China Tries Its Hand at Pre-Crime(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
China Tries Its Hand at Pre-Crime
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-03/china-tries-its-hand-at-pre-crime
10 comments
Alot of people here are somehow turning this into a USA/NSA bashing but thats a straw man. The fact of the matter is you can't be imprisoned in the US for a crime you haven't committed or at least that judge and jury haven't deliberated on. Can you say the Chinese have the same safeguards ...probably not? Yes, governments have and always will have the vested interest to retain their power but that's why we must have our rights and legal system. I feel like the Chinese don't share this luxury as much as we do.
>The fact of the matter is you can't be imprisoned in the US for a crime you haven't committed or at least that judge and jury haven't deliberated on.
Kevin Mitnick spent 4.5 years in jail waiting for trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick#Arrest.2C_convic...
Kevin Mitnick spent 4.5 years in jail waiting for trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick#Arrest.2C_convic...
Look at Julian Assange's situation. He has prominent academics, human rights lawyers and the UNHCHR on his side, and Sweden/UK/US have still basically imprisoned him with no trial in exchange for never breaking a law. China is definitely no worse. I feel safer here in China than in the US with its overbearing corrupt police gangs and litigious gun culture, by far.
Whatever you think of Julian Assange, "imprisonment without trial" has been his choice. If he were to leave the embassy, he fairly certainly would receive a trial.
How can you believe that when they literally forced down diplomatic planes over Europe for just some of the leaks the US are out to get him for? When the whole Swedish bar association is up in arms at the abuse of process and Swedish image related to the farcical charges? When the documents about his police statements there were all leaked and clearly show his innocence from the allegations? To me, your thought process just seems naive.
That's nonsense. He is fleeing arrest by locking himself in neutral territory. That's self imposed house arrest.
Are you suggesting that all criminals should be released immediately after being arrested? Clearly that is false: not all criminals should be released after being arrested (as an extreme example, if a man goes on a rampage and shoots 20 people, clearly he should not be out on bail pending trial). Obviously the judge made a mistake in believing Kevin was a security threat, but there is nothing wrong with the principle of detaining people pending trial.
Meanwhile, in China, you have bookstore owners, bankers, and government officials "disappearing" left and right.
Meanwhile, in China, you have bookstore owners, bankers, and government officials "disappearing" left and right.
> but there is nothing wrong with the principle of detaining people pending trial.
There isn't if and only if we deliver on the promise of a speedy trial, which we don't.
There isn't if and only if we deliver on the promise of a speedy trial, which we don't.
No. Even if there were no promise of a speedy trial, this principle stands.
Obviously it doesn't because it means allowing the innocent to be jailed without trial, not OK.
It is not obvious. The government has an interest in being able to detain serial killers pending trial.
Yes, it is obvious that allowing the government to jail people an undetermined amount of time before a trial is defacto punishing without trial and unethical. Even "alleged" serial killers deserve a speedy trial because they aren't guilty until proven so. Rights aren't about the governments interest, they're about ours, and allowing detention without trial for years at a time is wrong under all scenarios.
I already agreed that detention pre-trial is OK if and only if there is a speedy trial.
I already agreed that detention pre-trial is OK if and only if there is a speedy trial.
and the principle means effective imprisonment doesn't require a trial.
>Are you suggesting that all criminals should be released immediately after being arrested?
I am not and I don't really understand how you came to that conclusion based on my comment. It's completely reasonable to hold people pre-trial but without the guarantee of a speedy trial you end up with a method for states to hold people indefinitely.
I am not and I don't really understand how you came to that conclusion based on my comment. It's completely reasonable to hold people pre-trial but without the guarantee of a speedy trial you end up with a method for states to hold people indefinitely.
I find it funny(sad?) that this happens, yet we're told that we are innocent until proven guilty. At the same time, there can be a man that stabs a person to death of front of a dozen witnesses, is caught by the police immediately after covered in blood and a knife in hand, with it all caught on tape, and they'll still refer to this guy as an 'alleged' murdered.
