[2012-Feb-02] Internet Rights

[R.W.]

People in power ignoring laws are not following laws. I'm talking very specifically about the dangers of passing laws that give the government power that they could very well use to infringe on our rights. In the case of these laws those rights would be freedom of speech and freedom of privacy. I'm not talking about what an individual in power might attempt to do to stay in power by breaking laws.

Would a viable solution then be to allow laws that infringe on rights, but simultaneously provide that they can only be used in special circumstances? For instance, the government could keep everyone's email, but only look at it if they think someone is a criminal. Kind of like how they can search your house, but only if they think someone is a criminal (and get a warrant based off of that suspicion).

[smiley_cow]

Would a viable solution then be to allow laws that infringe on rights, but simultaneously provide that they can only be used in special circumstances? For instance, the government could keep everyone's email, but only look at it if they think someone is a criminal. Kind of like how they can search your house, but only if they think someone is a criminal (and get a warrant based off of that suspicion).

I would rather a government that never infringed on people's rights. What you describe (with the exception of the government keeping everyone's emails) sounds like the warrant system that's already in place. Which has always seems sufficient enough to me. I don't think the government ever needs access to citizen's emails. And police only if it's warranted as part of a serious investigation.

[GUTCHUCKER]

Anyone know what a talking drum is? Pretty much the raddest percussion instrument ever.

That shit is cool.

[DonRetrasado]

Frankly, the warrant system already goes too far sometimes. Not that this is the same thing but it goes to show that people's rights are already infringed upon, even in spite of lethal consequences. A government cannot be trusted to violate people's rights "only when necessary".

[Guest]

Would a viable solution then be to allow laws that infringe on rights, but simultaneously provide that they can only be used in special circumstances? For instance, the government could keep everyone's email, but only look at it if they think someone is a criminal. Kind of like how they can search your house, but only if they think someone is a criminal (and get a warrant based off of that suspicion).

I would rather a government that never infringed on people's rights. What you describe (with the exception of the government keeping everyone's emails) sounds like the warrant system that's already in place. Which has always seems sufficient enough to me. I don't think the government ever needs access to citizen's emails. And police only if it's warranted as part of a serious investigation.

I think I can... generally... agree with that. The warrant system is pretty good. I would definitely say that police should include organizations like the FBI if they're investigating something out of the local PD's jurisdiction, though.

Out of curiosity, based on your preference for a government that never infringed on people's rights, would you support a repeal of the warrant system to just say that cops NEVER have the right to search a person?

[R.W.]

Frankly, the warrant system already goes too far sometimes. Not that this is the same thing but it goes to show that people's rights are already infringed upon, even in spite of lethal consequences. A government cannot be trusted to violate people's rights "only when necessary".

Interesting... I didn't know about these no-knock warrants. They certainly seem very bad, but I'd probably have to do more research before I can come to a definitive conclusion. 50,000 in 2005 alone does seem excessive, though.

DonRestrado, if things like no-knock warrants and other egregiously bad things were removed, would the warrant system be more palatable? Under what circumstances should the government be permitted to search your house?

[DonRetrasado]

First off, I'm Canadian, so I'm not aware of an equivalent to a no-knock warrant that we have. With that out of the way, I feel like if the possibility of evidence in my home were established, in a court of law, and a judge grants a warrant, that should be acceptable enough. The problem is that judges will grant warrants too often, and often times that possibility of evidence was not really valid in the first place. I can't think of a solution to such a deep problem, honestly; I grant that in theory, it works fine. Because of this I honestly feel like it's better to err on the side of caution, and say that the proof required to search my house must be much more definitive than it is now. Law enforcement will complain that they require these warrants "to do their job" but I feel like we are putting innocent people in jeopardy at the moment, which is not a risk I am comfortable with.

[smiley_cow]

Would a viable solution then be to allow laws that infringe on rights, but simultaneously provide that they can only be used in special circumstances? For instance, the government could keep everyone's email, but only look at it if they think someone is a criminal. Kind of like how they can search your house, but only if they think someone is a criminal (and get a warrant based off of that suspicion).

I would rather a government that never infringed on people's rights. What you describe (with the exception of the government keeping everyone's emails) sounds like the warrant system that's already in place. Which has always seems sufficient enough to me. I don't think the government ever needs access to citizen's emails. And police only if it's warranted as part of a serious investigation.

I think I can... generally... agree with that. The warrant system is pretty good. I would definitely say that police should include organizations like the FBI if they're investigating something out of the local PD's jurisdiction, though.

Out of curiosity, based on your preference for a government that never infringed on people's rights, would you support a repeal of the warrant system to just say that cops NEVER have the right to search a person?

I think I see what you're getting at. I said rights should never be violated, but I should have also said 'unless there is probable sufficient evidence that says that they may be a serious danger to themselves and others and searching them is necessary. But there still needs to be a strong system in place to prevent abuse. For example, if you have reasonable evidence that somebody walking inside a public building has a bomb, yes, I think it would be OK to search them. But you can't do random searches on people on the off-chance one of them might have a bomb.

I do think the warrant system goes too far in some cases. And I don't think people know enough about it to properly protect themselves when police investigate. But I also think that a person's rights end where another's begin. Free speech is a right but I don't think that should include things like what William Francis Melchert-Dinkel did when he encouraged people to commit suicide while he watched on a webcam for example.

[Eisbreaker]

I just dropped by again to interject:
R.W - Ron Weasley?

[GUTCHUCKER]

So everyone in that list was an innocent person who got fucked up by people acting under this warrant while trying to defend their home... And nobody was held accountable for the blunders?

[Spaceguy5]

So everyone in that list was an innocent person who got fucked up by people acting under this warrant while trying to defend their home... And nobody was held accountable for the blunders?

But they are guilty! They defended their homes against people with guns (who just happened to really be police officers)! Everyone knows it's illegal to even think about shooting a police officer, even if you don't know it's a cop and they're invading your home with a gun!

[DonRetrasado]

A friend of mine in high school actually got attacked by an undercover cop, some guy came up to him out of nowhere and asked to search his bag and got pissed when he couldn't. Dude ended up in supreme trouble for fighting back against the cop. In the end he got off easy, but he had to transfer to another school. From what I understand it was all about some fireworks that were supposedly in his bag.

[Lethal Interjection]

A friend of mine in high school actually got attacked by an undercover cop, some guy came up to him out of nowhere and asked to search his bag and got pissed when he couldn't. Dude ended up in supreme trouble for fighting back against the cop. In the end he got off easy, but he had to transfer to another school. From what I understand it was all about some fireworks that were supposedly in his bag.

That's dumb. He was well within his rights to refuse, if he didn't know it was a cop. And the cop screwed up as he neither identified himself nor give probably cause for a warrant-less search. Which is not to mention that I doubt carrying a handbag with some fireworks would constitute probable cause.

[DonRetrasado]

Yes it was insane, that's why he never got charged. But they still kicked him out of school for god knows what reason.

[Funny Analyser]

This thread is not meeting the funny quota.

Come on girls! We need the funny!