SOPA, PIPA, the Feds, Anonymous, and You
- Thread starter Ryuugi
- Start date
And.... fucking AGAIN... As soon as the drug lords started stocking semi automatic machine guns and heavy weaponry, the police HAD to do the same or else they got, you know, DEAD. That means SWAT. The regular rank and file cops aren't that well-armed. Most carry a service pistol, a shotgun in the cruiser and maybe, MAYBE, a low caliber AR. Really sucks when a dad can't go home to his family because policy said that he couldn't be armed and armored properly for the situation he's being told to go into.
That's the price for freedom to bear arms. Every time the criminals decide to step up the game and use bigger guns, the police have to do the same. Don't blame the cops because they are forced to respond to the criminal element. Maybe start dropping more criminals off tall buildings or something so they get the idea.
"Oh the horror! How dare you joke about killing a murderer!" Notice the irony in that statement. Actuality is that few would-be criminals think of the repercussions as they're pulling the trigger to off a cop or a little child on the street, so the threat of death isn't always a good demotivator. It may make them fight harder before being taken down, but it seldom deters them from the action itself.
Yes, they have to beat down doors. Often they have to do it fast before the criminals flush the evidence down the toilet, or run out the back door, or have a chance to grab the aforementioned Big Guns, so that means a quick mission. AGAIN, it's a tactic necessitated by the actions of the PERPS, not the police.
I won't speak to color, because where I live there's just as many deadbeat whites as there are blacks. But you're going to find a higher incidence of crime in whatever group is at the bottom of the economic ladder. Some areas that might be asian, other areas that might be black. Back in the early 1900's it was Irish. Yeah, you know... Whites. Most of the big gangster mobs, you know- the ones with tommy guns, were white. The gangs didn't proliferate in the suburbs, but in the population dense lower income parts of cities.
It's always funny when they report statistics but don't actually look into the basis for it.
That's the price for freedom to bear arms. Every time the criminals decide to step up the game and use bigger guns, the police have to do the same. Don't blame the cops because they are forced to respond to the criminal element. Maybe start dropping more criminals off tall buildings or something so they get the idea.
"Oh the horror! How dare you joke about killing a murderer!" Notice the irony in that statement. Actuality is that few would-be criminals think of the repercussions as they're pulling the trigger to off a cop or a little child on the street, so the threat of death isn't always a good demotivator. It may make them fight harder before being taken down, but it seldom deters them from the action itself.
Yes, they have to beat down doors. Often they have to do it fast before the criminals flush the evidence down the toilet, or run out the back door, or have a chance to grab the aforementioned Big Guns, so that means a quick mission. AGAIN, it's a tactic necessitated by the actions of the PERPS, not the police.
I won't speak to color, because where I live there's just as many deadbeat whites as there are blacks. But you're going to find a higher incidence of crime in whatever group is at the bottom of the economic ladder. Some areas that might be asian, other areas that might be black. Back in the early 1900's it was Irish. Yeah, you know... Whites. Most of the big gangster mobs, you know- the ones with tommy guns, were white. The gangs didn't proliferate in the suburbs, but in the population dense lower income parts of cities.
It's always funny when they report statistics but don't actually look into the basis for it.
I have little against cops and courts taking extra precautions with their lives.
I really did not see much in the way of statistics to support why they might have been sent to those house, or what percentage resulted in 'unneeded' violence.
If some of these people have records for violent crimes for example, then why send someone either unarmed or under-armed or otherwise unable to defend themselves.
That is not to say there is not corrupt cops, or corrupt government, or waste in expenditure.
I remember some time back a Florida community that voted in a extremely proactive prohibition on gambling in the city limits despite police saying it was not a good idea both in cost and enforcement. So after it passed, they arranged a full scale swat invasion of a home gambling party with some of the upper citizens attending, and arrested the whole lot, all legal under the passed laws of the community... they were playing penny ante poker, the pot was I think some $10... the raid and damages I think came to 10,000...
I really did not see much in the way of statistics to support why they might have been sent to those house, or what percentage resulted in 'unneeded' violence.
If some of these people have records for violent crimes for example, then why send someone either unarmed or under-armed or otherwise unable to defend themselves.
