that government should be viewed as an imperfect tool for achieving justice, its a question of what "justice" means, and whether it can ever be consistent with violating the agreement by which persons are, under the guise of acting in the name of government, granted power over others.

Some would view such violations as, themselves, inherently and fundamentally unjust.

Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones

#34

Post by facetube »

fluidcruft wrote: post #23
dragonwriter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution restricts what government may do against individuals. Perhaps the agents that break the rules should be held individually accountable in more cases than they currently are (though, as with most cases of using law to provide accountability for executive agents, there are agency problems that make that unlikely to be effective in many important cases), but that should not be an excuse to void the purpo…

Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime deserve justice, too.

The best way for police to bring justice to victims of crime reliably is for them to obey the law during investigations, arrests, and trials.

Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones

#35

Post by BurningFrog »

fluidcruft wrote: post #12
gleenn wrote: post #4

This is the first time I've heard of a pen register, apparently somewhat broad, modern parlance for things that capture phone data. It seems pretty damning that they spent the time to fax MetroPCS but couldn't, ya know, even get the pen register or ask a judge to ask if they thought it was a good idea. Maybe the bad guys are really bad, but sometimes I hope that they get off just to make the point that the cops are s…

> Maybe the bad guys are really bad, but sometimes I hope that they get off just to make the point that the cops are suppose to do the "right thing", otherwise the cops really are the bad guys The US way is to exclude evidence and protect the cops--the idea being that cops have no motive to cross lines if they can't use the evidence. More and more I'm leaning towards what I understand is the European way: let the evi…

As a European, I get a little twitchy whenever people talk about how things are in "Europe", since it is an extremely diverse collection of countries that very little is universally true about aside from their location.

That said, I can confirm that in Sweden, any verifiable information is allowed in a trial. This fits with the idea that a trial is an attempt to find the truth.

Swedish prosecutors are also obliged to seek out and present all objective facts, including those that argues for the accused.

Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones

#36

Post by fluidcruft »

dragonwriter wrote: post #33
fluidcruft wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the impossible goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice. It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based on details of how its mechanism works or whether to judge it based on how well it performs the tasks we ask of it. I'm just saying that within this focus on microtransactions above all else the overal…

> You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice. You could also view "justice" in such a way that the claim that a victim of crime "deserves justices" is, to the extent that it is meaningful, completely inapplicable to the concept of criminal punishment. > It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based o…

In the situation where knowledge of guilt has been found by unjust means, how does ignoring that knowledge promote justice.

> Some would view such violations as, themselves, inherently and fundamentally unjust

Exactly. Which is why the government should be held accountable to the victims of that abuse, not accountable to itself.

Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones

#37

Post by BurningFrog »

fluidcruft wrote: post #23
dragonwriter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Constitution restricts what government may do against individuals. Perhaps the agents that break the rules should be held individually accountable in more cases than they currently are (though, as with most cases of using law to provide accountability for executive agents, there are agency problems that make that unlikely to be effective in many important cases), but that should not be an excuse to void the purpo…

Sometimes it's not only about the government. Sometimes victims of crime deserve justice, too.

If victimless crimes weren't so dominant in current US law, I would agree with that.

Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones

#38

Post by dragonwriter »

fluidcruft wrote: post #36
dragonwriter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice. You could also view "justice" in such a way that the claim that a victim of crime "deserves justices" is, to the extent that it is meaningful, completely inapplicable to the concept of criminal punishment. > It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based o…

In the situation where knowledge of guilt has been found by unjust means, how does ignoring that knowledge promote justice. > Some would view such violations as, themselves, inherently and fundamentally unjust Exactly. Which is why the government should be held accountable to the victims of that abuse, not accountable to itself.

> Which is why the government should be held accountable to the victims of that abuse

The exclusionary rule holds the government accountable to victims of abuse, by removing the value that the government sought to gain by the abuse and the expense of the victim (it is imperfect, of course, in that it fails where the abuse was targeted at some use other than criminal prosecution.)

Any mechanism that fails to prevent the government from getting what it seeks by the abuse fails to hold the government accountable to the victim of the abuse.

Re: An Oakland shooting reveals how cops snoop on cell phones

#39

Post by cjslep »

fluidcruft wrote: post #36
dragonwriter wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can view government as an imperfect tool that attempts to achieve the goal of justice, or your can view government as the definition of justice. You could also view "justice" in such a way that the claim that a victim of crime "deserves justices" is, to the extent that it is meaningful, completely inapplicable to the concept of criminal punishment. > It's a question of whether to judge an imperfect tool based o…

In the situation where knowledge of guilt has been found by unjust means, how does ignoring that knowledge promote justice. > Some would view such violations as, themselves, inherently and fundamentally unjust Exactly. Which is why the government should be held accountable to the victims of that abuse, not accountable to itself.

> In the situation where knowledge of guilt has been found by unjust means, how does ignoring that knowledge promote justice.

Because not ignoring that knowledge enables the propagating of injustice. Fighting for justice is a futile effort if delivering justice also delivers one or more instances of injustice (it is a pyrrhic victory). This idea is the root of the biblical notion of "eye for an eye" (also part of a popular quote of Ghandi).

Post reply on HN