Go figure
Go figure
>Kevin Mitnick spent 4.5 years in jail waiting for trial.
Kevin Mitnick waived his right to a speedy trial. Coincidence, I think not.
Kevin Mitnick waived his right to a speedy trial. Coincidence, I think not.
True Americans should defend their liberty from Government and yet not fall int trap of overlooking the fact that they are better off than most people in the world and certainly better than China or India.
Having said that if China's actions can be used to hold mirror to American government I am all for it.
Civil forfeiture laws in my opinion are a good example of pre-crime.
Having said that if China's actions can be used to hold mirror to American government I am all for it.
Civil forfeiture laws in my opinion are a good example of pre-crime.
You can be be found in contempt of court for not providing information that you have not been proven to possess. One guy spent 14 years in prison without being charged or convicted of a crime, and never had any input from a jury: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=8101209
Additionally, you really have zero constitutional protections in the US if you're a member of the armed forces.
Additionally, you really have zero constitutional protections in the US if you're a member of the armed forces.
The Patriot Act actually says otherwise. All you need to do is get yourself classified as a terrorist and you lose every last right you ever thought you had.
> The fact of the matter is you can't be imprisoned in the US for a crime you haven't committed or at least that judge and jury haven't deliberated on.
Because the constitution says something, doesn't make it true. We're a war mongering empire and a police state who imprisons more of its population than any other country. Holding people in jail without trial absolutely happens under our rule both in and out of the country.
Because the constitution says something, doesn't make it true. We're a war mongering empire and a police state who imprisons more of its population than any other country. Holding people in jail without trial absolutely happens under our rule both in and out of the country.
That's a misuse of the word strawman.
Also "our shadow government with totalitarian tendencies is better than theirs" is kind of flimsy#.
The FBI frequently radicalizes and encourages vulnerable, alienated people to execute terrorist plots. Sure, they don't arrest people for 'pre-crimes', but they do manufacture terrorists so that they can 'catch' them.
The CIA, FBI, NSA, and a few other alphabet soup agencies have a regular history of mass violation of rights and egregious human rights abuses. Who has forgotten the Senate report about CIA torture already? The CIA was forcibly anally raping unjustly detained individuals as part of its interrogation program. People who paper over the atrocities regularly committed in the name of liberal democracy undermine democracy by refusing to distinguish it from a far inferior and quite obviously broken system. It seems like there's a short memory and long list of excuses for the abuses perpetrated by nations like the US.
# This is a strawman of your position.
Also "our shadow government with totalitarian tendencies is better than theirs" is kind of flimsy#.
The FBI frequently radicalizes and encourages vulnerable, alienated people to execute terrorist plots. Sure, they don't arrest people for 'pre-crimes', but they do manufacture terrorists so that they can 'catch' them.
The CIA, FBI, NSA, and a few other alphabet soup agencies have a regular history of mass violation of rights and egregious human rights abuses. Who has forgotten the Senate report about CIA torture already? The CIA was forcibly anally raping unjustly detained individuals as part of its interrogation program. People who paper over the atrocities regularly committed in the name of liberal democracy undermine democracy by refusing to distinguish it from a far inferior and quite obviously broken system. It seems like there's a short memory and long list of excuses for the abuses perpetrated by nations like the US.
# This is a strawman of your position.
These wars and "plots" happened before the US even existed. Did the Americans time travel in order to create them or what am I missing here? How do you think religion spread in the past, peaceful missionaries?
Just to be clear, you don't believe the US is using the data to violate the rights of Americans without due process, right? If so, you're wrong.
Straw man! hacker News' favorite expression!
> The fact of the matter is you can't be imprisoned in the US for a crime you haven't committed or at least that judge and jury haven't deliberated on.
