Facebook Building 'Shadow Profiles' of Non-Members, Experts Allege

[Tommy]

I gotta say this but what a fantastic idea, to damage a box inorder to peer inside. If the contents are legal, wrap it up and send it on it's way. No harm done. Otherwise it's contraband "in plain sight".
I'm not a cop, but surely they have reasonable suspician where the package is concerned, they cannot do it to every box.

I was a cop, and I can guarantee that they DO NOT have "reasonable suspicion". After all, that package has already been sniffed by both drug and bomb dogs. If anything, they have "reasonable suspicion" that the package is LEGAL. These illegal searches are often performed at random, or at "whim", and have far more to do with boredom than with anything else. Just because someone in Humboldt County is mailing a package does not mean it contains marijuana.

Besides, the US Constitution specifically protects me from unlawful search and seizure. And "Reasonable Suspicion" does NOT constitute grounds for a search. For that you need "Probable Cause".

Correct me if I'm wrong and I'm sure somebody will but usually the term for "Confidential Informant" is often a person who is manipulated via monetary means or by leverage of incarceration, prosicution due to their own criminal activities... hense breaking into.
Rights are good, great even, but they are used most effectively by those criminals who know how to exploit them. Alternate means of fishing are therfor employed, for a catch.

If the police can violate your "rights", then you don't actually have any rights, do you?

Criminals don't play by the rules, I can't really understand how the police or security forces can catch them without sometimes breaking a few rules themselves. We have law, proceedures, then we have reality, raw and bitter. I'm sure there are a few dangerous criminals who would be free if it wasn't for such tactics employed by police. We pay them to serve and protect and I can't see how they can do with a constant smile and a rule book in their hand.

Understand that, also "For evil to prevail, all it takes is good men to do nothing." Theres loads of sayings that can be served up that would confuse an issue like this, but surely there's logic in my little madness somewhere.

No logic at all, really. Doing good policework while respecting civil liberties hardly constitutes doing nothing. If the cops turn a blind eye toward crimes performed in front of them, that's one thing - and Evil will prevail. But if the cops are allowed to violate your rights, that another thing - and Evil will prevail.

Those who aren't willing to abide within the law themselves have no right to enforce the law upon others.

Not to mention that the US legal system is set upon the principle that "It's better for 100 guilty men go free than it is to imprison one innocent man". Even if you win your trial, you will have been imprisoned for days or weeks before you even get to trial (unless you are rich enough to pay bail).

There are PLENTY of ways that cops can effectively enforce the law without violating your rights - as long as they aren't too lazy or stupid to use them.

 

[Tychonaut]

I gotta say this but what a fantastic idea, to damage a box inorder to peer inside. If the contents are legal, wrap it up and send it on it's way. No harm done. Otherwise it's contraband "in plain sight".
...
Criminals don't play by the rules, I can't really understand how the police or security forces can catch them without sometimes breaking a few rules themselves. We have law, proceedures, then we have reality, raw and bitter. I'm sure there are a few dangerous criminals who would be free if it wasn't for such tactics employed by police. We pay them to serve and protect and I can't see how they can do with a constant smile and a rule book in their hand.

It's one short step from breaking open a package to see the contraband already inside to breaking open a package and then inserting contraband.
If you don't insist cops play by the rules there's nothing to stop them from framing people who they know are guilty. Or people they just don't like.
In extraordinary circumstances rules may need to be broken, but the rules need to apply all the time or the "bad people" exception will soon be used to make them meaningless. When police believe they're in those circumstances, they need to grow a pair, do what needs to be done, then take the consequences. Because of the power they wield, police need to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.

 

[Ghostrider]

The RIAA has successfully gotten warrants to take peoples computers and examine them with no more evidence that that, sued hundreds of people with no real proof that any infringement had taken place.

That's because people don't know their rights, and unfortunately money talks loud and clear. When faced with the Death Star, people cave in because they can't pay for the adequate legal assistance.

Those "tactics" are nothing but extortion and have been recognized as such but various authorities (ACS Law in the UK as shut down, Logistep's lawyer has been disbarred). They're no better than the Mob, and should be treated as such.

