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

AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 211 posts

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#191

Post by drblast »

shawn-furyan wrote: post #131

As a meta-commentary on this category of issues, I tend to be against these sort of substance bans (PEDs[1] in sports is another timely example), and I often see that people who support such measures tend to talk about what things would be like if these substances were completely gotten rid of[2]. To me, this is complete fantasy because there's never been a substance ban that has been very effective at reducing usage…

It would be interesting if politicians had to argue for the drug war using the actual effects as the reasons.

"Proposition 843 will raise the price of cocaine and heroine and make possession illegal so as to create a massive demand for it among a newly expanded criminal class. We'd like to ensure that the price is so high that the enforcement agencies are outspent and outsmarted at every turn by extremely well-funded drug cartels. We will pay the additional enforcement costs through increased taxes and seizure of private property and assets. Additionally, we plan to make selling these drugs so lucrative that it becomes one of very few attractive career options for our nation's poor."

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#192

Post by prawn »

ballard wrote: post #164
prawn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the War on Drugs just modernised slavery? Privatised prison system with the profit-based incentives to take on more and more prisoners.

Most slaves turn a profit, while most prisons require funding. Prisons are garbage processors for grinding up as many undesirables as possible, for as long as possible. Whom is chosen is somewhat random, but usually people that are undesirable: ugly or antisocial. As for the minor point of finding guilt: a crime can always be found, so that's not a limiting factor. The majority have already volunteered to be slaves.…

Require funding or get funding? Doesn't a privatised prison derive a profit from its "use" of prisoners (getting/requiring funding) in the same way that slaveholders once derived a profit from their use of slaves?

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#193

Post by anigbrowl »

genwin wrote: post #165
anigbrowl wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what the percentage is for crack Then stop talking out of your ass and do some research before machine-gunning the thread.

Yours is a rude form of disagreement, is all. Your comments elsewhere: > This isn't going to happen because a bunch of people in line at an airport isn't a high-value target. Can you point to research? > I mean it would suck, of course, but 'bunch of people get blown up at an airport' isn't nearly as worrying as 'large plane falls/is steered out of the sky and into downtown.' Proof that it isn't as worrying? > It doe…

I don't need to post research. Logically, if a plane falls out of the sky this also presents a threat to anyone on the ground at the time of impact. If people are blown up at an airport, there's no additional risk for those outside the immediate vicinity. This is a consequence of the fact that planes are mobile while airports are not.

Yes, I'm being rude, because by your own admission you are arguing from a position of ignorance and inaccurate prejudice.

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#194

Post by anigbrowl »

genwin wrote: post #174
anigbrowl wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nonsense. GCracks'a horrible drug, crack addicts are tedious & depressing to be around, but they're not all as dysfunctional as you suggest. The most common crime I've seen among extreme crack addicts is prostitution rather than robbery.

> GCracks'a horrible drug, crack addicts are tedious & depressing to be around, but they're not all as dysfunctional as you suggest. Have you researched this, as you suggested I do, or is it just what you believe?

I have experienced it, having known several crack addicts personally including a former colleague and roommate.

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#195

Post by anigbrowl »

jlgreco wrote: post #158
anigbrowl wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I would object. It's not obvious that the world is billions of years old, so I think it's a good thing to mention however briefly, that our knowledge of such things is founded on the study of geology, chemistry and so forth, unless you're talking to someone whose views/level of knowledge you're already familiar with. You weaken your own argument when you go around stating your opinion as fact, and it's not very…

I don't think anyone but a loon or a pedant would object to a comment, in a thread about geology, that implied the ancient nature of the earth was obvious. I am afraid that I find it difficult to care about the objections of either loons or pedants. They may think my argument is weakened, and I consider that an acceptable loss. I already go out of my way to qualify much of what I say, I have little interest in furthe…

I don't think anyone but a loon or a pedant would object to a comment, in a thread about geology

Wait a minute, you didn't say anything about 'a thread about geology.' In fact, I was the person who brought that into the conversation. Discussions and misapprehensions about the age of the earth seem more likely to crop up in conversations about religion or general science or ancient history.

