|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 00:38 ZasZ. wrote:On July 28 2015 23:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON — For several years, a handful of lawmakers in Congress have tried to scale back tough sentencing laws that have bloated federal prisons and the cost of running them. But broad-based political will to change those laws remained elusive.
Now, with a push from President Obama, and perhaps even more significantly a nod from Speaker John A. Boehner, Congress seems poised to revise four decades of federal policy that greatly expanded the number of Americans — to roughly 750 per 100,000 — now incarcerated, by far the highest of any Western nation.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has long resisted changes to federal sentencing laws, said he expected to have a bipartisan bill ready before the August recess.
“It will be a bill that can have broad conservative support,” said Mr. Grassley, who as recently as this year praised the virtues of mandatory minimums on the Senate floor.
Even in a Congress riven by partisanship, the priorities of libertarian-leaning Republicans and left-leaning Democrats have come together, led by the example of several states that have adopted similar policies to reduce their prison costs.
As senators work to meld several proposals into one bill, one important change would be to expand the so-called safety-valve provisions that give judges discretion to sentence low-level drug offenders to less time in prison than the required mandatory minimum term if they meet certain requirements.
Another would allow lower-risk prisoners to participate in recidivism programs to earn up to a 25 percent reduction of their sentence. Lawmakers would also like to create more alternatives for low-level drug offenders. Nearly half of all current federal prisoners are serving sentences for drug crimes. Source About time. There really need to be room for context in sentencing for drug crimes. I liked the way John Oliver phrased it in this week's Last Week Tonight, in that mandatory minimum sentences essentially treats all drug offenders as Season 5 Walter White when they may or may not barely be Season 1 Jesse Pinkman. There is a big difference between possession and low level dealing and the people running major drug operations, and sentencing should reflect that. Not making possession of small amounts of drugs an offense that can carry jail time would be a start. If we cracked down less on minor drug offenses and cracked down more on white collar crime, this country would be a much better place. While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating? Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 03:52 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 03:39 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 00:38 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
About time. There really need to be room for context in sentencing for drug crimes. I liked the way John Oliver phrased it in this week's Last Week Tonight, in that mandatory minimum sentences essentially treats all drug offenders as Season 5 Walter White when they may or may not barely be Season 1 Jesse Pinkman. There is a big difference between possession and low level dealing and the people running major drug operations, and sentencing should reflect that. Not making possession of small amounts of drugs an offense that can carry jail time would be a start.
If we cracked down less on minor drug offenses and cracked down more on white collar crime, this country would be a much better place. While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 Police are not equipped or funded well enough to collect or deal with digital evidence in the modern era. Not with the way laws and evidence currently work. For now, that is a good thing. Until thousands of laws are repealed, the police having the resources and ability to comb through the digital world means that the police could select a person, and then fit the crime to their internet conduct and what it implies. That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:33 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:30 farvacola wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 03:52 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 03:39 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Police are not equipped or funded well enough to collect or deal with digital evidence in the modern era. Not with the way laws and evidence currently work. For now, that is a good thing. Until thousands of laws are repealed, the police having the resources and ability to comb through the digital world means that the police could select a person, and then fit the crime to their internet conduct and what it implies. That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Outdated grammar, outdated capitalization, outdated logic, outdated quote. But yes, cracking down on corporate malfeasance is clearly synonymous with "let[ting] the police run wild." Damnit Millitron, I wasted my 10k on you! I'm surprised in a country that just got done decrying police overreach, you're so quick to give the police more power. Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement? I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”. So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both.
You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it.
Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest.
But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual.
|
On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 00:38 ZasZ. wrote:On July 28 2015 23:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON — For several years, a handful of lawmakers in Congress have tried to scale back tough sentencing laws that have bloated federal prisons and the cost of running them. But broad-based political will to change those laws remained elusive.