That is not to say there is not corrupt cops, or corrupt government, or waste in expenditure.
I remember some time back a Florida community that voted in a extremely proactive prohibition on gambling in the city limits despite police saying it was not a good idea both in cost and enforcement. So after it passed, they arranged a full scale swat invasion of a home gambling party with some of the upper citizens attending, and arrested the whole lot, all legal under the passed laws of the community... they were playing penny ante poker, the pot was I think some $10... the raid and damages I think came to 10,000...
Threadweaver, did you even read it or did you just go tl;dr on it? Notice how the SWAT teams have been sent (at a rate of 80%) to check out targets only SUSPECTED of crimes, not actual criminals like you're saying they're ramping up to go after?
Or maybe the fact that they went for over a year observing and getting this data?
Or did you just want to go and say "not all cops are bad people!" (which we all know, even though reports of police brutality and excess seem to be coming out more and more often these days.)
Anyway...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140625/10272227684/ - U.S. Supreme Court rules that your cell phone is protected by the 4th Amendment and the only searching the cops can do with it right away without a warrant (or your permission) is to make sure that there's no razor blades or anything in the physical phone.
Excerpt from the ruling:
"In 1926, Learned Hand observed ... that it is “a totally different thing to search a man’s pockets and use against him what they contain, from ransacking his house for everything which may incriminate him.†... If his pockets contain a cell phone, however, that is no longer true. Indeed, a cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house: A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home; it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form— unless the phone is."
Or maybe the fact that they went for over a year observing and getting this data?
Or did you just want to go and say "not all cops are bad people!" (which we all know, even though reports of police brutality and excess seem to be coming out more and more often these days.)
Anyway...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140625/10272227684/ - U.S. Supreme Court rules that your cell phone is protected by the 4th Amendment and the only searching the cops can do with it right away without a warrant (or your permission) is to make sure that there's no razor blades or anything in the physical phone.
Excerpt from the ruling:
"In 1926, Learned Hand observed ... that it is “a totally different thing to search a man’s pockets and use against him what they contain, from ransacking his house for everything which may incriminate him.†... If his pockets contain a cell phone, however, that is no longer true. Indeed, a cell phone search would typically expose to the government far more than the most exhaustive search of a house: A phone not only contains in digital form many sensitive records previously found in the home; it also contains a broad array of private information never found in a home in any form— unless the phone is."
No way would I lose my life over a phone. or overly care if confiscated, lost, stolen, destroyed, used for evidence, etc... I'd just go and switch to my backup phone of the same model, they were around $22 each when I bought them, so it is not much a monetary loss either. getting a new sim card might be a minor inconvienece, but no big deal.
Bah... I've heard all the arguments, from both sides, and all the advocates for gadget level devices (dumb phones, smart phones, iphones, ipad, tablet, reader, ipod, mp3, wmp players, etc...)... my own take as a long time developer and programmer is they still are not near as secure or durable enough or useful enough for me to place anything remotely critical on them. What if I drop them, break them, lose them, have it lifted from me, confiscated, etc... And no, I do not believe for a second that the measures currently in place, like that call your phone to disable it program, really can stop a dedicated hacking or extraction. Such things from what I've read on how they work can be easily bypassed. Even so called 'bricking' of a phone merely prevent outright sales... people can still dismantle them for parts.
To me, they should be viewed as cheap disposable appliances, not life dependent items.
Bah... I've heard all the arguments, from both sides, and all the advocates for gadget level devices (dumb phones, smart phones, iphones, ipad, tablet, reader, ipod, mp3, wmp players, etc...)... my own take as a long time developer and programmer is they still are not near as secure or durable enough or useful enough for me to place anything remotely critical on them. What if I drop them, break them, lose them, have it lifted from me, confiscated, etc... And no, I do not believe for a second that the measures currently in place, like that call your phone to disable it program, really can stop a dedicated hacking or extraction. Such things from what I've read on how they work can be easily bypassed. Even so called 'bricking' of a phone merely prevent outright sales... people can still dismantle them for parts.
