/baw/ General Discussion Archived Board plus4chan home [baw] [co/cog/jam/mtv] [coc/draw/diy] [pco/coq/cod] [a/mspa/op/pkmn] [Burichan/Futaba/Greygren]
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 380677)
Message
File
Password  (for post and file deletion)

Currently 0 unique user posts.

News
  • 08/21/12 - Poll ended; /cod/ split off as a new board from /pco/.

File 137239857857.png - (25.66KB , 959x492 , 1362197817965.png )
380677 No. 380677
From the plus4chan rules, cause half of you probably didn't even see them.

>1d. DON'T POST ANY OF THAT ILLEGAL STUFF

Well, I hate to break it to you Anonex, but the whole of /pco/ is illegal in quite a few countries, including India. Of course, it hardly matters, since I believe this site is hosted in the USA, where such content is legal unless it depicts minors (I'm starting to like this First Amendment of yours...), and even that can be legal.
(read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_pornography#Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography for more information)

So this thread is here to discuss and debate laws, legality, ....actually fuck it. Discuss whatever you want, idgaf. Also, some dude in Australia got busted for Simpsons porn a while ago.
Expand all images
>> No. 380685
I have a better idea.

ITT: we try to get banned.

Every single one of you people who post here is a flawed but acceptable individual.
>> No. 380687
>>380685
>ITT: we try to get banned
ITT I try to revive /durp/ in one thread. This week's theme is guro vs. scat.
>> No. 380697
>>380685
>ITT: we try to get banned.
>try to post
>says I'm banned for posting a spam link

That was easy.
>> No. 380699
File 137241485724.jpg - (43.41KB , 500x276 , ilu2.jpg )
380699
>>380685
>> No. 380701
>>380687
My plan for reviving /durp/ was to wait until September 2nd of this year was a week away, and then get all excited as though Annonex just announced reopening it.

Since I'm posting here, might as well include law things.

Something about a lot of places having drones, and people arguing over who ought be able to have them and how they ought to be legal to use.

Also, apparently in Texas there's restrictions against having laboratory glassware without a license, for the purpose of restricting the creation of drugs, as if a restriction against proper equipment ever stopped people from making recreational drugs illegally.

I guess I'll also mention water rights. Totally glad I don't live in a desert in the first place, for one thing.
>> No. 380702
>>380701
Apparently in Germany and Austria, it isn't illegal to escape from jail. They just put you back in with no added sentence (unless you break a different law in the process)
>> No. 380703
File 137242730863.png - (5.47KB , 170x126 , auscensorshit.png )
380703
>>380677
>1d. DON'T POST ANY OF THAT ILLEGAL STUFF
>/pco/, /coq/, /cod/ with underaged porn on page one
Whatever.
>> No. 380705
Everything is illegal somewhere. We'd be hanged in Iran for half the homosexual stuff we talk about.
>> No. 380711
File 137243531399.png - (23.30KB , 116x137 , 346at95_jpg.png )
380711
>>380705
Well thats why they call it Iran, now isn't it?
>> No. 380813
I think he means illegal in the country the servers are in. Or at least where the law would care enough to chase down his ass.
>> No. 380868
>>380813

You say that like anyone would be able to track down Anonex. Plus 4chan could be a drug trading, CP trading, hitman-hiring, piracy-supporting (both illegally copied goods and literal sea piracy) website and the feds would still never be able to find him.
>> No. 380910
What of this so called ip tracking?
>> No. 380944
>>380910
IP tracking is hilarious because you get to see things like anons arguing heatedly with themselves and impersonating other people in an attempt to get the person they're impersonating banned. The things human beings do when they don't think they will leave any trace is amazing.
>> No. 380985
>>380944
I think I see accusations of samefagging roughly as often as I see disagreement on 4chan. Just how usual is it realy?
>> No. 380987
>>380985
I can't speak for +4, but in my experience in modding another chan, wherever there is an argument there is always, always samefagging to be found.

The best samefagging story I've ever witnessed as a janitor was a guy who was upset that another artist had a more active thread than he did. First he shat up his own thread, pretending to be the other artist, some people whiteknighting for that artist, and himself as a poor innocent victim. Then other people got in on it, and he tried to report them for offtopic drama... only get got confused which posts were his and which weren't, and he ended up reporting himself. Then I banned him and he came back on a proxy whining about how I had the wrong guy.
>> No. 380988
>>380987
Oh, and another thing that may or may not give you some more faith in humanity: sometimes arguing over the internet isn't a total waste of time. Sometimes anons really do change their opinions, even do total 180s, because they were convinced by someone else's argument. You will just never know because they never want to admit they were wrong--but they stay in the conversation, they just start arguing against themselves, pretending to be somebody who had the correct idea all along.
>> No. 381003
File 137291414823.jpg - (52.07KB , 194x193 , G13.jpg )
381003
>>380987
>> No. 381005
>>380988
That's very interesting. I wonder why we value pride so much when no one would even know. Even under near total animosity, we still have the need to save face.
>> No. 381007
>>381005
It is actually quite intriguing; I think it's to do with not wanting to admit they are wrong.
>> No. 381012
>>381005
>>381007

the fact that as an anonymous user people can get away with acting dickish with no repercussions makes it encouraging for them to pretend they were never wrong.

few are willing to admit they were wrong, but nobody wants to be the asshole.
>> No. 381014
>>380987
LOL I never got why mods just don't expose samefags like that, would be well deserved. In the odd chance it's the board I'm thinking of, there's a writefaggot who would be a big source of cases like that.

>>380988
I just can't believe this happens that often - well, unless most of the people on the board are full of shit anyways. Even being anonymous, that's just too shameful. Sounds harder than saying "Okay, my bad".
>> No. 381021
>>381014
I took great pleasure in outing that guy publicly after he came back to appeal his wrongful ban. He obviously didn't realise he wasn't really anonymous to me, so I had a feeling he'd come back, and I waited. And he did and it was fantastic. I wish I could find the screenshots, I know they are still hidden on my computer somewhere.

I don't know about that--people in general are full of shit a lot of the time, it's just part of being human. I also figure some people might not *realise* they're doing it. I feel like I've probably done it in the past without thinking. Plus, shame is an emotion you only really feel when you know you'll be judged... so if it's a secret between you and mods who won't bother outing you (it's not funny enough) then it's not really shameful at all, is it?
>> No. 381025
>>381021
It kinda is. It may not mean much for like, small arguments on the internet, but on eventual times without internet and alone with your thoughts, it's nice to not have a lot of reasons to feel like shit when you think about yourself.
>> No. 381026
>>381025
>>381021
This is part of the reason why I don't talk online (or offline) as often as I used to. I apparently was shit to a couple people I really cared about, without realizing it or meaning to. And I still can't forgive myself for it.
>> No. 381035
>>381021
"Sockpuppetry" was the technical term I learned for this phenomena. It gets practiced a lot in upvoting sites like Reddit, Slashdot, or Youtube for practical gain, and some black market folks actually make their living selling the use of "social botnets" for instantly upvoting uploaded stuff. This is practiced by legitimate companies as well; artificial "ratings" boosts to ensure that their content floats to the top. Generally, companies with more resources or know-how can ensure that their content appears to have circulation, at least. And that's generally all the advertisers ask of people.