Now, with a push from President Obama, and perhaps even more significantly a nod from Speaker John A. Boehner, Congress seems poised to revise four decades of federal policy that greatly expanded the number of Americans — to roughly 750 per 100,000 — now incarcerated, by far the highest of any Western nation.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has long resisted changes to federal sentencing laws, said he expected to have a bipartisan bill ready before the August recess.
“It will be a bill that can have broad conservative support,” said Mr. Grassley, who as recently as this year praised the virtues of mandatory minimums on the Senate floor.
Even in a Congress riven by partisanship, the priorities of libertarian-leaning Republicans and left-leaning Democrats have come together, led by the example of several states that have adopted similar policies to reduce their prison costs.
As senators work to meld several proposals into one bill, one important change would be to expand the so-called safety-valve provisions that give judges discretion to sentence low-level drug offenders to less time in prison than the required mandatory minimum term if they meet certain requirements.
Another would allow lower-risk prisoners to participate in recidivism programs to earn up to a 25 percent reduction of their sentence. Lawmakers would also like to create more alternatives for low-level drug offenders. Nearly half of all current federal prisoners are serving sentences for drug crimes. Source About time. There really need to be room for context in sentencing for drug crimes. I liked the way John Oliver phrased it in this week's Last Week Tonight, in that mandatory minimum sentences essentially treats all drug offenders as Season 5 Walter White when they may or may not barely be Season 1 Jesse Pinkman. There is a big difference between possession and low level dealing and the people running major drug operations, and sentencing should reflect that. Not making possession of small amounts of drugs an offense that can carry jail time would be a start. If we cracked down less on minor drug offenses and cracked down more on white collar crime, this country would be a much better place. While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating? Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 03:52 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 03:39 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 Police are not equipped or funded well enough to collect or deal with digital evidence in the modern era. Not with the way laws and evidence currently work. For now, that is a good thing. Until thousands of laws are repealed, the police having the resources and ability to comb through the digital world means that the police could select a person, and then fit the crime to their internet conduct and what it implies. That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:33 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:30 farvacola wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 03:52 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
For now, that is a good thing. Until thousands of laws are repealed, the police having the resources and ability to comb through the digital world means that the police could select a person, and then fit the crime to their internet conduct and what it implies. That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Outdated grammar, outdated capitalization, outdated logic, outdated quote. But yes, cracking down on corporate malfeasance is clearly synonymous with "let[ting] the police run wild." Damnit Millitron, I wasted my 10k on you! I'm surprised in a country that just got done decrying police overreach, you're so quick to give the police more power. Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement? I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”. So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual.
Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me.
|
On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 00:38 ZasZ. wrote:On July 28 2015 23:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON — For several years, a handful of lawmakers in Congress have tried to scale back tough sentencing laws that have bloated federal prisons and the cost of running them. But broad-based political will to change those laws remained elusive.
Now, with a push from President Obama, and perhaps even more significantly a nod from Speaker John A. Boehner, Congress seems poised to revise four decades of federal policy that greatly expanded the number of Americans — to roughly 750 per 100,000 — now incarcerated, by far the highest of any Western nation.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has long resisted changes to federal sentencing laws, said he expected to have a bipartisan bill ready before the August recess.
“It will be a bill that can have broad conservative support,” said Mr. Grassley, who as recently as this year praised the virtues of mandatory minimums on the Senate floor.
Even in a Congress riven by partisanship, the priorities of libertarian-leaning Republicans and left-leaning Democrats have come together, led by the example of several states that have adopted similar policies to reduce their prison costs.
As senators work to meld several proposals into one bill, one important change would be to expand the so-called safety-valve provisions that give judges discretion to sentence low-level drug offenders to less time in prison than the required mandatory minimum term if they meet certain requirements.