The fact of the matter is that people have been sent to prisons in the oh-so-righteous America without a single court hearing. Also, haven't you ever heard of Guantanamo? You know, that magical place where the US government sends people for decades and submits them to "rectal feeding" while they're there?
Straw man!!!
[0] http://theweek.com/speedreads/560204/half-million-americans-...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-he...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e6m7z/e...
[3] https://www.aclu.org/news/president-obama-signs-indefinite-d...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_of_Daniel_Chong
> The fact of the matter is you can't be imprisoned in the US for a crime you haven't committed or at least that judge and jury haven't deliberated on.
The fact of the matter is that people have been sent to prisons in the oh-so-righteous America without a single court hearing. Also, haven't you ever heard of Guantanamo? You know, that magical place where the US government sends people for decades and submits them to "rectal feeding" while they're there?
Straw man!!!
[0] http://theweek.com/speedreads/560204/half-million-americans-...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-he...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e6m7z/e...
[3] https://www.aclu.org/news/president-obama-signs-indefinite-d...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_of_Daniel_Chong
Why is it framed as totalitarian and unfair when China do what the US has been doing since 2001?
Ah, it's because we have Freedom™ instead of ideology[1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk8ibrfXvpQ
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk8ibrfXvpQ
What the US has been doing since 2001 has been totalitarian and unfair, of course. Let's not play "but that guy is doing it too, so it's not that bad". It's all bad, and all needs to be stopped.
> It's all bad, and all needs to be stopped.
Look, I'm not a fan of Big Brother either (I don't think any of us are). But unqualified black-white statements like this (combined with Good Intentions™) are largely what got us into this mess in the first place.
Look, I'm not a fan of Big Brother either (I don't think any of us are). But unqualified black-white statements like this (combined with Good Intentions™) are largely what got us into this mess in the first place.
Yup. From the article -- "The bottom line: A top Chinese military contractor is building a data analytics platform to help authorities identify terrorists before they strike." So.... excactly what NSA does (alone and with private commercial ventures). I thought there was going to be an aspect of identifying potential for crimes and rounding people up who haven't done anything yet (which would be a step beyond what NSA and company have done. But nope, It's exactly what we've done for over a decade.
A few other things from the article: "The government revealed last year that it was also building a nationwide database that would score citizens on their trustworthiness." ... I doubt we do this. It seems like NSA data collection is broad and encompassing, but not detailed analysis on every single US citizen. Sounds inefficient if the goal is to stop terrorism.
Also FTA -- "New antiterror laws that went into effect on Jan. 1 allow authorities to gain access to bank accounts, telecommunications, and a national network of surveillance cameras called Skynet."
Skynet?! Really?! Come on China. It was a movie not a playbook!
A few other things from the article: "The government revealed last year that it was also building a nationwide database that would score citizens on their trustworthiness." ... I doubt we do this. It seems like NSA data collection is broad and encompassing, but not detailed analysis on every single US citizen. Sounds inefficient if the goal is to stop terrorism.
Also FTA -- "New antiterror laws that went into effect on Jan. 1 allow authorities to gain access to bank accounts, telecommunications, and a national network of surveillance cameras called Skynet."
Skynet?! Really?! Come on China. It was a movie not a playbook!
FWIW, "Sky Net" in Chinese actually has a meaning, it's from a Chinese idiom, 天网恢恢，疏而不漏, roughly translated, literally, as "Heaven(Sky)'s Net(of justice) is wide, it may have large meshes, but lets nothing through/misses nothing", referring to situations where "heavenly justice - as referred to by "Sky Net" - will eventually come, and captures/punishes the "bad guys".
It's not the first time I've seen a pun or in-joke embodied in a name that is meant for use in both Chinese and English. Is that a thing in China?