Not technically the same thing as arguing with yourself, but the term is used because initially, that's what it was and that was exactly what it looked like.
>> No. 381606
Considering recent events, I have a question: what do you all think about the burden of proof?
>> No. 381615
>>381606
I think people should be responsible enough to support a claim without being lazy and telling people to "just Google it". You made the claim, you back it up.
>> No. 381616
>>381615

I think he was talking more on the legal side of things.

That being said, I do agree. If I tell people something, I am usually prepared to give them a website or book title if I have the information.
>> No. 381621
>>381606
The burden of proof is absolutely essential to any legal hearing whatsoever. Without concrete evidence or multiple eyewitness reports, it's essentially taking everyone's word for it, and people always have cause to lie in these circumstances because of how quasi-legal and grey area some of the things that go on in this country can be.

I don't really think the burden of proof is relevant here. That's one of the parts of the legal system that I think is right on the money. Look, sometimes people get away with horrible things because they can't be proven in court. But the burden of proof also exists to prevent the innocent from being wrongly incarcerated.

This is a perfect storm of bullshit that obfuscates the issue. The evidence suggests that Martin tried to confront Zimmerman. We can reconstruct 95% of what happened but in that critical space of what actually happened, and whatever happened, only Zimmerman really knows and we can't prove anything else.

The problem isn't the burden of proof, the problem is the Stand Your Ground Laws. We all know that Zimmerman killed Martin. But we're relying on a Law that essentially says that you can Murder if you feel your life is threatened. There is nothing in there about Provocation, about following somebody around and potentially provoking a confrontation. So when you get jumped, the Klu Klux Klan can say "well he attacked us" and there's no one to prove them wrong and just a whole lot of white dudes all nodding and saying the same thing.

The assumption that you have the right to murder when you "feel your life is threatened" is an incredibly dangerous and foolish notion, and I am constantly amazed that our nation accepts it as so seemingly par-for-the-course. You have a right to defend yourself, yes, but that should not naturally extend to taking another life. You back away, you defuse, you call for help, you put up a fuss so that the neighbors notice, you Sametime it or Skype it (Cameras are a hugely untapped resource for Criminal Justice for the public that the courts have still essentially locked down). If they're coming after you with a knife and a history of violence, I don't think there's a jury in this country that would think you weren't justified in defending yourself, even if that defense amounted to lethal force.

But the Stand Your Ground makes it seem like it is reasonable to remain within the vicinity of a violent person and it isn't. The law is basically an excuse to use a firearm. And what was he actually going to do with a firearm besides shoot somebody? Thieves tend to cut and run when confronted. Murder and altercations are not good for the bottom line in that business.

There's a dozen reasons this smells funny. But the one that makes it all possible is Stand Your Ground.
>> No. 381636
>>381621
>Thieves tend to cut and run when confronted.
In my country it's becoming more common for thieves to murder victims AFTER they deliver what they had, after facing no resistance. It's becoming a better idea to just fight back anyway if you can.
>> No. 381638
>>381636

Where do you live?

In America, most criminals aren't going to find it worth getting additional charges (up to murder) tacked on to robbery/armed robbery.
>> No. 381640
every gay discussion we have is illegal in iran, the vast majority of the world considers it a mental illness and would lock up a few of our users in mental institutions

i'd say that particular rule has a bit of leeway
>> No. 381641
every gay discussion we have is illegal in iran, the vast majority of the world considers it a mental illness and would lock up a few of our users in mental institutions

i'd say that particular rule has a bit of leeway
>> No. 381642
>>381640
>>381641

Well it's not like Iran has any gay people, so it's not like anyone there would ever talk about gay people.

I hope everyone knows what incident I'm referring to, before anyone takes my comment seriously.
>> No. 381646
>>381641
>>381640
>>381642
Samefag
>> No. 381655
What about gag orders?
>> No. 381675
>The burden of proof is absolutely essential to any legal hearing whatsoever. Without concrete evidence or multiple eyewitness reports
>multiple eyewitness reports

No, no, for the LOVE OF FUCKING CHRIST, NO!!

Eyewitness testimony needs to be banned from any modern courtroom. Simply utterly done away with. People can be bought off, coerced, or manipulated with ease; even if there is no malevolent action involved, it is well-known that human observational skills and memory are deeply, fundamentally flawed and life-threateningly unreliable. There can be no hope for "truth" where a person can mistakenly identify a person in a police lineup and put him in jail for life with no supporting physical evidence involved. It would be simple for three people who hate you to take you out somewhere, kill someone else, and then all collectively tell the police that you killed that person. The police will drag you into an interrogation room, and after 20 nonstop hours of being grilled, you will mentally break and confess to anything they say. Even if that doesn't happen, the trial will be a case of they-said/you-said, and you will lose. Your court-appointed defense attorney won't bother with gathering physical evidence or expert testimony — he doesn't care: it's just a job.

We live in a time where DNA can be extracted from 50-year-old corpses, where a splinter of matter can be broken down and analyzed to its bare molecular and elemental composition, where cameras and sound-recording devices are almost everywhere, where scientists can instantly connect directly to others anywhere in the world to share ideas, where the entire compendium of human knowledge is a few mouse-clicks away. This is the goddamn INFORMATION AGE!! And yet, merely because of money and laziness, we're still locking up innocent people for decades and permanently ruining their lives, because some dumb motherfucker fingered the wrong suspect for a crime and a judge then said, "Eh, that's good enough for me."
>> No. 381682
>>381675
Russian proverb: "If you want to find a liar, talk to a witness"
>> No. 381707
>>381675
Trying to take the human element out of law is something that would only be proposed by people who have spent significant amount of their lives dreaming of being supervillains.
>> No. 381709
>>381707
Really? I've dreamed of supervilliany for much of my life, and I don't think that's the kind of thing I'd propose. Personally, I'd rather look into doing research into seeing if people can be taught to remember things better. Or use the excuse of lazy defense lawyers to develop evidence-collecting robots.
>> No. 381710
>>381707
While I don't agree that eyewitnesses need to be banned, and >>381675 should look into how most DNA evidence is run (tl;dr: it's not the full CTGA sequence, most of it like a "summary" of DNA and not as unique), the more human elements we can remove from law the better. Video evidence would have made this a far quicker trial (and the media would not have given a shit for more than like a week); I don't support any sort of CCTV system like Britain is doing all over, but with phones and things like Google Glasses even the most mundane of events will become recorded from multiple angles, if some already aren't (the Boston Bombings are an example of this multi-angle videography, but imagine the amount of media from that x100).