You've got a nerve critiquing me for being a pedant when you're retroactively redefining the terms of your argument like that.

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#196

Post by beedogs »

ballard wrote: post #164
prawn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the War on Drugs just modernised slavery? Privatised prison system with the profit-based incentives to take on more and more prisoners.

Most slaves turn a profit, while most prisons require funding. Prisons are garbage processors for grinding up as many undesirables as possible, for as long as possible. Whom is chosen is somewhat random, but usually people that are undesirable: ugly or antisocial. As for the minor point of finding guilt: a crime can always be found, so that's not a limiting factor. The majority have already volunteered to be slaves.…

> Most slaves turn a profit, while most prisons require funding.

Not even relevant in private prisons, many of which put their prisoners to work and provide third-world wages to their inmates. And the funding comes from the government.

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#197

Post by sk5t »

ballard wrote: post #164
prawn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the War on Drugs just modernised slavery? Privatised prison system with the profit-based incentives to take on more and more prisoners.

Most slaves turn a profit, while most prisons require funding. Prisons are garbage processors for grinding up as many undesirables as possible, for as long as possible. Whom is chosen is somewhat random, but usually people that are undesirable: ugly or antisocial. As for the minor point of finding guilt: a crime can always be found, so that's not a limiting factor. The majority have already volunteered to be slaves.…

Prisoners beget _revenue_ for the prison system. It is of no consequence that prisoners' labor fails to produce anything marketable that outshines their value to the prison system of only being, existing in a cage, and causing revenue to pour in.

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#198

Post by ballard »

prawn wrote: post #192
ballard wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most slaves turn a profit, while most prisons require funding. Prisons are garbage processors for grinding up as many undesirables as possible, for as long as possible. Whom is chosen is somewhat random, but usually people that are undesirable: ugly or antisocial. As for the minor point of finding guilt: a crime can always be found, so that's not a limiting factor. The majority have already volunteered to be slaves.…

Require funding or get funding? Doesn't a privatised prison derive a profit from its "use" of prisoners (getting/requiring funding) in the same way that slaveholders once derived a profit from their use of slaves?

Most prisons, whether for profit or not, require money to keep going. The money ultimately comes from society via taxes. But the net effect is it costs society thrice to imprison a person: fewer taxes collected, less goods/services produced and cost to imprison.

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#199

Post by ballard »

prawn wrote: post #192
ballard wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most slaves turn a profit, while most prisons require funding. Prisons are garbage processors for grinding up as many undesirables as possible, for as long as possible. Whom is chosen is somewhat random, but usually people that are undesirable: ugly or antisocial. As for the minor point of finding guilt: a crime can always be found, so that's not a limiting factor. The majority have already volunteered to be slaves.…

Require funding or get funding? Doesn't a privatised prison derive a profit from its "use" of prisoners (getting/requiring funding) in the same way that slaveholders once derived a profit from their use of slaves?

The other sub-point... There's Korea/s, China, etc.

Have any countries humanely monitized inmates? That is provide a choice to meaningfully work while incarcerated.

Re: AT&T gives DEA 26 years of phone call records to wage war on drugs

#200

Post by pyre »

jlgreco wrote: post #106
genwin wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course there were. Safe to assume a very small percentage of alcohol users, which makes the difference here. Safe to assume that during Prohibition the vast majority of alcohol users could have been sober during working hours to pay for it.

The vast majority of cocaine and pot users live outwardly normal lives too. That isn't the point though, is it? Prohibition railroads people who were in control of their habit, it gets in the way of assistance to people who are losing control of their habit, and it further marginalizes and radicalizes people who have already lost control of their habit, and it dramatically radicalizes those who provide for habits. Th…

Well, there is one difference between alcohol and other 'drugs' (with the possible exception of pot): alcohol has been a mainstay of human culture for a long time. The same can't be said of cocaine, heroine, meth, etc.
Post reply on HN