I agree with your sentiment. I also find it funny that this sort of illegal government activity actually caught someone selling weapon parts to Iran. Does the NSA system actually work? Random success? Statistically speaking you will eventually catch something, right?
Yes, invading everyone's privacy and illegally searching them will catch more bad guys. I don't think anyone's arguing it won't. The point is, it's not worth the loss of freedom and privacy.
The purpose of America is not to make cops' jobs as easy as possible.
I actually do not think that is a better argument.
If I understand you correctly, you are implying that we should make the argument that searching everything will result in less effective law enforcement because there will be so much more data that we will miss more things.
If this were true, then it would be an excellent argument -- rather like the argument against using torture in interrogations because it actually does a WORSE job of getting people to tell you (true) information than other techniques. This is in addition to the argument against torture that claims that torture is simply evil and we shouldn't be doing it.
I think that invading everyone's privacy without a warrant and without any good REASON to suspect an individual ("reasonable and articulable suspicion") is simply evil and we shouldn't be doing it. But I do NOT also believe that invading everyone's privacy will reduce the number of criminals caught. I actually think it would be quite effective at catching criminals. The massive amount of data available would be create more work, but investigators would spend time only on people they had vague inarticulable reasons to suspect, and this would be quite efficient. For instance, if you focused just on black males age 17-29 and combed through every email or electronic communication they had ever made, I am sure you could find tens of thousands of felonies -- but such a process would be profoundly unfair. In addition, you can use computers to search through the giant haystacks very efficiently.
Yes, invading everyone's privacy and illegally searching them will catch more bad guys. I don't think anyone's arguing it won't.
I am arguing it won't.
What it does is it makes it easier for the government to manufacture bad guys* to then continue manipulating the public.
[*] How is that done? Gov. agency finds patsy; Gov. agency entraps patsy; Gov. agency blames patsy, says he is a terrorist, arrests/kills/tortures patsy, gets confession, passes new legislation, all in a day's work. If not a patsy, an ally disguised as "enemy".
Its a trade off. For the last few decades (at least) government policy/lawmaking has been leaning towards more invasive surveillance of the general public. This certainly makes police work easier, as they already have monitoring systems in place that allow them to collect information much more easily. They may already have a file on a suspect.
The down side is that public opinion and policy making are constantly changing. A person who is constantly monitored needs to worry that any activity they take part in today, regardless of how legal/acceptable, may become unacceptable tomorrow. Take, for example, boycotting by Canadian citizens of goods made in Israeli settlements. A year ago one may have disagreed with the sentiment, but it certainly wouldn't have seemed illegal. Today the Canadian government is threatening to bring these citizens up on hate crime charges. (As an aside I am not deeply familiar with this particular issue and am using it only as and example and as described at face value. Its entirely possible that some people have committed hate crimes.)
The Canadian government certainly already has files on some, if not all, of the biggest actors in this movement.
In a truly democratic society we need to tolerate and even bolster the voice of dissent. We claim to value our (nearly) unlimited freedom of speech. But a person who needs to worry that all of their words are recorded and can be used out of context later to condemn them will be less likely to voice their dissent. That loss of freedom is the cost of making police job's as easy as possible.
The down side is that public opinion and policy making are constantly changing
Don't forget the issue of abuse of surveillance data- see for example NSA and CIA analysts using our databases to stalk their exes, or cops using their legally-acquired surveillance powers in illegal ways to suppress dissent.
And there's another facet that I don't hear discussed enough- Take, for example, the crime of speeding. What if speeding resulted in immediate traffic fines, 100% of the time, with perfect enforcement. Is that how we want it to work? Speeding is always possibile, and always punishable? Or is it actually better to live in a world where speeding carries the risk of traffic fines?
Because constitutional protections are not black and white. They protect not just against grossly anti-constitutional laws, but against stupid laws, too, by making them impractical, but not unconstitutional, to enforce.
Some people have never had bad law enforcement experiences. I know someone whose brother was shot to death in a traffic stop. I know a woman who was stalked by a deputy. And I know of an entire city neighborhood that got tear gassed because the PD drove protestors into a residential area. In the early evening.
Cops are people too, and sometimes people are assholes. Really, really big assholes. This is why we have rules instead of a police state. Well, had.
Hmm, I wonder what the closest analogue to that statement is that's actually found in the writings of the Founding Fathers. I assume manny of them would agree with it, but the quote itself is from a century later, when a British Confederate-sympathizer was criticizing papal infallibility.