Another would allow lower-risk prisoners to participate in recidivism programs to earn up to a 25 percent reduction of their sentence. Lawmakers would also like to create more alternatives for low-level drug offenders. Nearly half of all current federal prisoners are serving sentences for drug crimes. Source About time. There really need to be room for context in sentencing for drug crimes. I liked the way John Oliver phrased it in this week's Last Week Tonight, in that mandatory minimum sentences essentially treats all drug offenders as Season 5 Walter White when they may or may not barely be Season 1 Jesse Pinkman. There is a big difference between possession and low level dealing and the people running major drug operations, and sentencing should reflect that. Not making possession of small amounts of drugs an offense that can carry jail time would be a start. If we cracked down less on minor drug offenses and cracked down more on white collar crime, this country would be a much better place. While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating? Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 03:52 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 03:39 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Police are not equipped or funded well enough to collect or deal with digital evidence in the modern era. Not with the way laws and evidence currently work. For now, that is a good thing. Until thousands of laws are repealed, the police having the resources and ability to comb through the digital world means that the police could select a person, and then fit the crime to their internet conduct and what it implies. That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:33 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:30 farvacola wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Outdated grammar, outdated capitalization, outdated logic, outdated quote. But yes, cracking down on corporate malfeasance is clearly synonymous with "let[ting] the police run wild." Damnit Millitron, I wasted my 10k on you! I'm surprised in a country that just got done decrying police overreach, you're so quick to give the police more power. Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement? I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”. So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me.
That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction.
Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis.
|
On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 00:38 ZasZ. wrote:On July 28 2015 23:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source About time. There really need to be room for context in sentencing for drug crimes. I liked the way John Oliver phrased it in this week's Last Week Tonight, in that mandatory minimum sentences essentially treats all drug offenders as Season 5 Walter White when they may or may not barely be Season 1 Jesse Pinkman. There is a big difference between possession and low level dealing and the people running major drug operations, and sentencing should reflect that. Not making possession of small amounts of drugs an offense that can carry jail time would be a start. If we cracked down less on minor drug offenses and cracked down more on white collar crime, this country would be a much better place. While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating? Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 03:52 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
For now, that is a good thing. Until thousands of laws are repealed, the police having the resources and ability to comb through the digital world means that the police could select a person, and then fit the crime to their internet conduct and what it implies. That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:33 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:30 farvacola wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Outdated grammar, outdated capitalization, outdated logic, outdated quote. But yes, cracking down on corporate malfeasance is clearly synonymous with "let[ting] the police run wild." Damnit Millitron, I wasted my 10k on you! I'm surprised in a country that just got done decrying police overreach, you're so quick to give the police more power. Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement? I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”. So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis.
Digital evidence collection needs equally strong controls as physical evidence collection. It's just as easily abused.
|
On July 29 2015 05:19 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 00:38 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
About time. There really need to be room for context in sentencing for drug crimes. I liked the way John Oliver phrased it in this week's Last Week Tonight, in that mandatory minimum sentences essentially treats all drug offenders as Season 5 Walter White when they may or may not barely be Season 1 Jesse Pinkman. There is a big difference between possession and low level dealing and the people running major drug operations, and sentencing should reflect that. Not making possession of small amounts of drugs an offense that can carry jail time would be a start.
If we cracked down less on minor drug offenses and cracked down more on white collar crime, this country would be a much better place. While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating? Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:33 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:30 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Outdated grammar, outdated capitalization, outdated logic, outdated quote. But yes, cracking down on corporate malfeasance is clearly synonymous with "let[ting] the police run wild."
Damnit Millitron, I wasted my 10k on you! I'm surprised in a country that just got done decrying police overreach, you're so quick to give the police more power. Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement? I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”. So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Digital evidence collection needs equally strong controls as physical evidence collection. It's just as easily abused.