It might be a thing in China, but I don't think it's the case in this particular incident. It's very unlikely that Chinese government officials would come up with a name for a government project with intentional ties to a Hollywood blockbuster, which was never officially released in China. The name is very likely derived from the said Chinese idiom. But the translator might take a little bit freedom here: instead of translating into "Sky Net" with two words, "Skynet" is so much more catchier for an English reading audience :)
No one would confuse NSA data collection as effective at stopping potential criminal attacks. If the government was truly worried about US deaths, it would be looking at drunk driving, lung cancer, and heart disease in earnest, some half million deaths a year.
No, both the NSA and Chinese efforts are aimed at identifying and suppressing dissent. We're not that different.
No, both the NSA and Chinese efforts are aimed at identifying and suppressing dissent. We're not that different.
If the government was truly worried about US deaths, it would be looking at drunk driving, lung cancer, and heart disease in earnest, some half million deaths a year.
This is a silly statement. Fighting terror is more than just preventing deaths. It's preventing the destabilization of a society, of markets, etc.
Not all deaths have an equal impact.
This is a silly statement. Fighting terror is more than just preventing deaths. It's preventing the destabilization of a society, of markets, etc.
Not all deaths have an equal impact.
You can't say "We are fighting terror" whilst going into other countries creating terrorists in the first place. It is hypocritical.{Now I really have been added to a list if I wasn't already}
The only impact terrorism has had on our society has been to open the door for a security versus rights discussion. The power grabbing government is destabilizing society, not the terrorists.
The families of the 3000 dead on 9/11 might disagree with you.
Look, I agree with you in general. We over-reacted, and it has hurt us. But to say that terrorism has had no impact is overstating your case.
Look, I agree with you in general. We over-reacted, and it has hurt us. But to say that terrorism has had no impact is overstating your case.
It sucks, of course, but such things are extreme outliers compared to other harmful things going on.
Just looking at terrorism related deaths in the US in the last 15 years, let's round up to 4000. Now compare to the actually preventable deaths as I indicate in another comment: around 7.5 million.
Terrorism is down in the noise and it's certainly not worth giving up our liberties or our democracy over.
Just looking at terrorism related deaths in the US in the last 15 years, let's round up to 4000. Now compare to the actually preventable deaths as I indicate in another comment: around 7.5 million.
Terrorism is down in the noise and it's certainly not worth giving up our liberties or our democracy over.
I grew up right outside DC (a few blocks from NIH) and while I didn't lose anyone on 9/11, I came pretty close and know plenty of people who did.
The freedom we lost on 9/11 make the lives we lost pale in comparison. People grieve but get over the loss of their loved ones. Death is a normal part of life, however horrific, and people can cope with it.
The things I've seen since 9/11, some of them I find harder to cope with. Police carrying submachine guns on street corners; every government building sprouting snipers and anti-tank barricades and razor wire; oblique-angled antennae-sprouting APCs and god knows what else carrying legions of power-armored riot police at every protest. America looks scarier now. It's hard to feel safe in an environment like this, where you feel besieged by an invisible enemy.
Of course, this is exactly the intention of the people carrying out these policies, and ironically, also the intention of the terrorists. Politics make strange bedfellows indeed -- it's not hard to see how the Pentagon has seized on terrorism as a way to increase its own power, and conversely, as the Pentagon acts against "global terror," "global terror" is able to ratchet up the propaganda and recruit even more jihadists to the cause.
Terrorism has had an impact because people in the United States wanted it to.
The freedom we lost on 9/11 make the lives we lost pale in comparison. People grieve but get over the loss of their loved ones. Death is a normal part of life, however horrific, and people can cope with it.
The things I've seen since 9/11, some of them I find harder to cope with. Police carrying submachine guns on street corners; every government building sprouting snipers and anti-tank barricades and razor wire; oblique-angled antennae-sprouting APCs and god knows what else carrying legions of power-armored riot police at every protest. America looks scarier now. It's hard to feel safe in an environment like this, where you feel besieged by an invisible enemy.
