Hacker News Reader

Comment by btipling | Hacker News Reader

The data-mining aspect could be troubling depending on the details, but the parallel construction isn't. They're not planting the drugs on the suspects when they stop stop them. But the hysteria here is thick so one can't even begin to have a reasonable discourse in this comment thread. The paranoid one-sidedness of the discussion is mind boggling.

Look at these downvotes for disagreements. There's nothing I've said that warrants the downvotes.

View on HN

You're arguing that breaking the fundamental principles of both law enforcement and the right to a fair trial is "not troubling".

You have every right to do that (and nobody should downvote you for that), if you argue in favor of a much more repressive legal regime than the one we currently have in all Western democracies. But instead, you just insult people ("hysteria", "paranoid") who might not agree with arguments you don't even bother to present.

> "But the hysteria here is thick..."

This is evidence that FBI, DEA, and other agencies, at multiple levels of government, are colluding with dragnet surveillance operations. How much worse would you say it should get before it's not "paranoid?"

There's nothing I've said that warrants the downvotes.

Maybe you're getting downvoted because you're complaining about downvotes and not actually contributing anything to the dicussion?

I did contribute something, the point that drugs are not being planted on people. The parallel construction wouldn't work if the suspects were not actually committing crimes. Nobody wants to talk about it I guess however, too busy getting their fix on today's outrage porn.

"The parallel construction wouldn't work if the suspects were not actually committing crimes."

See "Three Felonies a Day"[1]

Also, note the following quote from the original article:

"most drug-trafficking defendants plead guilty before trial"

In fact, something like 90% or more of people accused of crimes in the US never get a trial, because they plead guilty. They plead guilty because prosecutors pile on so many charges that the defendants are afraid to risk life in jail if they happen to lose (in a judicial system that's usually stacked against them). Defending a case in Federal court is also incredibly expensive and traumatic. See the Aaron Swartz case for good examples of all of the above.

[1] - http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...

The thing is, as these things come out, it turns paranoia into reality. I preferred being paranoid, rather than correct, myself.

Maybe you are getting downvotes because you seem to be endorsing illegal activities by the federal authorities? It is a crime to fail to divulge the source of evidence, or worse, outright lie about it, is it not?

I am not sure it is illegal to obtain information through lying and deceit, as police do this all the time, especially if the information is not used in a trial. If there is enough "clean" evidence to go to trial, I am not sure there is any reason to doubt the validity of the arrest, trial or the conviction of the defendant.

The collection of data may be illegal, and that is worth investigating. The collection of information of data of innocent people, people with no probable cause they are committing crimes or without a warrant, is not OK.

> The collection of information of data of innocent people, people with no probable cause they are committing crimes or without a warrant, is not OK.

Aye, there's the rub. The collection of the trawl data invariably will uncover some crimes being committed by people who are not suspected of committing crimes. In other words, search and seizure without probable cause. Now it appears this illegally begotten evidence is being used to point federal law enforcement at targets. Do you really not see a problem with this?

I see a problem with collecting information without probable cause or a warrant. Though I may not agree with drug laws, I do not see the problem with convicting individuals who are committing crimes regardless of how that information was collected unless the act of collecting the information affects the information (like confessions under duress). For example I am somewhat appalled at FBI deploying malware, but I hope they do not let child pornographers walk free because of the FBI's actions.

Do you not see the problem with allowing them to convict people based on illegal investigations? If they are allowed to use illegal methods and still get a conviction, they will continue to do so. Cases should be thrown out when the investigation was done illegally, as a way to strongly ensure such things do not happen. A guilty person going free is bad, but far worse is a rogue police force with no regard for the law and the good and proper limits placed upon them to prevent abuse.

Well, the problem is that you can't have a "guilty people only" filter on a data trawling system. You have no idea who the guilty people are, that is why you are trawling the data. So, I guess what you have to ask yourself, is if the fourth amendment is worth sacrificing in order to catch drug dealers.

I don't think it is, and I hope most Americans agree.

<edit> replacing drug dealer with terrorist doesn't change my view on the matter</edit>

Your arguments are not self consistent.

>I see a problem with collecting information without probable cause or a warrant.

>I do not see the problem with convicting individuals who are committing crimes regardless of how that information was collected...

The second case is not possible without making an exception to the first, which then leads to the selective application of fundamental rights and that is paradoxical.

Mass surveilance will undoubtedly unearth crimes that would not otherwise come under suspicion in a free society. By definition, the surveilance will also target those who have commmited no crimes. The question is whether that risk is worth it. The Fourth amendment says no. Making exceptions for certain classes of people (even if probable criminals) is just a slippery slope.

I interpreted it as meaning that btipling does not like such information collection but as long as they're doing it, any criminals they catch should still be prosecuted anyway. I think this is a terrible idea, but there seem to be many out there who do not consider the consequences and think that people should be put in prison regardless of any potential police actions that got them there.

> I see a problem with collecting information without probable cause or a warrant. Though I may not agree with drug laws, I do not see the problem with convicting individuals who are committing crimes regardless of how that information was collected unless the act of collecting the information affects the information (like confessions under duress).

You effectively contradict yourself: you can't say "no", reward them for doing it, and expect it to stop.

So effectively, your first sentence carries no weight, because you don't believe in enforcing it... you believe in rewarding law enforcement for doing the exact opposite.

This isn't outrage porn, hysteria or anything else. Its simple violation of the american judicial system. Point blank period.

As for your downvotes, dont agree with downvoting someone just because you disagree with them.

The problem with downvotes is that they're wholly subjective. While you may not downvote someone based on disagreeing with them, others will and can.

I don't even see that as a problem. If we accept the use of upvotes to signal agreement, it is only natural that downvotes will come to signal the opposite.

The problem is that this produces an echo chamber, the things that majority 'agrees' with hits the top, and the things that folks 'disagree' with sink out of site. Upvoting/Downvoting comments shouldnt really be based on 'aggreement' but instead based on 'interesting', upvoting interesting or thought provoking comments regardless of wether you agree or not leads to more interesting conversation...

Using upvotes freely but downvotes sparingly produces something else (which I cannot mention by name without this comment going 'dead'). The willingness to disagree is a large part of what makes HN what it is, and I think that downvotes help foster the sort of atmosphere in which that is possible.

Really, contrarian viewpoints are hardly an endangered animal here.

Natural for some. I can't downvote [1].

When it comes to downvoting rights, Hacker News has the rough equivalent of a poll tax or voter ID law. ;)

[1]: Not yet. Depending on the reaction to my post, "not yet" might change into "can". Or might change into, "yeah, never".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com