What in my statement said it wasn't going to be?
|
On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 00:38 ZasZ. wrote:On July 28 2015 23:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source About time. There really need to be room for context in sentencing for drug crimes. I liked the way John Oliver phrased it in this week's Last Week Tonight, in that mandatory minimum sentences essentially treats all drug offenders as Season 5 Walter White when they may or may not barely be Season 1 Jesse Pinkman. There is a big difference between possession and low level dealing and the people running major drug operations, and sentencing should reflect that. Not making possession of small amounts of drugs an offense that can carry jail time would be a start. If we cracked down less on minor drug offenses and cracked down more on white collar crime, this country would be a much better place. While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating? Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 03:52 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
For now, that is a good thing. Until thousands of laws are repealed, the police having the resources and ability to comb through the digital world means that the police could select a person, and then fit the crime to their internet conduct and what it implies. That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:33 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:30 farvacola wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Outdated grammar, outdated capitalization, outdated logic, outdated quote. But yes, cracking down on corporate malfeasance is clearly synonymous with "let[ting] the police run wild." Damnit Millitron, I wasted my 10k on you! I'm surprised in a country that just got done decrying police overreach, you're so quick to give the police more power. Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement? I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”. So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis.
Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best.
And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police.
|
On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 00:38 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
About time. There really need to be room for context in sentencing for drug crimes. I liked the way John Oliver phrased it in this week's Last Week Tonight, in that mandatory minimum sentences essentially treats all drug offenders as Season 5 Walter White when they may or may not barely be Season 1 Jesse Pinkman. There is a big difference between possession and low level dealing and the people running major drug operations, and sentencing should reflect that. Not making possession of small amounts of drugs an offense that can carry jail time would be a start.
If we cracked down less on minor drug offenses and cracked down more on white collar crime, this country would be a much better place. While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating? Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:33 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:30 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Outdated grammar, outdated capitalization, outdated logic, outdated quote. But yes, cracking down on corporate malfeasance is clearly synonymous with "let[ting] the police run wild."
Damnit Millitron, I wasted my 10k on you! I'm surprised in a country that just got done decrying police overreach, you're so quick to give the police more power. Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement? I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”. So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police.
I don't think they payed billions in settlements because they didn't want to keep the money?
|
On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 00:38 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
About time. There really need to be room for context in sentencing for drug crimes. I liked the way John Oliver phrased it in this week's Last Week Tonight, in that mandatory minimum sentences essentially treats all drug offenders as Season 5 Walter White when they may or may not barely be Season 1 Jesse Pinkman. There is a big difference between possession and low level dealing and the people running major drug operations, and sentencing should reflect that. Not making possession of small amounts of drugs an offense that can carry jail time would be a start.
If we cracked down less on minor drug offenses and cracked down more on white collar crime, this country would be a much better place. While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating? Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:33 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:30 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Outdated grammar, outdated capitalization, outdated logic, outdated quote. But yes, cracking down on corporate malfeasance is clearly synonymous with "let[ting] the police run wild."
Damnit Millitron, I wasted my 10k on you! I'm surprised in a country that just got done decrying police overreach, you're so quick to give the police more power. Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement? I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”. So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police.
After the mortgage collapse of 2008, how many charges were brought against the people who created that nightmare? And do you really think that represents the amount of fraud and criminal activity that took place leading up to that collapse?
There was a loan type called a no-income-no-job loan. A loan created for people who had no ability to pay for day one. But no crimes were committed during that time, right. Just the free market at work. And by free market, its free until the government has to step in and save our banks so they can do it again in another 10 years. But remember, government regulation is bad.
On July 29 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating? Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:33 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I'm surprised in a country that just got done decrying police overreach, you're so quick to give the police more power. Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement? I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”. So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police. I don't think they payed billions in settlements because they didn't want to keep the money?
And fines from the government as well. But no jail time, so why not do it again and just build the cost of the fines into "standard operating costs".
|
On July 29 2015 05:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating? Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:33 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I'm surprised in a country that just got done decrying police overreach, you're so quick to give the police more power. Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement? I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”. So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police. After the mortgage collapse of 2008, how many charges were brought against the people who created that nightmare? And do you really think that represents the amount of fraud and criminal activity that took place leading up to that collapse? There was a loan type called a no-income-no-job loan. A loan created for people who had no ability to pay for day one. But no crimes were committed during that time, right. Just the free market at work. And by free market, its free until the government has to step in and save our banks so they can do it again in another 10 years. But remember, government regulation is bad.