I think it was a TED talk a few years back that showed off a program that would take pictures from places like Flickr, tagged with certain keywords or containing co-ordinates, and could use them to not only compile high-quality (like, gigapixel images) of landmarks but could also do some rough 3D analysis, all thanks to judging the angle of the photo relative to all other similarly-tagged photos.

I imagine that video taken today, for things like the Olympics or other large-scale and widely-attended events, can, in about 10 years time, be put together to form full 3D video of events. (Assuming such video lives long enough, which is more likely as people increasingly use the "Cloud".)
>> No. 381720
>>381638
Brasil.

The problem is law is far too lenient. Underages can get away with crime (they've been talking about fixing this, but still, they can get away easily) or get sent to places where they live far better than poor people, and for whatever reason law seems to like leaving everyone get away with anything, except maybe if you kill in self defense or if it makes "us look bad for the world"
>> No. 381725
>>381720
Many people who live in the US say the same thing about the US. Despite the fact that we have by far the highest incarceration rate in the world--six times that of China, which popular belief in the US holds as an authoritarian hellhole. We also outsource our prisons to private contractors who routinely break humanitarian treatment laws, and are the only nation in the free world that still practices execution, and the number of times that children get tried as adults (and therefore are eligible for the death penalty) is on the rise.
>> No. 381731
>>381725

Instead of increasing punishments, we need to start asking, "What's making these people turn to crime in the first place?"

Also need to stop treating drug offenses so seriously and make our prisons work as actual rehabilitation systems.
>> No. 381740
>>381725
Yeah well I think your crime rates are far lower, and at least you get to see some punishment. Most news about crime mentions they're reincidental. "He was arrested for rape/murder/kidnapping 5 years ago..." etc. The percentage of murders that end in actual arrest is pretty low, though I can't give you data right now since I read it on newspapers the other day. As for the humanitarian rights, I can't give less of a fuck when evidence is good enough. They gave away any rights to be treated as more than garbage when they decided some random person on the street was worth less than a random sick impulse or because they wanted to look "gangsta" enough. Execution serves several cases just right, and it's one less sicko to worry about. Not to mention at least it gives the victim's relatives some justice for a change. They make conscious choices and have to deal with the consequences.

And for the record, children have to be tried as adults in my opinion. The punishment has to fit the crime, maybe the situation, not the criminal's age, color or anything. I've read recently about some 10 year old and a 8 or 9 one raping their classmate at school, a 12 year old girl getting raped by others up to 15 years old, and two 13 year olds or so literally tore out the heart out of a classmate with a knife - apparently they had been dating drug dealers and didn't want her to tell anyone about it. I'm not blowing things out of proportion.

>>381731
>Instead of increasing punishments, we need to start asking, "What's making these people turn to crime in the first place?"
Knowing they can get away with it, it's profitable. They think they're being smarter than the people with sense not to do the same. There IS such thing as evil, even if you wanna believe otherwise.

I mean, you'd think serial killers, rapists, neo-ratzis, kidnappers just don't know how fucking wrong they are? That they were raised to believe it's all as natural as brushing their teeth, and if they had been told "Don't be a douche!" at school, if they had a well-paying job or browsed less 4chan they would be nice people? Just saying.
>> No. 381743
>>381740

I like how, for whatever reason, when I spoke of criminals, you automatically jumped to killers, rapists, etc. You do realize how many people are in jail here in the states for committing crimes less serious than that, yes? Don't even begin to try to hold a pot dealer on the same level as a rapist or murderer.
>> No. 381747
>>381740
>at least you get to see some punishment
See, that right there is why I was objecting to your attitude. Because that is a barbaric way of thinking. Law enforcement should be about preventing future crimes and ameliorating damages, not about meting out punishment. The government is not an instrument of vengeance. Its job is to stop people from hurting each other, and to make sure that. Taking money/time/resources from someone who stole to pay back the person who they stole from is a reasonable action to take to redress misappropriation, and it is reasonable to mandate rehabilitation and psychiatric care programs to prevent recidivism. But just "punishing" the guilty? That is barbarism. It does not prevent future crime, and it does not make the world a better place, it just lets a victim get away with behavior that would be a otherwise crime for the purposes of redress. There's a reason the United States has such a high rate of punishment but the rate of recidivism is far higher than countries that are less prone to punishment. Our prison system encourages crime. People who go to prison tend to commit worse crimes after they get out because they've been locked up in a place where respect is won by being the hardest and evilest asshole you can be, and we tend to send them in when they're still young and impressionable. You send a kid to the joint for possession, there's a good chance he's going to come out as a violent criminal or a murderer.

Crime is an industry in the US, and the people who run it make a lot of money off of the bloodthirsty nature of the American public. Do not consider us role models for law enforcement. Consider us a cautionary tale.
>> No. 381751
>>381747
>>381731
This so fucking much Thank You.

>>381740
>Instead of increasing punishments, we need to start asking, >"What's making these people turn to crime in the first place?"
Knowing they can get away with it, it's profitable.
Key phrasing there.

While there is a certain degree of crimes like you're describing every year, this is not the only form of crime. Drug-dealing, Thievery, Fraud, Smuggling, Conspiracy. The crimes you have described are actually pretty difficult to pull off repetitively. The reality of serial killers is that they have no ability to empathize with other Human Beings at all, and while there are a lot of fucked up people out there, dyed-in-the-wool psychos are extremely rare. Rape is a little more common, but Gang-rape is not really that common. Rape happens in the context of relationships for the most part, though collecting stats on actual number is always a problem because people tend to keep it to themselves. Murder happens for the most part in relationships again, or at least the majority of murders that Courts would normally be dealing with. All of this stuff happens but there isn't really anything that exacerbates their rates directly. Crimes of passion or opportunity, and often very damaging to the individual and rarely repeats if they're caught. The Sharply Dressed Killer is a television myth perpetuated by Law and Order and a billion other Cop shows, where they have to do a TV show but they can't really talk about what Real Policework consists of because that might endanger investigations/show you a bunch of boring bullshit/let you know just how much they don't give a fuck about your stolen playstation.

Most Murder is actually more related to Gang Violence and the thunderously overwhelming cause of that is actually the illegality of Drugs. The War on Drugs has kind of been going on in America for the last Century, starting with Harrison Narcotics Tax Act in 1914, which illegalized Heroin, Opium, Cocaine, and other Narcotics. Officially, this was to prevent the harmful effects of overdose, and to regulate the use of addictive and potentially harmful substances to Doctors. Unofficially, it was to restrict a quasi-legal revenue stream to the Chinese, who were the most ready source of the supply and of Opium Dens at the time. Cocaine was actually commonly associated with Black Laborers at the time, and a rumor was spread that Cocaine caused people (read: black people) to turn into raging, slavering, unstoppable berserkers. This actually where the modern stereotypical idea of the "Junkie" from most Christian perspectives comes from.

