There’s a massive lack of gardai (the Irish word for police) in Ireland, and you’ll be waiting for the better part of an hour if you call them. But by all means, let’s forget about the types of basic “safety in your own home” type of policing and focus on creating a cyberpolice force instead.
Ireland wants to give its cops spyware, ability to crack encrypted messages
61–70 of 115 posts
Re: Ireland wants to give its cops spyware, ability to crack encrypted messages
#62Whenever these people ask for more power in order to "stop/prevent crime", there should be a bot that replies a list of times when the police didn't act to stop crime, despite having full knowledge of the crime occuring and potential to stop it from happening. EU member and supporter of Chat Control, Romania, had a massive scandal where a kidnapped 15 year old girl called emergency services multiple times to report s…
Even better, in the US, the police have zero obligation to actually protect anybody from crime (unless that person is in government custody). The courts have upheld this time and again.
> the police have zero obligation to actually protect anybody from crime
This gets misrepresented on the Internet all the time. What this really means is that you can't sue the city for incompetent policemen, which is the case in basically every country. That only punishes the taxpayers after all. What is different about other countries is that they are much better at firing incompetent police.
Re: Ireland wants to give its cops spyware, ability to crack encrypted messages
#63There’s a massive lack of gardai (the Irish word for police) in Ireland, and you’ll be waiting for the better part of an hour if you call them. But by all means, let’s forget about the types of basic “safety in your own home” type of policing and focus on creating a cyberpolice force instead.
[deleted]
Re: Ireland wants to give its cops spyware, ability to crack encrypted messages
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per the DOJ, there's also this: >An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim's Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. >To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so.
Who represents the government in these cases?
Generally speaking, the way it's supposed to work is the local prosecutors will start the process. That, unfortunately, isn't something they like to do because they have to work with police departments. If they fail to do their job, theoretically the next step is that the FBI gets involved. But, doesn't seem like today's FBI is doing much beyond prosecuting Trump's political enemies.
This is the reason why I've long believed we need a check both federal and local to police that is completely divorced from regular prosecution. We need lawyers/investigators whose sole purpose is investigating and prosecuting police at pretty much all levels of the government. The federal government theoretically has that with the office of inspectors general.
Re: Ireland wants to give its cops spyware, ability to crack encrypted messages
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even better, in the US, the police have zero obligation to actually protect anybody from crime (unless that person is in government custody). The courts have upheld this time and again.
> the police have zero obligation to actually protect anybody from crime This gets misrepresented on the Internet all the time. What this really means is that you can't sue the city for incompetent policemen, which is the case in basically every country. That only punishes the taxpayers after all. What is different about other countries is that they are much better at firing incompetent police.
In some (EU) countries, as a public officer/agent you can actually get prosecuted (civil or criminal proceedings per case), in cases of blatant or willful incompetence. (Think of the levels of gross wanton disregard/negligence.)
(There is also the legal vehicle of insubordination.)
For instance, in Greece https://www.lawspot.gr/nomothesia/pk/arthro-259-poinikos-kod... (N.B. the bar of wilfulness in this section in the Greek criminal code is much lower than the corresponding notion of wilfulness in the U.S.)
The bar is high, of course, and yet people have historically managed to get prosecuted, lose their jobs, and go to prison.
I think the problem in the U.S. is, ironically, the power of police unions in a fragmented police force (city, territory, county, etc.) ecosystem, coupled with the lack of unified, express state and federal statutes to enforce a standard of care and competence.
Add to that that peace officer-specific state statutes (e.g., describing manslaughter while on duty) are written in such a way that, as a matter of law, it becomes a herculean task to tick all the boxes to successfully preserve a conviction on appeal. It is truly troubling. (I am hopeful, as this can be solved by the U.S. legislature, which I think we have a lot of reasons to demand to be done.)
Re: Ireland wants to give its cops spyware, ability to crack encrypted messages
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even better, in the US, the police have zero obligation to actually protect anybody from crime (unless that person is in government custody). The courts have upheld this time and again.
Per the DOJ, there's also this: >An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim's Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. >To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so.
Unfortunately the courts have repeated ruled that "aware of the Constitutional violation" means knowing that the exact action being observed had previously been ruled a violation of Constitutional rights. It's essentially impossible to prove, which is one of the reasons we don't see that offense prosecuted.
Re: Ireland wants to give its cops spyware, ability to crack encrypted messages
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but then they need to send a physical person, which is expensive and impossible to scale. Making it extremely expensive is probably good enough. (Feels like we have this same discussion over and over on HN.)
I don't understand this take. There is no real way in which a private person can make law enforcement "more expensive". The government can always find means as long as it is supported by a sufficiently big fraction of its people.
1 person using encryption vs 1 million people using encryption.
Re: Ireland wants to give its cops spyware, ability to crack encrypted messages
#68Whenever these people ask for more power in order to "stop/prevent crime", there should be a bot that replies a list of times when the police didn't act to stop crime, despite having full knowledge of the crime occuring and potential to stop it from happening. EU member and supporter of Chat Control, Romania, had a massive scandal where a kidnapped 15 year old girl called emergency services multiple times to report s…
Or a bot that lists out all the times police have been given these powers only for them to be abused.
Flock is a great example. Story after story in the local news (only there for some reason) about police officers being disciplined or fired because they stalked people using the flock system.
Meanwhile not a single story where a major case was cracked by, and could only have been cracked by, the flock camera system.
Re: Ireland wants to give its cops spyware, ability to crack encrypted messages
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even better, in the US, the police have zero obligation to actually protect anybody from crime (unless that person is in government custody). The courts have upheld this time and again.
> the police have zero obligation to actually protect anybody from crime This gets misrepresented on the Internet all the time. What this really means is that you can't sue the city for incompetent policemen, which is the case in basically every country. That only punishes the taxpayers after all. What is different about other countries is that they are much better at firing incompetent police.
The case in NY was police setup a sting on the subway to catch a serial stabber. Instead of stopping him they stood by and watched him attack several innocent bystanders.
They were sued for incompetence. For the failed sting.
The two police officers who stood and watched him get attacked were ruled to be immune because they had no duty to protect him.
Point being, if police see you getting attacked, they have no duty to /stop/ that from happening. Their only duty is to take a report once they feel safe enough to approach.
If you see two police on the corner and think "this is a safe area" you'd completely be operating on faith in their character.
Re: Ireland wants to give its cops spyware, ability to crack encrypted messages
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per the DOJ, there's also this: >An officer who purposefully allows a fellow officer to violate a victim's Constitutional rights may be prosecuted for failure to intervene to stop the Constitutional violation. >To prosecute such an officer, the government must show that the defendant officer was aware of the Constitutional violation, had an opportunity to intervene, and chose not to do so.
Unfortunately the courts have repeated ruled that "aware of the Constitutional violation" means knowing that the exact action being observed had previously been ruled a violation of Constitutional rights. It's essentially impossible to prove, which is one of the reasons we don't see that offense prosecuted.
In the Chauvin case all three of the bystanders were sent to prison by federal courts specifically for civil rights violations stemming from their failure to intervene as Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd in front of them.