His point still stands, It is was (and still is?) not illegal to make loans like that. Ofcourse it should not be allowed and there should be regulation but it was not illegal.
On July 29 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating? Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild.
"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:33 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
I'm surprised in a country that just got done decrying police overreach, you're so quick to give the police more power. Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement? I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”. So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police. I don't think they payed billions in settlements because they didn't want to keep the money?
They payed billions to get back to their old ways and not have the hassle of investigations. Remember those billions are peanuts compared to what they make. They don't give a shit about the money.
|
On July 29 2015 05:46 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:43 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating?
Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement?
I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”.
So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police. After the mortgage collapse of 2008, how many charges were brought against the people who created that nightmare? And do you really think that represents the amount of fraud and criminal activity that took place leading up to that collapse? There was a loan type called a no-income-no-job loan. A loan created for people who had no ability to pay for day one. But no crimes were committed during that time, right. Just the free market at work. And by free market, its free until the government has to step in and save our banks so they can do it again in another 10 years. But remember, government regulation is bad. His point still stands, It is was (and still is?) not illegal to make loans like that. Ofcourse it should not be allowed and there should be regulation but it was not illegal. Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating?
Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement?
I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”.
So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police. I don't think they payed billions in settlements because they didn't want to keep the money? They payed billions to get back to their old ways and not have the hassle of investigations. Remember those billions are peanuts compared to what they make. They don't give a shit about the money.
The standing argument from the people who police the banks is that they are so underfunded that they couldn't prosecute if they wanted to.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.html
Its not that the crimes were not there. It was the political will to go after them and fear it would cause more economic instability. Literally being rewarded for their bad behavior. And not political will to make them smaller so they could be charged.
I worked in the legal field all through the crisis working for banks and its still shocks me to this day that only one person was charged. But remember, the government holds more power than them and might come for you if you give it any more.
|
On July 29 2015 05:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:46 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2015 05:43 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force.
[quote]
Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police. After the mortgage collapse of 2008, how many charges were brought against the people who created that nightmare? And do you really think that represents the amount of fraud and criminal activity that took place leading up to that collapse? There was a loan type called a no-income-no-job loan. A loan created for people who had no ability to pay for day one. But no crimes were committed during that time, right. Just the free market at work. And by free market, its free until the government has to step in and save our banks so they can do it again in another 10 years. But remember, government regulation is bad. His point still stands, It is was (and still is?) not illegal to make loans like that. Ofcourse it should not be allowed and there should be regulation but it was not illegal. On July 29 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force.
[quote]
Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police. I don't think they payed billions in settlements because they didn't want to keep the money? They payed billions to get back to their old ways and not have the hassle of investigations. Remember those billions are peanuts compared to what they make. They don't give a shit about the money. The standing argument from the people who police the banks is that they are so underfunded that they couldn't prosecute if they wanted to. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.htmlIts not that the crimes were not there. It was the political will to go after them and fear it would cause more economic instability. Literally being rewarded for their bad behavior. And not political will to make them smaller so they could be charged. I worked in the legal field all through the crisis working for banks and its still shocks me to this day that only one person was charged. But remember, the government holds more power than them and might come for you if you give it any more.
What good, exactly, comes from putting a few high profile bankers in jail? Is society better off for it? The banking system is a hydra, not a cyclops. Jail one CEO and another will spring up in his place. Who even cares if Bernie Madoff is in jail? He's an old man, and none of us are better off now that he's in jail instead of living out the remainder of his pitiful life in exile.
Talk about giving the police more power to comb through the universe of data collected by facebook, google, et al. in order to prosecute corporate criminals misses the forest for the trees. Who cares if we put a few more collar-wearing white men in jail if we help to erode the last vestiges of privacy to do it?
|
On July 29 2015 05:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 05:46 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2015 05:43 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force.