Marijuana was illegalized in 1937. It is speculated that this was in part passed because White Women where very taken with Latino Laborers at the time, whose favored recreational drug was good old Pot. White girls go dancing with some slick cats, go back to their shack, smoke a joint and like it and maybe the man who gave it to them and bam. The start of something beautiful that old white men in America somehow still can't stand.

The history lesson is to set this up: the War on Drugs is the single most costly war the U.S. has been fighting for the past century or so and the biggest leading contributor to murder, thievery, fraud, smuggling, and conspiracy. In many poor communities being a Drug Dealer is the only way to make money as no legitimate businesses can take root as everyone does not have enough money/opportunities/possibilities for earning other revenue streams. Drug Dealing has no tax, has no office you have to go to, has no real hours, you can go out in a week and make $1000 dollars for doing barely anything vs. any of the local minimum wage jobs. And if the minimum wage jobs still look good, move up the chain and start doing $10,000 a week.

Drug Enforcement has completely changed the nature of Law Enforcement. Murder and Rape are focused on proving the actual fact of a crime forensically. Usually there's somebody bawling their eyes out. Drug Enforcement entails proving that a deal occurred that was against the Law. Often this means that no one actually wants to tell the Cops anything, and "forensic evidence" is as likely to be an actual bag of drugs as it is to be planted by the police to get a conviction.

It is kind of our hugest problem that nobody wants to talk about:
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/drug_war_and_mass_incarceration_by_the_numbers/
>> No. 381759
>>381725
If we executed all our murderers, thieves, rapists and political agitators while at the same time keeping everyone related to organized crime or government out of jail regardless of what they did, we'd have a small prison population just like China.

Don't compare countries with shit like this, it's apple computers and orangutans.

>>381751
We need to enforce laws we already have, not increase the number of laws. 60-70% of laws in America aren't enforced on a regular basis, everything from speeding to tax law.
>> No. 381787
>>381743
>Don't even begin to try to hold a pot dealer on the same level as a rapist or murderer.
A good deal of murder done by drug dealers though, to "protect their business", whether by resisting arrestment, marking territory or pettier shit. I'm not saying they should all get shot in the head on sight for selling pot, like I said, the punishment should fit the crime on each case.

>>381747
>Taking money/time/resources from someone who stole to pay back the person who they stole from is a reasonable action to take to redress misappropriation
Well I agree on that. I've read about cases of people who stole food because they really needed, and those usually end up in deeper shit because they can't afford good lawyers. If these cases could be solved with a payment on services, not only it would leave more space on the big house to dump scumbags, but also could give the authors of smaller crimes - mind you, not those who are stealing because they're "so smart", but the ones who really needed - a chance to learn an actual profession, maybe get a fixed job eventually.

I agree that crime has to be prevented over anything else, but I completely disagree that putting down authors of heinous shit would be "barbaric" and wouldn't diminish crime rates. It stops them from doing again and gives witnesses, victim's families etc a chance to live a bit better again.

>People who go to prison tend to commit worse crimes after they get out because they've been locked up in a place where respect is won by being the hardest and evilest asshole you can be, and we tend to send them in when they're still young and impressionable. That's no excuse. You're just ignoring lots of people with some actual virtues who grow up in tough places without turning into vicious douches. Besides, you execute those who deserve first, you won't have them coexisting.

>>381751
>Most Murder is actually more related to Gang Violence and the thunderously overwhelming cause of that is actually the illegality of Drugs.
So they kill to protect their business because it's illegal, so making it legal would be the solution so they don't have to kill? Because in case that was what you're implying, it's stupid. There's reason drugs are illegal, ust look at crack which is heavily addictive, it's a pretty fast spiral straight to the bottom. Lots of electronics smugglers get their merchandise taken by the cops and don't start gunfights over it. Besides, even if drugs were legalized, the big money is on illegal stuff, it's risky business and hard to get stuff. Chances are they'd find something else illegal to deal on.

And the whole Sharp Dressed Killer thing didn't actually cross my mind. Brutal murderers who get caught here often are the wild-eyed, can't formulate an actual phrase type. Either that or carefully planned murders for inheritance, that end up with some rich husband chopped into pieces and the murderer getting caught way easier than on those boring shows.
>> No. 381788
>>381787
The argument against criminalizing drugs is that things like heroine and cocaine, while certainly more addicting and possibly immediately harmful than stuff like cigarettes and alcohol, is not that much more likely to lead to dependency. And since we saw how horribly Prohibition worked, the benefits of decriminalizing even "bad" drugs, letting the drug empires collapse, and dealing with the addicts in the same way as alcoholics probably outweighs the costs.

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.cfm
>> No. 381802
>>381788
Did you just compare cocaine to coffee?
>> No. 381823
>>381751
>Rape happens in the context of relationships for the most part
Russian proverb for gang rape: "Whoever goes last - must be father."
>> No. 381830
>>381802
seeing as Cocaine was replaced in Coca-Cola with Caffeine? The description is actually fairly accurate and the neurological effects are similar. The only difference is that cocaine is straight digestible in powdered form.
>> No. 381847
>>381787
>So they kill to protect their business because it's illegal, so making it legal would be the solution so they don't have to kill? Because in case that was what you're implying, it's stupid.

Um, no it isn't, not really. It's basically exactly how the Law works. If something is legitimate, it can be held to standards of cleanliness and regulated doses, and also receive protection from the police in the case of robbery or unlawful infringement into "territory" (setting up a competing business near the other business that undercuts the first business' profits).

When something is illegal, it is only traded for in cash because cash is one of the more difficult methods to actually trace. In order to protect your cash and your product (it is also illegal and directly translates to your revenue stream in the drug trading business). Therefor, you can't go to the Police, so if somebody robs you, you have no legal recourse within the system. Ergo, you arm your "dealers", the members of the organization who peddle the dope or do other assorted tasks for you, and you task them with protecting the money until you launder it through a "legitimate" front business and back into the normal streams of society where it can't be detected. The lack of law also means that the most effective method of maintaining your business is by brute force, at the point of a gun.

Electronics smugglers don't put up a fight because their product is not worth the amounts of money that drugs are. You seriously underestimate the absolute scale of the Drug Trafficking Industry, and it is an industry now, even if it operates outside the Law. Understand the scale that these people have to operate with; one of the most recent and best ways to smuggle Marijuana and Cocaine into the United States is that the Cartels down in South America build low-tech Submarines and fill them each with around 100 tons of Cocaine and Weed. Then they send them like 14 at a time to run to U.S. coast. If a Submarine is apprehended by the Coast Guard or other Drug Enforcement Agents, there is usually a mechanism to scuttle the Submarine with the cargo onboard, allowing the crew to bail out, usually to be returned to their home country with no charges, because they didn't have anything on them and that's all we can really do. They scuttle 100 tones of Coke because all the other runs that make it will pay 3 times over what the cost in lost product is. When they import Opium or other Narcotics from Asia, they just use Planes because hell, they own fleets of Airplanes.