To me, they should be viewed as cheap disposable appliances, not life dependent items.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/06/26/massachusetts-swat-teams-claim-theyre-private-corporations-immune-from-open-records-laws/?tid=pm_pop - This...
Is facepalm worthy.
"We're the SWAT of the Massachusetts State Police force, we're a private corporation that is immune to Freedom of Information Requests!" - tl;dr version
Is facepalm worthy.
"We're the SWAT of the Massachusetts State Police force, we're a private corporation that is immune to Freedom of Information Requests!" - tl;dr version
Blinks... Really? Moron.
If they get public or government funding, and act as an official arm of the law, they are not a private force... and as such should be subject to the same laws regarding disclosure as normal police.
Alternatively, I'm not a lawyer, but there is another stance might make more sense. They might might fall under the rules of a militia, but if *that* is the case, they would be even further out of line.
I do note this is Massachuettes... they have some pretty weird ideas and laws in that state. I remember reading that the insurance companies do not cover for things like if your car get hit by a missle, and also will not pay out for things like radiation fallout.
Personally, I would think I would have bigger things to worry about if than insurance payouts I had to deal with radiation fallout.
EDIT: I long ago decided moving to MA would not be in the upper tier of choice locations for me, were I ever to relocate.
If they get public or government funding, and act as an official arm of the law, they are not a private force... and as such should be subject to the same laws regarding disclosure as normal police.
Alternatively, I'm not a lawyer, but there is another stance might make more sense. They might might fall under the rules of a militia, but if *that* is the case, they would be even further out of line.
I do note this is Massachuettes... they have some pretty weird ideas and laws in that state. I remember reading that the insurance companies do not cover for things like if your car get hit by a missle, and also will not pay out for things like radiation fallout.
Personally, I would think I would have bigger things to worry about if than insurance payouts I had to deal with radiation fallout.
EDIT: I long ago decided moving to MA would not be in the upper tier of choice locations for me, were I ever to relocate.
I find it hard to imagine an internet that is only for a certain region/country. I mean, how else am I going to make fun of Americans and Europeans from my Asian crib?
On a more serious note, as the article says, most things that people have grown accustomed to using on the internet, such as Google and Facebook, are American based. In the event that regional internet does become reality, countries that do not have advanced telecommunication and IT systems will certainly suffer, or at the very least, have great difficulty keeping up with the information need of the people, as they will have to build the necessary systems possibly from scratch (e.g their own version of Yahoo. Google, Wikipedia etc) with only their available technology. Importing tech is an option, but it will cost a lot.
On a more serious note, as the article says, most things that people have grown accustomed to using on the internet, such as Google and Facebook, are American based. In the event that regional internet does become reality, countries that do not have advanced telecommunication and IT systems will certainly suffer, or at the very least, have great difficulty keeping up with the information need of the people, as they will have to build the necessary systems possibly from scratch (e.g their own version of Yahoo. Google, Wikipedia etc) with only their available technology. Importing tech is an option, but it will cost a lot.
Doesn't matter to the more extreme governments. Controlling what their people see so that they don't get any funny ideas of freedom is what radical governments do best. If it takes alienating their people, well, it's the gov't that has the tanks and big guns.
The U.S. spying/privacy scandal and the early SOPA attempts are pretty much to blame for this.
I told my congresspeople back then that regionalization of the internet would be the result if they tried to control the internet for the special interests of big corporations, but the NSA has done more to scare countries into that mindset than SOPA ever did.
The U.S. spying/privacy scandal and the early SOPA attempts are pretty much to blame for this.
I told my congresspeople back then that regionalization of the internet would be the result if they tried to control the internet for the special interests of big corporations, but the NSA has done more to scare countries into that mindset than SOPA ever did.
Huh...
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-police-are-starting-to-look-like-supervillains/
Even cracked.com is pointing out the thing I pointed out before above with police...
A little line that probably is the most on-point...
"Everyone loves getting free stuff, and no one wants to be the boss who tells their men that they turned down an awesome tank."
And, well, you should just read it.
Before anyone says "Cracked.com is just a comedy site and shouldn't be taken seriously"
There's not really that much comedy on cracked.com these days. Sure, there's odd jokes, but it's pretty informed.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-reasons-police-are-starting-to-look-like-supervillains/
Even cracked.com is pointing out the thing I pointed out before above with police...