[quote]
Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police. After the mortgage collapse of 2008, how many charges were brought against the people who created that nightmare? And do you really think that represents the amount of fraud and criminal activity that took place leading up to that collapse? There was a loan type called a no-income-no-job loan. A loan created for people who had no ability to pay for day one. But no crimes were committed during that time, right. Just the free market at work. And by free market, its free until the government has to step in and save our banks so they can do it again in another 10 years. But remember, government regulation is bad. His point still stands, It is was (and still is?) not illegal to make loans like that. Ofcourse it should not be allowed and there should be regulation but it was not illegal. On July 29 2015 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2015 05:31 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:13 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 05:06 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force.
[quote]
Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual. Yes, and? Your program doesn't prevent that, it just creates another entity that can do that (and worse) to me. That isn't a solution to the problem, that is just being paranoid to the point of inaction. Fixing evidence rules for digital evidence and giving the police more ability to collect it through public means would at least create a system where the problem could be addressed. Abuse of that system could also be addressed on a case by case basis. Its not paranoid. You are the one who has basically invented felonies that you want investigated. The real reason no one as prosecuted for the financial crisis is because no crimes were committed and there are no laws that you could write that would have imprisoned those bankers without throwing millions of people into jail. Of the few that maybe could have been, but were not, that is down to prosecutorial discretion and the fact that prosecutors like to have high conviction rates, and that most of those cases were shaky, at best. And no, the abuses cannot be assessed on a case by case basis, because we have so much evidence that it will be systemically abused. There would need to be a huge oversight system that would have to be independent of the police. I don't think they payed billions in settlements because they didn't want to keep the money? They payed billions to get back to their old ways and not have the hassle of investigations. Remember those billions are peanuts compared to what they make. They don't give a shit about the money. The standing argument from the people who police the banks is that they are so underfunded that they couldn't prosecute if they wanted to. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.htmlIts not that the crimes were not there. It was the political will to go after them and fear it would cause more economic instability. Literally being rewarded for their bad behavior. And not political will to make them smaller so they could be charged. I worked in the legal field all through the crisis working for banks and its still shocks me to this day that only one person was charged. But remember, the government holds more power than them and might come for you if you give it any more.
The people committing major white collar crime are smart. Too smart for whatever idiot regulator the government is going to send after them. For whatever it's worth, the SEC is insanely well funded (their HQ is one of the nicest gvt buildings anywhere), but run by idiots (notice the part about spending all their money on the building?). And there's no real solution I can come up with to get it not run by idiots. Who's gonna make em?
|
Please. The people running the SEC will be working for the bank in 3 years. They are the same people.
|
On July 29 2015 05:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2015 04:56 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:47 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:42 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 04:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 00:38 ZasZ. wrote:On July 28 2015 23:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON — For several years, a handful of lawmakers in Congress have tried to scale back tough sentencing laws that have bloated federal prisons and the cost of running them. But broad-based political will to change those laws remained elusive.
Now, with a push from President Obama, and perhaps even more significantly a nod from Speaker John A. Boehner, Congress seems poised to revise four decades of federal policy that greatly expanded the number of Americans — to roughly 750 per 100,000 — now incarcerated, by far the highest of any Western nation.
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has long resisted changes to federal sentencing laws, said he expected to have a bipartisan bill ready before the August recess.
“It will be a bill that can have broad conservative support,” said Mr. Grassley, who as recently as this year praised the virtues of mandatory minimums on the Senate floor.
Even in a Congress riven by partisanship, the priorities of libertarian-leaning Republicans and left-leaning Democrats have come together, led by the example of several states that have adopted similar policies to reduce their prison costs.
As senators work to meld several proposals into one bill, one important change would be to expand the so-called safety-valve provisions that give judges discretion to sentence low-level drug offenders to less time in prison than the required mandatory minimum term if they meet certain requirements.