And the thing that you have to understand about this International Drug Trade is that 99% of that product, whatever it is, goes to America. America is the single largest consumer of recreational Narcotics in the entire world, and also the only real reason for the War on Drugs. We deliver directives (Money) from on high to the Nations that this stuff is grown in (Poorer nations) to combat this epidemic, but we're actually the ones creating the "epidemic" in the first place. We generate the demand. Not just for these poor communities in our nation to have "businesses", but also because White People are the single largest buyers of illegal narcotics. Given any given white person, by the actual numbers it is far more likely that they will have drugs, use drugs, and even sell drugs, than any given black person. This is in part because of the long-standing Racial Stereotypes in our country; Black People are inordinately targeted by Cops for even the most minor of things, everywhere. They are caught because they use illegal narcotics roughly at the same rate as White People, but they are more frequently targeted rather than the people who always drive the Demand and never really get stopped except when their own personal situations get bad. It has actually been suggested that the C.I.A. was in part responsible for the introduction of Crack-Cocaine to the inner cities of America in the 70s and 80s in attempts to get Latin American countries under the Agency's thumb. The sad thing about this is that while there's no proof, given a working knowledge of C.I.A. operations that isn't even outside their playbook, in fact it's probably in the top 10 greatest hits.

The result of this is that people get cycled into the Prison system, and they become worse offenders. You know those perpetrators of truly Heinous Shit that you think Should Be Put Down for the Good of Humanity? Well, there were a lot of them, even before the Drug Trade began in earnest, and now that the Drug trade is going, what happens is that those guys help turn otherwise non-violent offenders into even worse offenders. You send someone into a Rathole filled with Criminals, Gangsters and Psychopaths, and it's like given them a College Degree in being a Psychopathic Criminal Gangster. Killing people doesn't actually turn them away from Killing; generally, it just aggravates their hatred for you, and the system you are enforcing, and makes them want to kill you more.

Our prison system as it stands actually produces more Criminals. Once you're inside, your chances for a Real Job are sharply removed; you have the Stigma of a Convict, both on the Papers that the Hiring Managers will be looking at and in Real Life. And you're hanging out with a whole bunch of big time drug dealers who are experienced with all of this stuff, in a place that, while vicious and inhumane, is actually statistically less likely to Kill you than being on the streets. Oh, and you still have access to all the narcotics that were floating around out on the streets, you just have to be more discrete about using or selling them.

Couple all this with our failing education system and the actual inability of an increasing amount of people to be able to get a job (either because they don't understand enough to function in a modern job or because they only qualify for Labor and Food Service positions that cannot make monthly bills), and what it looks like is that America is teaching its' public to be Criminals. Weed wasn't made Legal in Colorado because everyone just decided to make it legal; it was made Legal because our Prisons were getting so full of non-violent pothead offenders that they were pitching tents in the Prison yards just to be able to hold all of them. A few years after its' initial decriminalization, it has now been introduced as a legal and legit part of the local economy. It is still subject to a lot of restrictions and for that reason a vibrant Black Market trade is still in existence, but almost the entirety of the Product is coming from Local Growers, and it has driven prices into the ground. Colorado is not supporting the Drug Wars in Mexico and other Latin American countries that are slowly ripping apart those Countries ability to govern their populations from the inside out, and violently ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. And not just Drug Lords; Journalists, Politicians, Police Officers, Lawyers, anyone who tries to cast the Drug Cartels in a bad light.

People who go IN come out as Soldiers for the Cartels because they have no other prospects in life. They don't know any other way to make money, and nothing in their neighborhood will actually make them enough to move out of their neighborhood except for dealing drugs (or as Dave Chapelle jokes "Playing Basketball or Rapping or something"). And it's a 24-7 industry that moves Trillions of dollars and Millions of Tons of Product. The Police are never going to get a handle on this because there will always be a demand, no matter how illegal you make it. And in fact, the Drug War has so over-burdened our Legal System that it is failing to produces results in other areas of Law Enforcement, and costs the Courts untold amounts of time and money prosecuting people who really didn't do anything wrong. Meanwhile, Murders and Rapes and the types of crimes that the system would normally handle are being crushed between all this legwork for drugs and the fact that Drugs are the only Political Action that give Politicians real money. Say you're tough on Drugs and Terror? People love you even though they have no idea what you're actually talking about and Washington kicks you a very tidy contribution to go find more Drugs and Bad Guys, even those most of the people you target are just trying to eat.

The primary source of the violence that arises from Drug Enforcement is the Literal fact of that Enforcement. It's like Prohibition with Alcohol in the 1920s which just lead to a ton of illicit means of getting drunk (Alcohol is still more likely to kill you than Weed, LSD, Mushrooms, and uncut Cocaine). There is a demand that is being fulfilled by Extra-Legal means, a prohibition of a Century of misunderstanding and Christian values concerning drugs, and it is slowly wrecking both our Legal System and our actual sense of Moral Right as a nation (though how morally right a nation built on Slavery and subjugation ca ever be, well that's a story for another time).
>> No. 382261
Thinking about it, I don't get the mindset that assumes that people can be deterred from committing illegal actions if the punishment is harsh enough.
>> No. 382262
>>382261
Certainly nothing related to crimes of passion or biological or physiological drives, or mental illness-related behaviors, which are all going to be done as irrational decisions where any thought about the consequences won't come until after you've already committed the crime for a lot of the people who commit the crimes, if they ever come along at all.

There are some things where it can work, like, say, speeding tickets, where a lot of people make conscious decisions to break the laws because they decide that the benefit they get out of breaking them outweighs the cost they are likely to pay to do so. Or possibly white collar crime like embezzlement or tax evasion. But in those cases, that is largely dependant on the ability for law enforcement to catch perpetrators--if people don't think they're going to get caught, the severity of the punishment is largely irrelevant.
>> No. 382278
>>382262
People who break laws don't intend to get caught.
>> No. 382280
>>382262
But people speed all the time, regardless of whether they'll "get caught". People tend to drive at the speeds they prefer, and often times a traffic cops' job is literally "pick 1 car out of the 7 or so that are going faster than the posted limit". There are times when traffic ticket laws look and feel more like graft than anything, and people violate these laws all the time just so they can be on time to work. I've sat in traffic court and watched other folks go before me, trying to defend themselves against violations of 10 to 25 miles over the posted limit. 25 is usually getting up there but it is not unreasonable nor unheard of, especially on a highway, where in America the posted limit is generally 75 and most cars would struggle to consistently pull 100. After paying a few fines of the court myself, from 100 to 600 dollars or more on minor traffic violations, you get the idea that this is not so much a specific punishment as one that is allotted to anyone who gets caught, and a very significant secondary stream of revenue for the State Governments.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17216_the-5-most-popular-safety-laws-that-dont-work.html

The thing is, is that we do want the law to protect the majority of people from people who would willfully do them harm. This is the thing about Drug and Traffic Laws; the actions in question can lead to horrible stuff. But most of it is not undertaken with that intent, most of the time the people involved are just trying to make money, or get to work on time. That what they do is not approved by law doesn't really affect their needs or wants.