Of course, this is exactly the intention of the people carrying out these policies, and ironically, also the intention of the terrorists. Politics make strange bedfellows indeed -- it's not hard to see how the Pentagon has seized on terrorism as a way to increase its own power, and conversely, as the Pentagon acts against "global terror," "global terror" is able to ratchet up the propaganda and recruit even more jihadists to the cause.
Terrorism has had an impact because people in the United States wanted it to.
Invisible enemy?
I probably wouldn't be able to spot a genuine terrorist if it leaped out from behind a bush and shouted "boo!" But I have noticed how cops and bureaucrats and securibots have become more paranoid and fearful over the last 15 years.
It has even created some kind of bizarre psychological feedback loop, wherein some cops use widespread belief in a mythical "war on cops" to cover up anything from honest mistakes to outright corruption, and the stories they make up reinforce the myth. Then formerly normal and expected behavior, such as protesters hurling verbal abuse or criminal suspects committing violence to evade capture, is recruited into the myth, becoming part of a coordinated conspiracy instead of just normal behavior. At some point, when the cops have thoroughly convinced themselves that someone is out to get them, and armed and trained themselves for war, another hand rises up to meet the one that was clapping, and the mythical war begins recruiting soldiers into the de facto opposing army. Treat people like your enemy for long enough, and they may oblige you by becoming one in fact.
This is exactly the same phenomenon I have seen in foil-hatted crackpots. Once you get it in your head that lizard people are ruling the Earth, confirmation bias takes over, and you start seeing evidence of lizard people everywhere. If you stand up in the local city council meeting and accuse one of the members of being a lizard in disguise, you get thrown out of the meeting for being a disruptive lunatic, but in your mind it is because they don't want you blowing their cover. If you get a speeding ticket, it's because the lizard people have targeted you for retributive harassment. If your milk spoils before the sell-by date, it's because they're sneaking into your house and tampering with your food when you're away.
You just cannot combat that kind of contagious insanity with facts and logic.
The tiresome, paranoiac behavior of government officials just makes us all less tolerant of their ordinary, everyday bullshit. And that makes the marginal individuals, like the Ammon Bundy "Y'allQaeda" sit-in group at Malheur NWR, act out. And that winds the government officials up tighter. And that encourages the next group to blow their lids. And that winds the government officials up tighter....
Someone will eventually have to realize that government is manufacturing its own dissent, by acting like a bunch of dangerous lunatics. If it would just take a deep breath and do a little bit of introspection, it will become obvious just who needs to be fired in order to halt the spreading madness, and who needs to be promoted in their stead to reverse it.
I probably wouldn't be able to spot a genuine terrorist if it leaped out from behind a bush and shouted "boo!" But I have noticed how cops and bureaucrats and securibots have become more paranoid and fearful over the last 15 years.
It has even created some kind of bizarre psychological feedback loop, wherein some cops use widespread belief in a mythical "war on cops" to cover up anything from honest mistakes to outright corruption, and the stories they make up reinforce the myth. Then formerly normal and expected behavior, such as protesters hurling verbal abuse or criminal suspects committing violence to evade capture, is recruited into the myth, becoming part of a coordinated conspiracy instead of just normal behavior. At some point, when the cops have thoroughly convinced themselves that someone is out to get them, and armed and trained themselves for war, another hand rises up to meet the one that was clapping, and the mythical war begins recruiting soldiers into the de facto opposing army. Treat people like your enemy for long enough, and they may oblige you by becoming one in fact.
This is exactly the same phenomenon I have seen in foil-hatted crackpots. Once you get it in your head that lizard people are ruling the Earth, confirmation bias takes over, and you start seeing evidence of lizard people everywhere. If you stand up in the local city council meeting and accuse one of the members of being a lizard in disguise, you get thrown out of the meeting for being a disruptive lunatic, but in your mind it is because they don't want you blowing their cover. If you get a speeding ticket, it's because the lizard people have targeted you for retributive harassment. If your milk spoils before the sell-by date, it's because they're sneaking into your house and tampering with your food when you're away.