Another would allow lower-risk prisoners to participate in recidivism programs to earn up to a 25 percent reduction of their sentence. Lawmakers would also like to create more alternatives for low-level drug offenders. Nearly half of all current federal prisoners are serving sentences for drug crimes. Source About time. There really need to be room for context in sentencing for drug crimes. I liked the way John Oliver phrased it in this week's Last Week Tonight, in that mandatory minimum sentences essentially treats all drug offenders as Season 5 Walter White when they may or may not barely be Season 1 Jesse Pinkman. There is a big difference between possession and low level dealing and the people running major drug operations, and sentencing should reflect that. Not making possession of small amounts of drugs an offense that can carry jail time would be a start. If we cracked down less on minor drug offenses and cracked down more on white collar crime, this country would be a much better place. While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 I was more referring to people like those behind the mortgage crisis circa 2008. For sure, laws need to catch up with technology before you can fairly and equitably prosecute cyber criminals, but is it so far-fetched to imagine a future where police are equipped to investigate a potential crime, get a "cyber" warrant based on probable cause, and THEN invade the privacy of the person they are investigating? Judging by what we have seen from police and prosecutors during my lifetime, yes, that is pretty far-fetched. Unless pre-warrant snooping is made an offense punishable by 10 years in prison, and there was a special division that investigated and prosecuted such offenses by the police force. On July 29 2015 04:17 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 03:52 cLutZ wrote:On July 29 2015 03:39 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 03:34 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
While I agree with you on mandatory mins (along with Prosecutorial overreach an count tacking) being unjust. "Cracking down" on white collar crime basically requires Patriot Act 2.0 Police are not equipped or funded well enough to collect or deal with digital evidence in the modern era. Not with the way laws and evidence currently work. For now, that is a good thing. Until thousands of laws are repealed, the police having the resources and ability to comb through the digital world means that the police could select a person, and then fit the crime to their internet conduct and what it implies. That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Sure, I guess if you fear the police more than some random person on the internet or a mutli-national corporation. Just so long as everyone else has my information and can misuse it but the government. Is it so irrational to fear the entity that can imprison you, bankrupt you, and render you nearly permanently unemployable more than the entity that can bankrupt you? Plus the part where there is no recourse against on entity, while there may be from the other. Not at all. That's why I think police need more powers to prosecute large, scary companies that could do that. The problem with your logic is that you assume there the people who currently have that information won't ruin your life. And if they do, that the police will have some ability to stop them or hold someone accountable. On July 29 2015 04:42 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:37 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 04:33 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 04:30 farvacola wrote:On July 29 2015 04:09 Millitron wrote:On July 29 2015 03:59 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2015 03:52 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
For now, that is a good thing. Until thousands of laws are repealed, the police having the resources and ability to comb through the digital world means that the police could select a person, and then fit the crime to their internet conduct and what it implies. That works is reverse too. People commit real crimes, but know they won’t get caught unless the local police put in overwhelming amounts of effort. See swatting. And also that large banks and other corporations can just hide behind a mountain of paperwork and evidence, making it do difficult to bring a successful case. I'd prefer to let a few crimes go unsolved than let the police run wild. "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." - Ben Franklin Outdated grammar, outdated capitalization, outdated logic, outdated quote. But yes, cracking down on corporate malfeasance is clearly synonymous with "let[ting] the police run wild." Damnit Millitron, I wasted my 10k on you! I'm surprised in a country that just got done decrying police overreach, you're so quick to give the police more power. Do you need the difference between cracking down on banks committing fraud and the deaths of black suspects in police custody explained to you? Is that really necessary? Do we really need to explain that they are two entirely different topics and areas of law enforcement? I work for those banks and cleaned up the aftermath of those loans. They had a special type called Ninj loans. No-income-no-job. But weirdly no charges were ever brought for handing those out for “reasons”. So for some reason the police are more trustworthy in cyberspace than on the street? Is there some reason why we cannot do two things at once? Google can't imprison me. Bank of America can't send a SWAT team to kick down my door and shoot me. The police can do both. You need to look up Swatting for your own good and how hard it is to catch the people who do it. Also Google can just make it so you will never get a job, ever. And they could create a false credit report that you could never get removed. Or put illegal photos of under aged children on one of your devices or online storage. They could ruin your life in so many ways, including ways that would lead to your arrest. But don’t worry, I’m sure Google won’t do that. Maybe some other company or better yet, an individual.