It's weird though to think that the U.S. has gone from one perpetual state of war, the War on Drugs, to another perpetual state of war, the War on Terror, and that both of these have been sticking points for earning cash from the Federal Government.
>> No. 382313
File 137503961566.jpg - (49.66KB , 750x600 , facepalm Q.jpg )
382313
Obama in 2007: No more spying …youtube thumb

President Obama: We Can't Have…youtube thumb
>> No. 382317
>>382313
Didn't one of the "founding fathers" people love so much say the same thing as the latter?
>> No. 382325
>>382317
The point is, Obama is the most obvious liar in modern day politics. Maybe it's because we have so much video of him, its still pretty disappointing.

Also the founding father said it as a way to promote freedom, while Obama is saying it as a way to promote "security" (ie despotism).
>> No. 382328
>>382325
I'm not sure why anyone expected anything different. First off because A politicians and B as far as I can tell, the US president only has a direct say on military or martial matters, being the commander in chief and all, anything else having to go through congress, and that always ends well.
>> No. 382331
>>382328
>the US president only has a direct say on military or martial matters
Try a lot more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
>> No. 382332
>>382331
I'm not clear on the distinction. Is that not a martial matter?
>> No. 382333
>>382332
Military, I mean. Running on fumes at the moment.s
>> No. 382334
>>382332
No it's a legal one, internal, unless we declared war on mexico when I wasn't looking.

Obama used executive privilege to keep Holder out of jail, not exactly a military matter.
>> No. 382337
>>382325
>The point is, Obama is the most obvious liar in modern day politics.
That is just such an adorably naive statement.
>> No. 382338
>>382337
Tell that to the personality cult...
>> No. 382341
File 13750649196.jpg - (79.85KB , 318x214 , bill-oreilly-flips-out.jpg )
382341
>>382338
We've tried but they're really not having any of it.


Dude if you dig into this PRISM thing it really doesn't look like Despotism at all, it does looks like Security for a largely lawless frontier. And I'm still not sure at what point you would've preferred all this had been made clear, when Bush was ordering it or when Obama stepped in to unfuck it. Because from certain angles, that looks like exactly what he's done, taken a Republican Program and made it suck less. And whether you like this or not it is happening because it needs to happen, it is long overdue happening. I'm not a fan of losing all my access to vast amounts of media but it comes down to this, there are people who use the same freedom you and I have to try and hurt and kill innocent people. Our options are to either lock down that freedom or to try and implement a system that still respects it while trying to catch people actually planning to pull shit. This is nowhere near as black and white as you are spelling everything out to be.

I'm not happy about this either but I understand it and I understand why it was done and I even have an inkling of why they just didn't let the American public know.

The funniest thing about everyone screaming conspiracy is the fact that everyone who told them it's a conspiracy looks like they're part of a conspiracy themselves.

No Recordings of Phone calls have been pulled at all. It only stores metadata about calls and even then, that Metadata was only accessed for about 300 cases last year and only in connection with Terrorism. This is hardly the huge affront that everyone is making it out to be.
>> No. 382344
File 137506615580.jpg - (174.00KB , 973x539 , P1-BL909A_META_G_20130614180309.jpg )
382344
>>382341
I'll direct you to
>>382337
>That is just such an adorably naive statement.
Because when you think Obama is even a tiny bit better than Bush, you're already past the event horizon of the partisan black hole. Clinton, Bush and Obama are so damn close in what they're actually doing (as opposed to what they're saying see:>>382313) that it would be impossible to distinguish them on actions alone.

>there are people who use the same freedom you and I have to try and hurt and kill innocent people.
Yeah no shit this happens every damn day with criminals, you don't curtail basic human rights because catching them is hard. That's why we pay cops so much money. If NSA can't catch terrorists without breaking the constitution, NSA needs to be bloody fired.

>only stores metadata
That's such an incredibly ignorant statement I can only imagine it being typed up in some politicians PR room. Metadata is your LIFE, it's far far more important than the content of text messages or phone calls, because those can't be analyzed as easily.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-you-can-learn-from-phone-metadata-2013-7
>> No. 382346
Guys, can we not turn this into /pol/25096284078. I actually am interested in the technical aspects of what and why this shit happens, but damn near nobody is able to filter out their own political biases to talk about them coherently.
>> No. 382363
>>382344
>Clinton, Bush and Obama are so damn close in what they're actually doing (as opposed to what they're saying see:>>382313) that it would be impossible to distinguish them on actions alone.

Call me when Obama has a warrantless wiretapping program in place. No, PRISM is not a warrantless wiretapping program.
>> No. 382379
>>382363
>Call me when Obama has a warrantless wiretapping program in place
What's your phone number?

Protip: Obama never ended Bush's warrantless wiretapping...
>> No. 382381
George Zimmerman Is Not Racist…youtube thumb
>> No. 382386
>>382379

...because Bush himself ended it in 2007, moving the program to the jurisdiction of the FISA courts.

You may not be a particularly large fan of that process either, but unlike its previous incarnation it's legally all aboveboard.
>> No. 382387
>>382386
Different anon here--the fact that it's all legal is the most disturbing part about the whole mess.
>> No. 382389
File 137523327340.jpg - (45.55KB , 600x400 , series17_malebolgia2_photo_01_dl.jpg )
382389
>>382363
>No, PRISM is not a warrantless wiretapping program.
Well of course not, cellphones don't have wires you dunce. They're wireless, that's the point. Doh!

>>382386
>legally all aboveboard
That makes it about a billion times worse. Compared to Bush being the village idiot, this would make Obama the equivalent of Malebolgia.
It's like saying "oh bush murdered a guy so he's bad, but obama made murder legal before killing someone so he's ok".
>> No. 382393
>>382389
I'll be blunt, it sounds like you just have a hateboner for Obama. Are you Rainbow Kid, by any chance?
>> No. 382425
>>382393
I have a hateboner for every president that's served during my lifetime, the latest one obviously gets the majority of the girth.