You just cannot combat that kind of contagious insanity with facts and logic.
The tiresome, paranoiac behavior of government officials just makes us all less tolerant of their ordinary, everyday bullshit. And that makes the marginal individuals, like the Ammon Bundy "Y'allQaeda" sit-in group at Malheur NWR, act out. And that winds the government officials up tighter. And that encourages the next group to blow their lids. And that winds the government officials up tighter....
Someone will eventually have to realize that government is manufacturing its own dissent, by acting like a bunch of dangerous lunatics. If it would just take a deep breath and do a little bit of introspection, it will become obvious just who needs to be fired in order to halt the spreading madness, and who needs to be promoted in their stead to reverse it.
What if we'd just carried on with our lives after we'd mourned and buried our dead? How much impact would terrorism then had had on our lives?
Not to trivialize 9/11, but the death toll was only about 0.1% of all deaths that year. Sad, but ultimately only a blip in statistics.
The impact 9/11 has had is all due to what we did to ourselves, not what the terrorists did.
Not to trivialize 9/11, but the death toll was only about 0.1% of all deaths that year. Sad, but ultimately only a blip in statistics.
The impact 9/11 has had is all due to what we did to ourselves, not what the terrorists did.
I think the point is that, comparatively, terrorism has very little impact in the US.
Of course the families of the 9/11 victims would disagree. If my family had been victims to a freak meteorite rain accident, I'd probably disagree with someone who claimed meteorite strikes are very low probability events and therefore should be low in the list of priorities.
Of course the families of the 9/11 victims would disagree. If my family had been victims to a freak meteorite rain accident, I'd probably disagree with someone who claimed meteorite strikes are very low probability events and therefore should be low in the list of priorities.
Imglorp didn't say that terrorism had no impact at all, only that it's not directly destabilizing American society. 3000 deaths is an awful thing, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the population of the US--4200 people died in American car accidents in 2015 alone, but no one thinks that poor car safety is destabilizing society.
Possible I'm missing what you're saying, but annually in America 30,000+ people are killed in auto related events.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths...
I think he just accidentally dropped a 0.
About a month of road deaths.
What was the "terrorist" (hey, they were Muslim, so...) shooting spree used for? Laws to make us safer from actual terrorists? Nope. Laws to enable more spying and intrusion. The government is fearful that dissent will overtake it, and that's what the security state was built to stop.
What was the "terrorist" (hey, they were Muslim, so...) shooting spree used for? Laws to make us safer from actual terrorists? Nope. Laws to enable more spying and intrusion. The government is fearful that dissent will overtake it, and that's what the security state was built to stop.
Well USA does fund National Institutes of Health for Cancer, Heart Disease, etc.
Not in earnest, compared to around $1T security budget, no, it's not vaguely close.
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/...
http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/U....
U.S. Federal government spends more on health care than defense.
U.S. Federal government spends more on health care than defense.
Which is pretty much irrelevant; "health care" and "health research" aren't the same thing.
Anyhow, in terms of health care to defense ratio the US -- despite spending more of the nation's GDP, and far more per capita, in public health care than many other developed countries providing universal, all-public care (and even though the nation spends more than the same amount, in addition, in private healthcare spending) -- is still lower than most countries in the world. So, even looking at health care rather than health research, the US spends relatively little proportional to its defense budget when compared to other nations.
Then again, the US not too long ago was outspending the rest of the planet on defense, and is still at a bit over a third of the planet's total military spending, so compared to other nations the US spends relatively little on anything compared to defense.
Anyhow, in terms of health care to defense ratio the US -- despite spending more of the nation's GDP, and far more per capita, in public health care than many other developed countries providing universal, all-public care (and even though the nation spends more than the same amount, in addition, in private healthcare spending) -- is still lower than most countries in the world. So, even looking at health care rather than health research, the US spends relatively little proportional to its defense budget when compared to other nations.