Catching swatters isn't difficult because of the internet.
It's difficult because of jurisdiction (which doesn't change with data collection rules), because singular incidents are largely considered misdemeanours (which police generally won't investigate because of time and resources), and because the perpetrators largely end up being minors.
|
Regardless, swatting is largely a problem of government incompetence. This is not a valid rationale for expanding government power. The same is true for the financial crisis and people reacting naturally to poorly constructed incentives.
|
The man who is believed to have paid wildlife guides £35,000 to let him hunt and kill Zimbabwe's beloved lion Cecil, is reportedly an American dentist who had already been in trouble with the law after slaying a black bear.
Walt Palmer, who has been identified by the Telegraph, and famed for being an "elite hunter", allegedly shot Cecil with a bow and arrow earlier this month in Hwange National Park.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/28/man-killed-cecil-the-lion-american-dentist-walt-palmer_n_7886186.html
So is there any reason to actually believe this piece of shit will get extraded to zimbabwe ?
|
United States42009 Posts
US never extradites anyone. So no.
|
The lion kill isn't even his worst crime, hes killed a fucking white rhino in the past, there are now 4 left in the world. I honestly think he should get a life sentence for irreparable damage to endangered species. I don't care what licenses he got for any kills, hunting endangered species should carry an international server punishment. I wish the US would extradite him.
|
On July 29 2015 19:16 UdderChaos wrote:
The lion kill isn't even his worst crime, hes killed a fucking white rhino in the past, there are now 4 left in the world. I honestly think he should get a life sentence for irreparable damage to endangered species. I don't care what licenses he got for any kills, hunting endangered species should carry an international server punishment. I wish the US would extradite him.
http://conservationmagazine.org/2014/01/can-trophy-hunting-reconciled-conservation/
Dude, get your facts straight. There are way more than 4 white rhinos in the world.
It’s encouraging that trophy hunters seem willing to take conservation-related issues into consideration when choosing a tour operator, but it is possible that they were simply providing the researchers with the answers that would cast them in the best light. That’s a typical concern for assessments that rely on self-report. Better evidence would come from proof that hunting can be consistent with actual, measurable conservation-related benefits for a species.
Is there such evidence? According to a 2005 paper by Nigel Leader-Williams and colleagues in the Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy the answer is yes. Leader-Williams describes how the legalization of white rhinoceros hunting in South Africa motivated private landowners to reintroduce the species onto their lands. As a result, the country saw an increase in white rhinos from fewer than one hundred individuals to more than 11,000, even while a limited number were killed as trophies.
In a 2011 letter to Science magazine, Leader-Williams also pointed out that the implementation of controlled, legalized hunting was also beneficial for Zimbabwe’s elephants. “Implementing trophy hunting has doubled the area of the country under wildlife management relative to the 13% in state protected areas,” thanks to the inclusion of private lands, he says. “As a result, the area of suitable land available to elephants and other wildlife has increased, reversing the problem of habitat loss and helping to maintain a sustained population increase in Zimbabwe’s already large elephant population.” It is important to note, however, that the removal of mature elephant males can have other, detrimental consequences on the psychological development of younger males. And rhinos and elephants are very different animals, with different needs and behaviors.
I can't stand contemporary society. So many vociferous emotional appeals and opinions with no facts, with the real scourge of Victorian hoity-toity-ness thrown on top. God forbid you provide facts against these appeals - you'll be met with a vindictive mob.
|
So how likely is Trump 2016?
They said on the Daily Show that he's leading the GOP polls now quite handily and with Fox being the most trusted news outlet in the US, a republican victory seems likely.
Is there any 'good' republican to root for?
One that doesn't deny man-made climate change, for instance?
Or at least one that isn't on the payroll of any oil company?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