If threatened, call your local consumer protection association and their lawyer. They will back down.

 

[Ark]

That's because people don't know their rights, and unfortunately money talks loud and clear. When faced with the Death Star, people cave in because they can't pay for the adequate legal assistance.

Those "tactics" are nothing but extortion and have been recognized as such but various authorities (ACS Law in the UK as shut down, Logistep's lawyer has been disbarred). They're no better than the Mob, and should be treated as such.

If threatened, call your local consumer protection association and their lawyer. They will back down.

Indeed. Happily a number of judges have thrown out or severely pared back their attempts at suing huge numbers of people with little to no evidence.

RIAA investigators seizing people's property is insane, though. Another one of those things that makes me wonder about whose rights the law cares more about: Citizens, or corporations?

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Even this part bothers me:

It's hard enough to control what information gets posted online and stay in control of that info (being able to delete it). Facebook and others grabbing onto everything they can find on everyone is annoying.
​

---------- Post added at 22:27 ---------- Previous post was at 22:16 ----------



Knowing Facebook and its record? Sure. But don't take any online news article at face value. Ever.
Maybe your friends aren't re-sending those invites, but Facebook sending them over and over. In any case, there should be a link allowing you to unsubscribe from those emails.

There is, at the bottom of the email in tiny blue script. I spent about 10 minutes tracking the thing down.

 

[PennyBlack]

I was a cop, and I can guarantee that they DO NOT have "reasonable suspicion". After all, that package has already been sniffed by both drug and bomb dogs. If anything, they have "reasonable suspicion" that the package is LEGAL. These illegal searches are often performed at random, or at "whim", and have far more to do with boredom than with anything else. Just because someone in Humboldt County is mailing a package does not mean it contains marijuana.

Besides, the US Constitution specifically protects me from unlawful search and seizure. And "Reasonable Suspicion" does NOT constitute grounds for a search. For that you need "Probable Cause".

"Probable Cause". That sounds just the same the as "Reasonable Suspician" to me. I know which sounds better when justifying a stop and search. "We searched that guy because we had Probable Cause." or "We searched that guy because we had Reasonable Suspician." I prefer the latter myself but both seem the same. I don't care about being stopped and searched myself, they never find anything. I know others that could do with it, quite often.

If the police can violate your "rights", then you don't actually have any rights, do you?

The majority of police are respectful of rights. A few rotton apples do live the barrel who are over the top, but humans aren't a consistant entity. Most unfortunate and that's not what I'm on about.
For the record... Due process is fine, after that I don't support hard core criminals once we get a conviction and I don't really care if police violate their rights when they have violated the rights of others. I'm sick of perverse, vile elements in our society being treated with equality. As long as they are removed from the streets, job done. But that's hard core criminals, as for the little criminal minds, I see no wrong is useing those who have done wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, but in order to catch the bigger fish sometimes you put a Minnow on a hook to catch a Pike, that was my post content I believe.

No logic at all, really. Doing good policework while respecting civil liberties hardly constitutes doing nothing. If the cops turn a blind eye toward crimes performed in front of them, that's one thing - and Evil will prevail. But if the cops are allowed to violate your rights, that another thing - and Evil will prevail.

I'm not saying while respecting civil liberties it hardly constitutes doing nothing. What I am saying is that they can be bent in order ensure that evil doesn't prevail when those civil, constitutional, human rights are failing to deliver the security of the common people. If laws are so rigid, why plea bargain. Why are laywers useing this barter system if nobody is allowed to bend in the wind. Plea, negoiating, bargains, pushing a confidential informer through a window for a good word, theres little difference to me.

Those who aren't willing to abide within the law themselves have no right to enforce the law upon others.

Yes, criminals can go and enforce their laws on each other in prison, instead of on the streets, upon the innocent. Some police, like those pointed out in the image above should be arrested for what they do. Don't for one second think I'm justifying it or protecting that. But we shouldn't be nieve either about the difficulties in enforceing laws, catching criminals. Like I said, politeness and civility is ok in a classroom, but on the streets, it's often a different matter.