Then again, the US not too long ago was outspending the rest of the planet on defense, and is still at a bit over a third of the planet's total military spending, so compared to other nations the US spends relatively little on anything compared to defense.
Compare that budget to the budgets spent on 'terrorism'.
How does the NSA program suppress dissent?
Seems to me that it's about stopping deaths. The reason they don't go after drunk driving and heart disease is because different kinds of deaths are valued differently. And while that's obviously crazy from a rational perspective, it's how the public views things.
Seems to me that it's about stopping deaths. The reason they don't go after drunk driving and heart disease is because different kinds of deaths are valued differently. And while that's obviously crazy from a rational perspective, it's how the public views things.
> How does the NSA program suppress dissent?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/nsa-surveillance-chill...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131108/10430625184/22-ex...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/17/chillin...
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/nsa-chilling-effect
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/15/1263032/-Now-It-s-O...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/nsa-surveillance-chill...
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131108/10430625184/22-ex...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/17/chillin...
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/nsa-chilling-effect
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/15/1263032/-Now-It-s-O...
Wow, how precious, someone who believes in the system! It suppresses dissent subconsciously. You start censoring yourself. If you think there is a shred of humanity within any of the NSA or any of the alphabet boys, you're in for a ride.
I don't believe in the system, I just don't see how the NSA's program suppresses dissent. There's no punishment for dissent, so how would it be suppressed? I'm sure they can and do listen in on people who want to overturn Citizens United or replace the government with a monarchy or whatever, but if there's no punishment that follows, then how does anything get suppressed?
While not directly connected to the NSA, it's plausible the prosecution of Aaron Swartz amounted to suppressing dissent. It's hard to say what the root cause was prosecutorial overreach or a real effort to suppress a powerful political organizer. Either way, he became a target for his ideas and activism.
>There's no punishment for dissent, so how would it be suppressed?
Surely you're joking. The United States government is eager to punish dissent to a lethal degree.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
Surely you're joking. The United States government is eager to punish dissent to a lethal degree.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
First, I assumed "suppressing dissent" meant domestic dissent.
Second, planning terror attacks is not "dissent." I mean, if this guy is your poster boy for the goals of NSA surveillance, then you're arguing that it is about fighting terrorism.
Second, planning terror attacks is not "dissent." I mean, if this guy is your poster boy for the goals of NSA surveillance, then you're arguing that it is about fighting terrorism.
You think he was punished for dissent? He was punished for actively working to kill people. That's a bit beyond merely "dissent".
[deleted]
NSA already has a program labeled Skynet. details were leaked May 2015
"The government revealed last year that it was also building a nationwide database that would score citizens on their trustworthiness." ... I doubt we do this."
Credit card companies provide this dubious information; I imagine gleefully? I say gleefully because those willy nilly interest rates should be considered Loan Sharking? That Credit card protection act didn't go far enough.
Still smarting over a mandatory arbitration clause. With CC paid lawyers acting as mediators. Mediators that found for the defendant 3 times over thousands of arbitrations. I still see these mandatory arbitration clauses. I had to sign one when getting a phone recently.
Credit card companies provide this dubious information; I imagine gleefully? I say gleefully because those willy nilly interest rates should be considered Loan Sharking? That Credit card protection act didn't go far enough.
Still smarting over a mandatory arbitration clause. With CC paid lawyers acting as mediators. Mediators that found for the defendant 3 times over thousands of arbitrations. I still see these mandatory arbitration clauses. I had to sign one when getting a phone recently.
Is there a way to answer this question without the respondent being put on the hook for every unfair or unjust thing the US does in response to terrorism? Because there's a straightforward answer to the question you asked.
Because when the US does it, it's also framed as totalitarian and unfair?
Because in China there can be serious consequences to holding and advocating for ideas that are out of favor with government. In the USA, even with all the monitoring you can still hold and advocate for ideas that are very much out of favor of those in government without serious reprisal. Note that "Terrorism" is a very convenient word in politics as it allows just about anyone to be labeled as such. I suspect my definition is very different than the Chinese definition.