Because it's easier to put innocent people in prison than it is to catch those who are actually guilty, so making cops' jobs as easy as possible pretty much requires mass quantities of false imprisonment.
That's not quite what happened. The guy was already under investigation, and his laptop was specifically targeted when he crossed the border. This wasn't a dragnet win: it just supplied additional evidence in a case that was already being built.
Then why not have the warrant ready to go when he crossed the border? If the suspect was already under investigation and there was suspicion there would be evidence on the laptop, then it would seem a warrant would be easy to obtain. Then this would be a non-issue.
I'm guessing that this wasn't the agents' understanding of the process. From reading the opinion, it seems that they thought it was perfectly fine to search the laptop on spec, then later apply for a warrant to justify what they found.
They had enough warning that he was going to be going through customs to decide whether to grab the laptop when he arrived in the country or when he left it, opting for the latter, so yes, they would have had plenty of time to apply for a warrant if they thought they needed one up-front.
It's not that they thought it was fine to just search the laptop; that it was fine for them to seize the laptop, remove it from the scene, and then search at their leisure. It would be like border agents seizing a car crossing the border, towing it to another location (leaving owner behind as well), and searching it later. How that comes off as a reasonable search to anyone is beyond me.
Parent comment was making a joke: Oliver North was one of the people involved in the Iran-Contra affair illegally shipping arms to Iran in the 80s while also supporting terrorism in Nicaragua.
I might have realized that laptops weren't in common use at the time. I remember his secretary Fawn Hall smuggled documents out in her boots for him. How old school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_Hall
Comments
I agree with your sentiment. I also find it funny that this sort of illegal government activity actually caught someone selling weapon parts to Iran. Does the NSA system actually work? Random success? Statistically speaking you will eventually catch something, right?
Yes, invading everyone's privacy and illegally searching them will catch more bad guys. I don't think anyone's arguing it won't. The point is, it's not worth the loss of freedom and privacy.
The purpose of America is not to make cops' jobs as easy as possible.
"The law is not a sword to find and attack the guilty. The law is a shield to protect the innocent."
I find this an excellent lens to examine issues like this.
I think a better argument is if you are looking for a needle in a haystack the last thing you want to do is add more haystacks.
I actually do not think that is a better argument.
If I understand you correctly, you are implying that we should make the argument that searching everything will result in less effective law enforcement because there will be so much more data that we will miss more things.
If this were true, then it would be an excellent argument -- rather like the argument against using torture in interrogations because it actually does a WORSE job of getting people to tell you (true) information than other techniques. This is in addition to the argument against torture that claims that torture is simply evil and we shouldn't be doing it.
I think that invading everyone's privacy without a warrant and without any good REASON to suspect an individual ("reasonable and articulable suspicion") is simply evil and we shouldn't be doing it. But I do NOT also believe that invading everyone's privacy will reduce the number of criminals caught. I actually think it would be quite effective at catching criminals. The massive amount of data available would be create more work, but investigators would spend time only on people they had vague inarticulable reasons to suspect, and this would be quite efficient. For instance, if you focused just on black males age 17-29 and combed through every email or electronic communication they had ever made, I am sure you could find tens of thousands of felonies -- but such a process would be profoundly unfair. In addition, you can use computers to search through the giant haystacks very efficiently.
Hey, I'm getting paid for each piece of straw I look through here, add more stacks!
I am arguing it won't.
What it does is it makes it easier for the government to manufacture bad guys* to then continue manipulating the public.
[*] How is that done? Gov. agency finds patsy; Gov. agency entraps patsy; Gov. agency blames patsy, says he is a terrorist, arrests/kills/tortures patsy, gets confession, passes new legislation, all in a day's work. If not a patsy, an ally disguised as "enemy".
Why not make cops jobs as easy as possible?
Its a trade off. For the last few decades (at least) government policy/lawmaking has been leaning towards more invasive surveillance of the general public. This certainly makes police work easier, as they already have monitoring systems in place that allow them to collect information much more easily. They may already have a file on a suspect.