A little line that probably is the most on-point...
"Everyone loves getting free stuff, and no one wants to be the boss who tells their men that they turned down an awesome tank."
And, well, you should just read it.
Before anyone says "Cracked.com is just a comedy site and shouldn't be taken seriously"
There's not really that much comedy on cracked.com these days. Sure, there's odd jokes, but it's pretty informed.
Yes, but that assumes someone doesn't run a data tool on it that picks the old data off before those memory cells get re-written. The best way to guarantee a good wipe is to do a factory reset, load huge media file(s) onto it, which re-writes the memory cells, then do another factory reset. That way if someone does data reconstruction on the device, all they get is the media files.
recovery tools like:
http://www.recovery-android.com/android-data-recovery.html
http://www.recovery-android.com/ios-data-recovery.html
For those gadget level devices with internal removable memory, you can remove it and physically destroy it... no recovery tool on the face of the planet would get it back.
Also, there are tools that will wipe free space, those should also work, though I suppose in theory you could at least recover indexes to what was there before even if not the info itself, that can actually still be interesting from a investigators standpoint.
http://www.recovery-android.com/android-data-recovery.html
http://www.recovery-android.com/ios-data-recovery.html
For those gadget level devices with internal removable memory, you can remove it and physically destroy it... no recovery tool on the face of the planet would get it back.
Also, there are tools that will wipe free space, those should also work, though I suppose in theory you could at least recover indexes to what was there before even if not the info itself, that can actually still be interesting from a investigators standpoint.
You know that saying...
"Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither"?
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Fake-screener-probes-passengers-at-SFO-5626732.php
Yeah, it's coming true.
For those of you who don't want to click, the tl;dr version is that a drunk man posed as a TSA agent, took two women into a private screening room, patted them down and sent them on their way.
He got caught.
And charged... With Public Intoxication.
Yeah, not sexual assault.
As a comment pointed out on another website said...
"Here's how insane this is: airport security has so conditioned people to having their privates tweaked that the women in this story likely still don't know that they were violated by someone posing as an agent, and all of this happened amidst the security apparatus the TSA has set up to begin with. It's like a double trump card. Security sucks to point that two women were molested in their midst before anyone caught on and it was only allowed to happen by the victims because they've been conditioned to expect exactly this sort of thing."
"Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither"?
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Fake-screener-probes-passengers-at-SFO-5626732.php
Yeah, it's coming true.
For those of you who don't want to click, the tl;dr version is that a drunk man posed as a TSA agent, took two women into a private screening room, patted them down and sent them on their way.
He got caught.
And charged... With Public Intoxication.
Yeah, not sexual assault.
As a comment pointed out on another website said...
"Here's how insane this is: airport security has so conditioned people to having their privates tweaked that the women in this story likely still don't know that they were violated by someone posing as an agent, and all of this happened amidst the security apparatus the TSA has set up to begin with. It's like a double trump card. Security sucks to point that two women were molested in their midst before anyone caught on and it was only allowed to happen by the victims because they've been conditioned to expect exactly this sort of thing."
From Ziff Davis PC Magazine RSS Feed
This is a bit disturbing, even if I can see it. While this report is specifically on Australia, I've found for the most part that what goes on there data and security wise reflects similar trends across the world...
At least in the U.S., customer data breaches in certain sectors, particularly credit, insurance, and medical, can bring a boatload of court orders down on a company requiring reform... not to mention a tarnished public image. For companies in any country to be taking this form of stance, is inviting trouble on all kinds of fronts.
It proves to me execs don't know what the hell they are thinking or doing.
This is a bit disturbing, even if I can see it. While this report is specifically on Australia, I've found for the most part that what goes on there data and security wise reflects similar trends across the world...
At least in the U.S., customer data breaches in certain sectors, particularly credit, insurance, and medical, can bring a boatload of court orders down on a company requiring reform... not to mention a tarnished public image. For companies in any country to be taking this form of stance, is inviting trouble on all kinds of fronts.
It proves to me execs don't know what the hell they are thinking or doing.