Not to mention that the US legal system is set upon the principle that "It's better for 100 guilty men go free than it is to imprison one innocent man".

And what joker thought of that one. If they say that it's better for 1 guilty man to remain free rather than lock up a 100 innocent men then I'd see the wisdom in it. But I'd lock up the 100 guilty men and allow a review of evidence via appeal for 1 man. I see nothing wrong with that. Least you got a hundred bad ones locked up. Unfortunate about the one but that's the way it is. Over here we call it rough justice and realistically it happens. It's a fact that sometimes irons itself out through appeals ect. Nothing is perfect.

Even if you win your trial, you will have been imprisoned for days or weeks before you even get to trial (unless you are rich enough to pay bail).

What happened to Probable Cause. If there is strong indication of guilt, why let a murderer, rapist ect walk around with the possibility of doing it again. I don't believe in the bail system myself and believe they should be secured until we know for sure they are innocent. I know, innocent before guilty, but reasonable suspician dictates caution and others civil liberties dictates their protection above the rights of the accused. At some point a line must be drawn for the needs of the many.

There are PLENTY of ways that cops can effectively enforce the law without violating your rights - as long as they aren't too lazy or stupid to use them.

Yes. Lazy, stupid or bored.

@Tychonaut - I did answer, you'll find it mixed somewhere in the above.

 

[PeriapsisPrograde]

The problem here is that we are trying to have our cake and eat it too.

--We want a society in which everyone has rights.
--We want a society in which one's rights can be enforced.

In theory, they would compliment each other. In practice, they cancel each other out.

That's the problem. :2cents:

 

[_Designer_]

 

[Tommy]

"Probable Cause". That sounds just the same the as "Reasonable Suspician" to me. I know which sounds better when justifying a stop and search. "We searched that guy because we had Probable Cause." or "We searched that guy because we had Reasonable Suspician." I prefer the latter myself but both seem the same. I don't care about being stopped and searched myself, they never find anything. I know others that could do with it, quite often.

These are legal terms, and the differences between "Probable Cause" and "Reasonable Suspicion" are VERY clearly defined in US law. It boils down to the difference between "probable" and "possible".

Let me try to give an example of the difference. I smoke, and I often babysit for a friend. I can't smoke in the house - so I sit in my car (so I can listen to the radio, etc). A couple weeks ago, the new cop saw me sitting in my car when he drove by. A couple hours later I went out for another smoke - and the cop happened to drive by again. As far as he knows, I've been loitering in my car the whole time - in a residential neighborhood three doors down from the Mayor's house.

He hasn't received any reports, and has no reason to believe a crime has been committed - but it does look suspicious to a reasonable person. He had "Reasonable Suspicion". He stopped, walked up to my car, and performed a "field interview". In other words, he politely asked me what I was doing. He did NOT have Probable Cause, so he didn't pull me out of my car and search me. Once I explained the situation, he thanked me for my cooperation and left. Had there been a blindfold, handcuffs, and Duct tape sitting on the seat next to me he would have had Probable Cause, but without any evidence to show that a crime was committed, or about to be committed, it's only Reasonable Suspicion.

In order to have Probable Cause, you must have a solid reason to believe that a crime has actually been committed or will be committed. "There MAY have been a crime" is NOT sufficient for Probable Cause, only Reasonable Suspicion.

The majority of police are respectful of rights. A few rotton apples do live the barrel who are over the top, but humans aren't a consistant entity. Most unfortunate and that's not what I'm on about.
For the record... Due process is fine, after that I don't support hard core criminals once we get a conviction and I don't really care if police violate their rights when they have violated the rights of others. I'm sick of perverse, vile elements in our society being treated with equality. As long as they are removed from the streets, job done. But that's hard core criminals, as for the little criminal minds, I see no wrong is useing those who have done wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, but in order to catch the bigger fish sometimes you put a Minnow on a hook to catch a Pike, that was my post content I believe.

Your post seemed to say that you thought it was OK for the cops to damage packages so they could search them without any actual reason to believe a crime is, in fact, being committed. That may just be miscommunication.