To be fair about the data collection efforts in the USA, something that I very much oppose as an affront to the individual rights of its citizens, I suspect that those efforts are nonetheless almost always conducted very much for proper purposes of protecting national security and the lives/property of its citizens... rather than to ensure government entrenchment in spite of its citizens.
Where the NSA and like agencies go wrong is in assuming ends justify means. They don't. And of course the possibility of misuse of these methods to be used against citizen rights rather than to protect them.
To be fair about the data collection efforts in the USA, something that I very much oppose as an affront to the individual rights of its citizens, I suspect that those efforts are nonetheless almost always conducted very much for proper purposes of protecting national security and the lives/property of its citizens... rather than to ensure government entrenchment in spite of its citizens.
Where the NSA and like agencies go wrong is in assuming ends justify means. They don't. And of course the possibility of misuse of these methods to be used against citizen rights rather than to protect them.
If you go to protests in the US, you will become a surveillance target. That by itself has a chilling effect. Protest organizers get visits from the FBI, and the NSA feeds information to the FBI to be laundered through "parallel construction." misuse of information to stifle dissent isn't theoretical, it's practiced all the time.
My guess is that the likelihood of you getting a fair and speedy trial is significantly better in the US than it is in China.
It was framed as totalitarian when the US did it too.
> “We don’t call it a big data platform but a united information environment.” —Wu Manqing, China Electronics Technology
Sounds familiar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness
Sounds familiar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness
i wonder whether the "united information environment" can be a result of to_English(to_Chinese("intelligence fusion"))
https://www.dhs.gov/state-and-major-urban-area-fusion-center...
https://www.dhs.gov/state-and-major-urban-area-fusion-center...
I was expecting preemptive street policing, like the software this company provides (and is used by several police forces around the US): http://www.predpol.com/about/
What amazes me is that dang’an system is even functional.
As for pre-crime crime forecasting has been part of policing for at least as long as I have been alive. The Rand report from 2013 title Predictive Policing being the latest report I know of - http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/R...
As for pre-crime crime forecasting has been part of policing for at least as long as I have been alive. The Rand report from 2013 title Predictive Policing being the latest report I know of - http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/R...
Watchbird[1] incoming?
[1]. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579
[1]. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579
"In China, once a suspect is targeted, police can freeze bank accounts and compel companies to hand over records of his communications."
Can we expect them to strongarm companies like Apple that offer secure communications channels, such as imessage? It will be interesting to watch how Apple navigates those waters.
Can we expect them to strongarm companies like Apple that offer secure communications channels, such as imessage? It will be interesting to watch how Apple navigates those waters.
One can watch this playing out in the US for a precursor. The weird NY Times comment and its retraction that Snowden commented on is relevant here. https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/700073024373047297
Edit: Thinking more, where in the world is does police targeting not cause problems. Here in New Zealand there have been several recent cases of massive overreach that resulted in no charges or just a huge clustersf*&k. Dotcom, the Nicky Sagar searches etc. There are recent cases in the US and UK that come to mind fast too, often with reporters being targeted.
Edit: Thinking more, where in the world is does police targeting not cause problems. Here in New Zealand there have been several recent cases of massive overreach that resulted in no charges or just a huge clustersf*&k. Dotcom, the Nicky Sagar searches etc. There are recent cases in the US and UK that come to mind fast too, often with reporters being targeted.
They expanded it into a full article a couple days later: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/technology/apple-sees-valu...
Another day, another China-bashing propaganda piece from Bloomberg... Seriously, it's become too obvious.
While we're bashing that site, the webpage spontaneously reloaded itself three times while I was reading that article, each time sending me back to the top of the page. A bit annoying, to say the least.
US drones already do lots of pre-crime targeting [1]
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-st...
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-st...
One step closer to our Psycho-Pass future.