>wtf is a rainbow kid?
>> No. 382429
>>382425
A troll from the older politics threads here. If I recall correctly he was banned a while back
>> No. 382431
>>382429
Oh I looked it up and it said something about drug use on Urban Dictionary.
>> No. 382775
I've found this informative for the most part
http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/
>> No. 382776
>>382775
I spend like 4 seconds there and easily discovered he's an apologist for governmental overreach and law enforcement abuses.
>> No. 382777
>>382776
I read the same thing and got the opposite impression. He was explaining the way the law works. Whether it's just or fair or moral is outside the scope of his discussion. He is just explaining what is legal. The fact that something is abhorrent does not make it any less legal. Otherwise this whole NSA thing would be a simple issue of prosecuting, firing and/or impeaching the people responsible rather than wringing our hands about it and demanding action from congress.
>> No. 382781
File 137600938598.jpg - (21.05KB , 353x270 , neutral people.jpg )
382781
>>382777
Saying authoritarian and immoral laws are legitimate because they are laws... is not only wrong, but also spineless and pointless to boot. Because we already know this shit and it has nothing to do with the discussion taking place in the nation.

>as the entire country talks about how it shouldnt be allowed
>as the entire country talks about how it conflicts with the constitution
>a lone voice emerges to tell everyone that laws are legal
>> No. 382791
>>382781
>As the entire country cannot into computers

Yeah I'm not super torn up that the proletariat isn't in on this one. Hell, most of them don't know shit about any of this, those that even know it exists.

Dumb people making bad decisions is how we got where we are today.
>> No. 382793
>>382781
Saying that legally passed laws aren't laws because they go against your politics is childish and intellectually cowardly. If you intend to live in a grown-up world, you need to deal with the fact that the way we get these things changed is to pass new laws that supercede the old ones. You do not get to pretend like the old laws never happened because you find them personally ugly.
>> No. 382813
>>382791
You can't limit constitutional amendments to old technology. By that logic freedom of speech is nonexistant on TV, radio and so on.

>>382793
> legally passed laws
Plenty of laws have been passed which have been found unconstitutional and removed.

>because they go against your politics
What. What the fuck?!
>> No. 382818
File 137606828716.png - (320.46KB , 612x1260 , Freedom and Security.png )
382818
>>382813
>you can't limit Constitutional Amendments to old technology

Actually that's kind of the point. You can't necessarily limit technology like this because it's grown a little more complex than most people really care to consider, and definitely more complex than the founders ever imagined. The 4th amendment, protecting against unreasonable search and seizure, is the one you're actually worried about being violated, and from there having those violations be used to infringe upon the 1st amendment. And this has already essentially occurred, but in the War on Drugs, not the War on Terror. Reports indicate that while the NSA and the FBI do not like sharing their toys with other Federal Enforcement agencies, these technologies have been used to target Drug Shipments and transporting agents. There has been no public outcry because hey it's drugs and the drug runners are minorities, but hey nobody has to actually mention that or treat it likes it's a real problem, we just keep bitching that the NSA is listening to our phonecalls (they aren't, it's impossible and logistically ignorant, unless you are doing something you know you shouldn't be and then are dumb enough to mention it over electronic communications).

The misapprehension you seem to be under is that this technology goes away if we somehow find it unconstitutional. It doesn't go away, it just morphs into a different form or ends up in a different pair of hands, by necessity. Something of this nature and scale is practically required by the standards of modern crime and law enforcement, simply because the complexities of this information network are incredible. We stand in outrage over the revelation of this stuff but the fact is, it's built within our legal framework, it is a virtual necessity in terms of modern crime, and if we try to bury this or dismantle it then that just means it goes back to the drawing board and gets resurrected outside the public eye in a different form.

The outrage over this is already fueling civil cases and even greater backlash against the government, and is giving this issue a chance to be tried in a court of law. And while it may be found Unconstitutional, the fact is that the way it is designed now, it is not, and while there may have been abuses in the system, they have been law enforcement abuses for other areas of criminal activity that also have questionable Constitutional Moral and Legal Grounds, such as Drugs. But no one wants to talk about that. We're content to just decry the entire system as immoral and illegal because hey! They Shouldn't Be Doing Things That Could Limit My Freedom, And No Discussion Can Be Had That Attempts to Define Where that Freedom Reasonably Begins and Ends. You say it's Unconstitutional but the fact is that it's Legal, it was set up to be A) Legal and B) not without checks and balances, even if they are not directly visible to the public. And it is being Legally challenged right now, meaning that the system still works on some level, even if a lot of it is decrepit bulwark, it still functions. And yet the only real public outcry is not for a redressing of all our continual governmental flaws in a variety of institutions, but to end this one program while making no effort to understand it.

>"If you have a better idea than this, we'd like to hear it."
-NSA Director General Keith Alexander

>>382776
>he's an apologist for governmental overreach and law enforcement abuses
>2nd page of blog:
>It should be clear by now that I’m no apologist for governmental overreach or law enforcement abuses

y'know sometimes you guys seem a little reactionary
>> No. 382824
File 137607749276.png - (164.93KB , 1000x422 , 137607711491.png )
382824
>>382818
The DEA thing has made huge splashes but the point is that the NSA gave the DEA the info so the rage is still focused on NSA regardless.

No new technology is needed to treat every citizen like a criminal and break the constitution, once the precedent is set you aren't limited to cellphones.

>2nd page of blog:
If you actually read it you'd notice his entire article talks about how NSA obtains this data illegally, gives it to DEA, and then DEA has to go back and get actual legal evidence to use in court.

Read his own words:
>We have given the government amazing intelligence-gathering powers on the understanding that it won’t be used against our own citizens, and won’t be used for law enforcement.
That is precisely what NSA is doing.
>> No. 382826
>>382824
The thing you need to understand is that constitutionality isn't based on your own personal understanding of the language in the constitution, it is based on the interpretation provided by the courts. The courts have ruled behavior like this constitutional in the past. That means that it would almost certainly do so in this case as well, which means that regardless of what you feel and regardless of the actual words in the constitution, this stuff is constitutional. Because the Supreme Court's opinion is the only opinion that matters in matters of constitutionality.

So again, when you say "He does a whole page on how the NSA illegally gets this information," because it betrays your ignorance of how law works.

The government is run almost entirely be lawyers. Do you seriously think that if this were illegal, the Republicans wouldn't have already started impeachment proceedings for Obama over it? The fact that a lot of them are in favor of domestic spying would not get between them and the chance to take Obama out of office, even if they had to cut off their own noses to do it.
>> No. 382828
>>382826
>The thing you need to understand is that constitutionality isn't based on your own personal understanding of the language in the constitution
Actually yeah it is. Jim Crow laws were constitutional until decades of public outcry after public outcry, test case after test case from people like you and me made sure they weren't.
Constitutionality is based 100% on the interpretation of constitution by every American that reads it, and his willingness to bring cases before the supreme court.