I'm not saying while respecting civil liberties it hardly constitutes doing nothing. What I am saying is that they can be bent in order ensure that evil doesn't prevail when those civil, constitutional, human rights are failing to deliver the security of the common people. If laws are so rigid, why plea bargain. Why are laywers useing this barter system if nobody is allowed to bend in the wind. Plea, negoiating, bargains, pushing a confidential informer through a window for a good word, theres little difference to me.

Our Bill of Rights, which was adopted as the first 10 Constitutional Amendments, says (Fourth Amendment):

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

These rights are "held to be inviolate", and they are recognized as being intrinsic are NOT granted by the Government (only acknowledged) - so the Government CANNOT take them away. The right of the Government to make and enforce laws is contingent on the Governments adherence to the Constitution. If the Government violates these rights, it gives up the right to make and enforce laws - and the citizenry has not just a legal right, but a civic duty, to overthrow that Government.

As to "plea bargaining", this is primarily done to alleviate the caseload on the court system (and enrich the lawyers in the process, I think). Jury trials take up a lot of time and resources, plea bargaining "streamlines" the process somewhat.


Yes, criminals can go and enforce their laws on each other in prison, instead of on the streets, upon the innocent. Some police, like those pointed out in the image above should be arrested for what they do. Don't for one second think I'm justifying it or protecting that. But we shouldn't be nieve either about the difficulties in enforceing laws, catching criminals. Like I said, politeness and civility is ok in a classroom, but on the streets, it's often a different matter.

And what joker thought of that one. If they say that it's better for 1 guilty man to remain free rather than lock up a 100 innocent men then I'd see the wisdom in it. But I'd lock up the 100 guilty men and allow a review of evidence via appeal for 1 man. I see nothing wrong with that. Least you got a hundred bad ones locked up. Unfortunate about the one but that's the way it is. Over here we call it rough justice and realistically it happens. It's a fact that sometimes irons itself out through appeals ect. Nothing is perfect.

This principle lies at the core of our system of Justice, and our concept of Liberty. It's right along side with "Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty". It is an acknowledgment of our belief that freedom is the ultimate right of all people - and for a government to wrongfully deprive someone of their freedom is the worst possible offense. I don't remember who said it first, I think it was Ben Franklin - but don't quote me on that.

The reason we believe this is partly because, as you said, there are a few "rotten apples" in the police force. This limits the ability of these bad cops to ruin people lives - and is more important today than ever. Court records are public - even if you are found innocent you still have the stigma of having been arrested. This can cause problems with trying to get a job - especially if the job requires any sort of security clearance. Get accused of theft, and even if you are found innocent you'll never get a job as a cashier. Get accused of a sex crime and you'll never get a job as a teacher, or police officer, or even a janitor at a school. While it's technically illegal to hold an arrest against you (if you are found innocent) it will be up to you to prove that is the reason you weren't hired (and up to you to pay for the Lawyers you will need to do so).

If you miss work because you are in jail, you can be fired - even if you are later found to be innocent. One false arrest can literally ruin your life.

Would you really still believe it's best to arrest people on mere suspicion if YOU were the innocent person whose life was ruined?

What happened to Probable Cause. If there is strong indication of guilt, why let a murderer, rapist ect walk around with the possibility of doing it again. I don't believe in the bail system myself and believe they should be secured until we know for sure they are innocent. I know, innocent before guilty, but reasonable suspician dictates caution and others civil liberties dictates their protection above the rights of the accused. At some point a line must be drawn for the needs of the many.

The law allows judges to deny bail to serious offenders if there is Probable Cause for the arrest AND Reasonable Suspicion that they are a danger to society or a flight risk.

But does it make sense to keep a non-violent minor alleged criminal locked up at taxpayer expense if there is no reason to to believe that they are a danger, or that they won't show up for their trial? How big do you want to build the jail? In major cities hundreds - even thousands - of people are arrested for minor crimes each day, and it takes a few days to get that first court hearing. It's simply not realistic or feasible to keep them ALL locked up.

If the Police are too lazy or stupid to find Probable Cause, should we change the law - or the standards we use to hire Police Officers?