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

191–200 of 222 posts

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

#191

Post by mulmen »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #161
mulmen wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what gets lost in these conversations is that the government is using very lazy methods to catch low hanging fruit. Instead of extrajudicial spying they should be creating undercover identities and infiltrating criminal organizations. If law enforcement was competent Facebook wouldn’t even know it was happening.

I'm not sure if that's better. The feds have a long history of goading "probably harmless" people into parking SUVs full of half-ass explosives in NYC or kidnapping governors or whatever.

It’s possible for law enforcement to misbehave in more than one way. In fact while they were manufacturing these cases they were also conducting dragnet surveillance. It’s not a competition, or a choice.

Manufacturing cases doesn’t mean undercover investigations are illegal or even unreasonable. It’s just another example of unethical LEO behavior that should be destroyed.

On the other hand dragnet surveillance of US citizens is NEVER ok.

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

#192

Post by therealdrag0 »

john_strinlai wrote: post #100
whimsicalism wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I encourage people imagining this as some high-scale surveillance dragnet to look at the Seattle Shield website and form their opinions https://seattleshield.org/default.aspx?MenuItemID=53&MenuGro...

ah, yes, the little 8-line explanation there by the entity in question absolutely clears them of all suspicion, really. i am sure that information obtained by seattle shield is not shared to anyone outside of seattle borders. police departments and the FBI are not known to share information, after all. police are especially cagey about sharing with other agencies when it comes to counter-terrorism.

People post cctv footage on YouTube all the time. Is this that different?

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

#193

Post by lazyasciiart »

nofunsir wrote: post #85
herpdyderp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When done properly you don't even notice! It is very beneficial when needed. But, as we know, very awful when done improperly.

> When done properly you don't even notice! This lame argument should be added to the List of Fallacies. It's used everywhere as a "wild card" argument. > Makeup > MLB Pitch Framing by catchers > Surveillance States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies?useskin=vect...

When it’s used properly you don’t even notice it. Like plumbing.

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

#195

Post by remarkEon »

pyrale wrote: post #190
baddash wrote: post #92

My thoughts as someone who doesn't know much about these types of things: 1. Terry Albury calling this list the "Panopticon" could have merit since he's a former FBI agent. However, I'd have to research more into him to figure out how credible he is, and why he is framing it like this. 2. Amazon and Facebook being in the title is most likely clickbait. They're literally only mentioned once in the article and the rest…

> The article mentions that there's no oversight program for Seattle Shield. Is that a problem? Any government body with no oversight program indicates that rule of law is optional.

The rule of law is and always has been based on a monopoly of violence. That monopoly is increasingly tenuous, frankly. Even the word "oversight" implies that, if said entity being overseen ventures out of the bounds of the overseer, violence is the mechanism by which compliance is attained.

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

#196

Post by remarkEon »

balls187 wrote: post #186
therealpygon wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like those Minnesota soccer mom “terrorists”? It’s hard to assume good faith after repeated bad faith behaviors, hence the reason our justice system is supposed to operate on evidence and a presumption of innocence, rather than “treat everyone like they aren’t a terrorist…yet..but will be if i decide they are”.

No. Our justice system has never actually been based on evidence. It’s based on the doctrine of judicial discretion in the name of preserving order.

This is hysterical nonsense.

When these things come up people tend to venture into hyperbole. Probably because it's an incentives issue (it gets clicks and upvotes). If "preserving order" was the number everyone in the judiciary optimized for all of violent riots and protests against any cause you can imagine wouldn't have happened. But they did, so therefore this concept of "no evidence" is not true.

It's fine to be skeptical about private companies sharing "intelligence" (I would challenge the use of that word) with what are state-sanctioned entities (the police), and there's a long list of reasons to be skeptical. So obviously there is no reason to invent things that are not true.

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

#197

Post by watwut »

remarkEon wrote: post #195
pyrale wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article mentions that there's no oversight program for Seattle Shield. Is that a problem? Any government body with no oversight program indicates that rule of law is optional.

The rule of law is and always has been based on a monopoly of violence. That monopoly is increasingly tenuous, frankly. Even the word "oversight" implies that, if said entity being overseen ventures out of the bounds of the overseer, violence is the mechanism by which compliance is attained.

What is supposed to be the point of this comment? Poor cops have terrible violence unleashed them by having civilian oversight? Or that we should ditch rule of law and structures and instead go with what the most violent local warlord wants?

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

#198

Post by stuaxo »

watwut wrote: post #197
remarkEon wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rule of law is and always has been based on a monopoly of violence. That monopoly is increasingly tenuous, frankly. Even the word "oversight" implies that, if said entity being overseen ventures out of the bounds of the overseer, violence is the mechanism by which compliance is attained.

What is supposed to be the point of this comment? Poor cops have terrible violence unleashed them by having civilian oversight? Or that we should ditch rule of law and structures and instead go with what the most violent local warlord wants?

I can't work out whether the grandfather post is more American Libertarian or a modern feudalal stan or something else.

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

#199

Post by psychoslave »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #127
psychoslave wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religion is all about social function, at least from social science perceptives I guess.

sure, but that is reductive. From a theological perspective it's entirely about salvation if you're Christian. Judaism, isn't so clear.

Reducing theological perspectives to judeo-christian views is also very narrow.

That said, focusing on some narrow topic is also totally legitimate, as human being we can’t encompass everything and the rest in our tight attention window.

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

#200

Post by pyrale »

remarkEon wrote: post #195
pyrale wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The article mentions that there's no oversight program for Seattle Shield. Is that a problem? Any government body with no oversight program indicates that rule of law is optional.

The rule of law is and always has been based on a monopoly of violence. That monopoly is increasingly tenuous, frankly. Even the word "oversight" implies that, if said entity being overseen ventures out of the bounds of the overseer, violence is the mechanism by which compliance is attained.

> The rule of law is and always has been based on a monopoly of violence.

There is no such thing as a monopoly of violence. Weber's work, which you reference, talks about states claiming a monopoly of legitimate violence.

However, legitimacy and law are two different things: while every state claims they are the only ones allowed to use violence legitimately, not every state codifies their functioning in laws ; and fewer structure themselves in such a way that these laws are sovereign.

My point is that merely codifying the state's actions in laws isn't enough to get functioning rule of law. You also need functioning government oversight (and a few other things, but that's not the current topic). When government's action is not overseen, respect of the law happens at the whim of government agents.

Post reply on HN