The down side is that public opinion and policy making are constantly changing. A person who is constantly monitored needs to worry that any activity they take part in today, regardless of how legal/acceptable, may become unacceptable tomorrow. Take, for example, boycotting by Canadian citizens of goods made in Israeli settlements. A year ago one may have disagreed with the sentiment, but it certainly wouldn't have seemed illegal. Today the Canadian government is threatening to bring these citizens up on hate crime charges. (As an aside I am not deeply familiar with this particular issue and am using it only as and example and as described at face value. Its entirely possible that some people have committed hate crimes.)
The Canadian government certainly already has files on some, if not all, of the biggest actors in this movement.
In a truly democratic society we need to tolerate and even bolster the voice of dissent. We claim to value our (nearly) unlimited freedom of speech. But a person who needs to worry that all of their words are recorded and can be used out of context later to condemn them will be less likely to voice their dissent. That loss of freedom is the cost of making police job's as easy as possible.
Don't forget the issue of abuse of surveillance data- see for example NSA and CIA analysts using our databases to stalk their exes, or cops using their legally-acquired surveillance powers in illegal ways to suppress dissent.
And there's another facet that I don't hear discussed enough- Take, for example, the crime of speeding. What if speeding resulted in immediate traffic fines, 100% of the time, with perfect enforcement. Is that how we want it to work? Speeding is always possibile, and always punishable? Or is it actually better to live in a world where speeding carries the risk of traffic fines?
Your question doesn't respond to what you quoted. The _purpose of America_ is not to make cops' jobs as easy as possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_o...
Because constitutional protections are not black and white. They protect not just against grossly anti-constitutional laws, but against stupid laws, too, by making them impractical, but not unconstitutional, to enforce.
Haven't watched much news lately? Those in power will abuse their power. Thus we must limit their ability to do such.
Some people have never had bad law enforcement experiences. I know someone whose brother was shot to death in a traffic stop. I know a woman who was stalked by a deputy. And I know of an entire city neighborhood that got tear gassed because the PD drove protestors into a residential area. In the early evening.
Cops are people too, and sometimes people are assholes. Really, really big assholes. This is why we have rules instead of a police state. Well, had.
If that was the absolute top priority of this country, what would America look like?
Because the Founding Fathers understood the nature of authority (absolute power corrupts absolutely).
Hmm, I wonder what the closest analogue to that statement is that's actually found in the writings of the Founding Fathers. I assume manny of them would agree with it, but the quote itself is from a century later, when a British Confederate-sympathizer was criticizing papal infallibility.
Which is why I put it in parentheses, not quotation marks.
Because it's easier to put innocent people in prison than it is to catch those who are actually guilty, so making cops' jobs as easy as possible pretty much requires mass quantities of false imprisonment.
That's not quite what happened. The guy was already under investigation, and his laptop was specifically targeted when he crossed the border. This wasn't a dragnet win: it just supplied additional evidence in a case that was already being built.
Then why not have the warrant ready to go when he crossed the border? If the suspect was already under investigation and there was suspicion there would be evidence on the laptop, then it would seem a warrant would be easy to obtain. Then this would be a non-issue.
I'm guessing that this wasn't the agents' understanding of the process. From reading the opinion, it seems that they thought it was perfectly fine to search the laptop on spec, then later apply for a warrant to justify what they found.
They had enough warning that he was going to be going through customs to decide whether to grab the laptop when he arrived in the country or when he left it, opting for the latter, so yes, they would have had plenty of time to apply for a warrant if they thought they needed one up-front.
It's not that they thought it was fine to just search the laptop; that it was fine for them to seize the laptop, remove it from the scene, and then search at their leisure. It would be like border agents seizing a car crossing the border, towing it to another location (leaving owner behind as well), and searching it later. How that comes off as a reasonable search to anyone is beyond me.
Oliver North had his laptop confiscated?
Where? By warrant? Personal or work? Link?
Parent comment was making a joke: Oliver North was one of the people involved in the Iran-Contra affair illegally shipping arms to Iran in the 80s while also supporting terrorism in Nicaragua.
I was self-aware at the time. :)
I might have realized that laptops weren't in common use at the time. I remember his secretary Fawn Hall smuggled documents out in her boots for him. How old school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_Hall
All it said was that he was selling accelerometers, which could be used in a variety of things (i.e. autonomous vehicles, commercial aircraft, etc.):
The defendant was accused of unlawfully selling Q-Flex Accelerometers—models QA-2000-10, QA-2000-20, and QA-3000
There was no statement of intent (in the article at least), so saying these were to be used for weapons seems a bit premature.