>Because the Supreme Court's opinion is the only opinion that matters in matters of constitutionality.
Wrong, and also our current supreme court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of NSA shotgun spying.

>the Republicans wouldn't have already started impeachment proceedings for Obama over it?
The hell would they? This is not a partisan issue, Obama can easily wash his hands of the matter long before impeachment occurs because he didn't even start this. Why are you even mentioning republicans and Obama when this is a case of citizens (ACLU etc) and NSA?

What is happening is that people are trying to bring this case before the supreme court.
https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/new-lawsuit-is-broadest-challenge-yet-to-nsa-spying/
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/what-the-three-largest-nsa-lawsuits-are-fighting-for
http://www.policymic.com/articles/48195/aclu-nsa-lawsuit-prism-violates-the-first-and-fourth-amendments-of-the-constitution
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/17/nsa-dragnet-lawsuits
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/aclu-lawsuit-nsa-prism-surveillance-92840.html
I have no idea how you missed this, maybe you were too busy taking part in us-vs-them party logic to think for yourself.
>> No. 382830
>>382828
>The hell would they? This is not a partisan issue, Obama can easily wash his hands of the matter long before impeachment occurs because he didn't even start this. Why are you even mentioning republicans and Obama when this is a case of citizens (ACLU etc) and NSA?
Because we are living in reality, not Rational World. The Republican anti-Obama movement is so strong that there is absolutely zero chance that they would not be impeaching him if they even suspected that they could tie him to doing something unconstitutional, even if it is something unconstitutional they agree with. The fact that they have not is all but proof positive that there is zero legal standing for challenging the legality of these actions.
>> No. 382831
>>382830
We can't know that's not just what they want us to think.
>> No. 382832
>>382831
Look, Descartian reductionism resolved this whole thing ages ago--you can only operate based on the world that your senses present to you. You will never be 100% sure that the universe you are experiencing is the real one, but to do anything but treat it as though it were would be insane. Yes, they could be pulling the wool over our eyes, but if so they have done a job so effective that it is indistinguishable from reality. The simulacrum has become the hyperreal.
>> No. 382838
>>382830
>The fact that they have not is all but proof positive that there is zero legal standing for challenging the legality of these actions.
Have you read the rest of that comment listing the active lawsuits? Or even the part you linked?

See:
>he didn't even start this
PRISM can't be tied to Obama.
>> No. 382868
>>382824
>NSA obtains data illegally then gives it to the DEA

>The Reuters article everyone’s citing quotes former DEA agent Finn Selander as saying “It’s just like laundering money — you work it backwards to make it clean,” in reference to a practice called “parallel construction.” He makes it sound like law enforcement obtained its trial evidence illegally, and then went back and tried to think up a way to make it look admissible. That would indeed be cause for much concern. And you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think that’s something police do on a daily basis.

>But that’s not what “parallel construction” means. It means “dammit, I have this evidence that I cannot use. Is there another way to go get this evidence that is lawful? Why yes there is! Let me go do that now.”

The only thing I'm seeing here that is technically illegal is the information sharing between the various branches (which is not surprising. Various Government branches have also accused the NSA of being stingy with its' info). And the Constitutionality of it is being challenged in court by outside entities. Meaning that it is operating under a codified set of laws that can be challenged by an open system and that it is still technically a part of our system that was reached reasonably (no matter how many people don't want to believe that).

What bugs me about your stance is that you seem to be assuming that this is just whole-heartedly full-stop illegal and that there's absolutely no reason that this program, if found illegal, will stick around. But the things this program is doing are on some level a necessity in modern criminal enforcement. As much trouble as I have with the U.S. government, I'm glad it's them doing this and not other factions. This technology exists. Now it is known. If we shut this down, the question is not "is it constitutional", the question is "who and what will fill that gap in electronic surveillance?". Because somebody will and it may not necessarily be our Government.
>> No. 382875
>>382868
>But the things this program is doing are on some level a necessity in modern criminal enforcement.
Treating every citizen as a suspect has never been necessary, and has always been the wrong thing to do.
>> No. 382878
>>382875
IF YOU HAVE A BETTER WAY TO POLICE THIS INFORMATION NETWORK THEN PLEASE TELL SOMEBODY

This is not treating everyone as a suspect. This is attempting to discern what is going on inside a public information network that allows both legal and illegal things to occur. The phone networks have already been cooperating with police in this manner for years. They can listen to my phone calls and emails? IF YOU ARE USING THEIR INFORMATION NETWORK THEN THAT ANSWER IS YES. You are not suspected of anything. We are all being put through the dragnet because the dragnet is the only way they could figure out to make this work. If you have a better solution for catching cyber-criminals that doesn't involve stuff like Tiered Internet Levels or more authoritarian locks on basic devices, I'd like to hear it. Everyone would like to hear it. Because as it stands, this is the option.
>> No. 382879
>>382878
You're taken as a given that we agree that it needs policing, or at least, more policing than it had in the 1990's. I have been given no evidence that suggests that to be the case other than hand-wringing from luddites.
>> No. 382880
What crime can you be charged with if you're being harassed by someone, shove them out of your way, they trip, and fall down and smash their head a flight of stairs nearby doing so?

What crime does that become if you then position the body to make it look like a serial killing and then proclaim you're the killer, but the evidence shows you weren't, and the death you actually were somewhat responsible for was an accident?

It's involuntary manslaughter and obstruction of justice, right?
>> No. 382881
>>382880
Chances are that in that case, the jury would be easily convinced that you were guilty of murder, since you went to so much trouble to obfuscate what really happened. Without a witness to corroborate that you did it on accident, and after having signed a faulty confession, they would assume you were an unreliable witness in regards to whether or not you did it on purpose, too.
>> No. 382892
>>382878
>POLICE THIS INFORMATION NETWORK
What the fuck, since when did information need to be policed? Have you read the 1st amendment? It's right there at the top.

>catching cyber-criminals
Has absolutely nothing to do with PRISM.

Also "cyber criminals" are not some kind of impossible new foe, the dragnet approach is not needed to catch them. We've been catching hackers using good old police work for three generations.
>> No. 382918
While PRISM disturbs me greatly, I would not be opposed to discussions and proceedings aimed at making it and programs/directives similar to it more palatable without gimping their purposes or stepping on due process. Naturally it's a two way street, the public needs to be informed about technology in general (computer illiteracy is inexcusable at this point), and the gov't needs to take steps to ensure their programs aren't COINTELPRO replicas in the making.
>> No. 382922
>>382918
As long as it's transparent, I am willing to deal with it existing. But secret programs are not okay. They take away our ability to vote against the people who make decisions we disagree with, which is in no way acceptable. We essentially have no representation in these matters if we are not informed. Taxation Without Representation was enough for us to start a war over--I can't see any way they would think that Investigation Without Representation would be okay.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason