(January 22, 2016 at 12:08 am)Divinity Wrote:

(January 21, 2016 at 10:01 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Since you're only willing to address the practical side of the point, perhaps you can answer this -- how much money did this operation cost?

When you're willing to address matters of principle, let me know.

What principles?  If you think the government shouldn't run operations like this, then how efficient they are doesn't fucking matter.  If it caught 100,000, if you are against the idea in principle, it wouldn't matter because you'd still be against it.  If you're against the idea because of efficiency on the other hand, the questions remain.

And on the other hand, if you wish to justify the abrogation of principles on the grounds that 137 creeps were caught, that's great.

Me, I think the government should abide by the laws they enforce. What do you have to say about that?

Quote:Otherwise sting operations and undercover police work and such would be fuck all useless.

Nah.  They just lie.

(January 22, 2016 at 2:17 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It might be illegal in Maryland, but not anywhere around here.

I'm only going by information I found here:
http://www.radargunsblog.com/2008/04/rad...myths.html
"Myth #3 – Cops can’t hide when running Radar – Cops can park wherever they want to nail speeders. There is no law saying they can’t hide when searching for speeders. Some people call this entrapment, but that defense won’t get you very far in traffic court."

If there is such a law in maryland (or there may have been, and it might not be a law anymore), then I certainly stand corrected for that state (though most states do allow police to conceal themselves)

In any case it's still not entrapment.  It'd be a case of police breaking a law, and it being thrown out for that purpose.  He wouldn't have entrapped anyone.  Because everyone would still be breaking the law of their own volition.  They'd only have NOT broken the law in order to avoid getting caught.

(January 22, 2016 at 2:25 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: And on the other hand, if you wish to justify the abrogation of principles on the grounds that 137 creeps were caught, that's great.

Me, I think the government should abide by the laws they enforce. What do you have to say  about that?

So you're in general against undercover police? 

I mean there's all sorts of justifications for breaking the law.  You can commit any number of crimes to prevent a greater harm.  And you just have to (within reason) believe that you're preventing a greater harm by doing it.  If the FBI thought that they were preventing a greater harm by leaving the website up rather than taking it down, then they were-- in my opinion-- justified.   I think "Police should always obey the law!" is a bit black and white.  That's my two cents.

(January 22, 2016 at 12:19 am)Aractus Wrote:

(January 21, 2016 at 4:01 pm)abaris Wrote: Did you read the whole article? Makes sense. The pictures were already up and they didn't upload any new stuff. They just hoped to get to the real identity of the registered users.

That's not an acceptable excuse as there were no doubt many users who were well outside of the FBI's jurisdiction, therefore the FBI allowed access to child abuse material to people here in Australia, in European countries, etc.

exactly, and I don't think the Interpol is gonna help catch the ones outside the US.

(January 22, 2016 at 2:41 am)Divinity Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 2:25 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: And on the other hand, if you wish to justify the abrogation of principles on the grounds that 137 creeps were caught, that's great.

Me, I think the government should abide by the laws they enforce. What do you have to say  about that?

So you're in general against undercover police? 

No. I'm against the police breaking the law in order to enforce it.

Are we clear on that point now, or do you have any more strawmen awaiting deployment?

(January 22, 2016 at 2:41 am)Divinity Wrote: I mean there's all sorts of justifications for breaking the law.  You can commit any number of crimes to prevent a greater harm.  And you just have to (within reason) believe that you're preventing a greater harm by doing it.  If the FBI thought that they were preventing a greater harm by leaving the website up rather than taking it down, then they were-- in my opinion-- justified.   I think "Police should always obey the law!" is a bit black and white.  That's my two cents.

The problem with your logic is that if you or I broke the law to prevent a greater evil, we'd have to justify ourselves in front of a court of law.

Has that happened here?

Breaking the law on the street in the heat of the moment by a private individual in order to prevent a greater evil is different that planning to break the law behind closed doors in order to present 137 arrests as a victory.

Law enforcement authorities are rightfully held to higher standards of accountability, and expected to exercise better judgment. If their judgment doesn't take into consideration the law itself, how true are they?

Call me crazy, but I expect law enforcement officers to obey the law.

It's not a strawman. How the fuck is an undercover cop supposed to function while not breaking any laws?

You keep bringing up 137 arrests. Do you think the FBI thought "Oh you know, we can get 137 arrests with this. Give or take a couple!" Or do you think they thought "Well with this we could potentially bring in a lot of criminals, and shut down more websites by information we get from search warrants we can obtain based on the arrests not to mention information given to us by them in plea bargains." How the fuck are they supposed to know exactly how many arrests they're going to get? Or how much information they're going to get?

Call me crazy, but I think police should be able to break the law within reason. I think this is absolutely within reason.

(January 22, 2016 at 2:08 am)Divinity Wrote: Uhh no.  Cops are not by any means required to be in a location that's visible to oncoming cars.  If you got off, it was either for some other reason, or the judge was fucking stupid.  

It's not entrapment at all to set up radar where the cop car is not visible from the road.  In fact it's perfectly legal for police to hide.  It's a tactic many police use.

It clearly depends on the jurisdiction. I know for a fact that here in the ACT if a cop pulls you over to issue you a ticket he must give it to you in person - if he's called away, or for some other reason (e.g. you ran away from your car and he couldn't find you) you can't be issued the ticket - and if you do receive it you can dispute it and it will be withdrawn. With that said, they can operate their radar gun anywhere in the territory and do not need to be visible to oncoming traffic.

(January 22, 2016 at 2:41 am)Divinity Wrote:

(January 22, 2016 at 2:25 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: And on the other hand, if you wish to justify the abrogation of principles on the grounds that 137 creeps were caught, that's great.

Me, I think the government should abide by the laws they enforce. What do you have to say  about that?

So you're in general against undercover police? 

I mean there's all sorts of justifications for breaking the law.  You can commit any number of crimes to prevent a greater harm.  And you just have to (within reason) believe that you're preventing a greater harm by doing it.  If the FBI thought that they were preventing a greater harm by leaving the website up rather than taking it down, then they were-- in my opinion-- justified.   I think "Police should always obey the law!" is a bit black and white.  That's my two cents.

Ah, the Machiavellian philosophy - it worked so well for Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin! Probably nobody's gone further with it than Putin.

Wow, looks like more people dislike the FBI here. Awesome.