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

Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

prismreports.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 222 posts

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#131

Post by saghm »

loeg wrote: post #98
sidewndr46 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people believe in scientology as much as they believe in a literature club. If you listen to someone like Tom Cruise's statements he says "I have gotten to where I am today because of Scientology". He doesn't name off specific procedures, treatments, practices, etc. Partially because they are barred from naming them. But if you're looking for a club you can advance it, I highly suspect Scientology is as quid pro quo…

You get or used to get true believers working in hellish conditions[1] on the boats, paid ~nothing. It might be a quid pro quo convenience for the Tom Cruises, but there are also some suckers. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Org#Lawsuits

Having a few famous Tom Cruises claiming it helped them is almost certainly part of the strategy for hooking in the dubious.

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#132

Post by saghm »

sailfast wrote: post #86

I don’t understand. This seems like some version of NextDoor / neighborhood watch but for companies and larger interests in the Seattle area that might have their own security apparatus. Why are folks jumping to some conclusions that this is some illuminati threat to democracy? Why is the article so breathless?

I don't know what neighborhood you live in, but there aren't many billion-dollar corporations hanging out on my block. Given how much shady stuff has come out about some of these companies, I don't think it's really that terrible a presumption that pretty much anything they've invested time and effort into that isn't already public knowledge might have been used for some stuff that we'd be unhappy to find out about.

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#133

Post by saghm »

whimsicalism wrote: post #38

Edited title to be more sensationalist - this is a Seattle local thing > The Seattle Shield website states that its mission “is to provide a collaborative and information-sharing environment between the Seattle Police Department and public/private partners in the Seattle area. Seattle Shield members assist Seattle Police Department efforts to identify, deter, defeat or mitigate potential acts of terrorism by reportin…

Good thing that ICE has such a stellar reputation of not pushing the agenda of the national government into local affairs!

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#134

Post by travisgriggs »

People are never going to quit doing this. I'm surprised we still get "incensed" by being "watched without consent". There is

No. Way. It's. Going. To. Ever. Get. Stopped.

The only way to level the effects are to radically increase the surveillance so that everyone ends up in a Dark Forest "I know shit about you too" deterrence stand off. And/or flood the sensors with so much input/noise that meaningful signal is tough to suss out.

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#135

Post by loeg »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #130
loeg wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get or used to get true believers working in hellish conditions[1] on the boats, paid ~nothing. It might be a quid pro quo convenience for the Tom Cruises, but there are also some suckers. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Org#Lawsuits

Cruise's contribution is influence due to his status and likely money given his income. Other's contribution is going to be much simpler, as you pointed out.

I'm saying, Cruise gets more out of it. Others get nothing. They're in it as believers, not a "literature club."

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#136

Post by saghm »

john_strinlai wrote: post #124
whimsicalism wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just encouraging people to look at the website itself, not actually the particular blurb I linked

the 8 line blurb is the entire website, minus the membership signup and login. am i missing something?

There's also the contact form! I'm sure if I send them a nice message they'll clear everything up

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#137

Post by jazz9k »

With gun rights and the right to defend yourself in many US cities, surveillance is the next step to stop crime.

In places like the UK, where guns are nearly banned, this is the norm.

If I can't stop you from robbing me, I should have the ability to record you and identify you later.

I'm fine if we reduce surveillance, if gun/defense rights are added.

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#138

Post by idle_zealot »

ClarityJones wrote: post #129
baddash wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to be some annoying contrarian or something, but couldn't it be the case that if the govt was investing someone who was planning a terrorist attack, then notifying the person being investigated could work against stopping them? Not saying it wouldn't get abused though, which seems like the primary concern of most people in these discussions..

If the target were being investigated for terrorism, then the govt could inform the company of that and - if the company tipped the terrorist off - prosecute the company for being an accessory / aid to the terrorist. However, if the govt claimed that the person was a terrorist and the company knew for 100% fact that the person was innocent and the investigation was in bad faith... they could tip off the victim. The N…

> govt claimed that the person was a terrorist and the company knew for 100% fact that the person was innocent and the investigation was in bad faith...

This is the thing tearing at the seams of our justice system in general. Our rules are based around an ostensible checks-and-balances arrangement, but this relies on the assumption of good faith from the parties involved. Implicit in this is the idea that if any body isn't acting in good faith, it will be so repugnant to voters that the state of affairs will quickly come to an end. This assumption is false.

Now we're talking about granting Facebook the right to assume bad faith on the part of the FBI!? Like granting the power to ignore the government to private companies will solve this, or help at all? That bandaid solution is almost certainly worse than the disease.

That's not to say that I agree with secret spying provisions. They clearly violate the Constitution and undermine trust in democracy. I just don't think "if you're a big enough company you get to ignore orders and drag things out in court" is a solution to government overreach. It's individual rights that need protecting, not corporate ones.

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#139

Post by saghm »

6thbit wrote: post #66
jedahan wrote: post #54

Reminder if you work for any of these companies (not unlikely on this site) you are actively enabling this. If your first reaction is doubt, deflection, rationalization or discomfort, there are ways out.

If you make open source used by any of this companies for this network, would you also characterize it as actively enabling this? If your retirement fund owns stocks of the s&p 500, does that make you an enabler? Are there really ways out?

> If you make open source used by any of this companies for this network, would you also characterize it as actively enabling this?

That's a pretty strange conflation. It's pretty commonly discussed exactly how rare it is for people to make open source to get compensated by companies that use their projects. I find it hard to imagine that you genuinely think that there isn't an obvious distinction that most observers would draw between that and direct employment.

Re: Seattle Shield, an intelligence-sharing network operated by the Seattle police

#140

Post by saghm »

Manuel_D wrote: post #74
jedahan wrote: post #54

Reminder if you work for any of these companies (not unlikely on this site) you are actively enabling this. If your first reaction is doubt, deflection, rationalization or discomfort, there are ways out.

Or perhaps when Amazon facilities security encounters someone doing destructive or harmful things, then sharing that information with other companies in the city is a perfectly reasonable measure? This is functionally no different than sharing your encounters with disruptive people on NextDoor.

Depends on what they consider "destructive", and it's not like there isn't already a way for contacting law enforcement when the circumstances warrant it.

The Nextdoor analogy is even more apt because it's kind of notorious for being used by people to complain about all sorts of ridiculous things that don't deserve attention

Post reply on HN