6 ms·
> Nobody wants to limit the police's ability to investigate crimes. This is not true of privacy advocates, they do want to limit the ability to fish for circum
by rileymat2 1mo ago
> Nobody wants to limit the police's ability to investigate crimes.
This is not true of privacy advocates, they do want to limit the ability to fish for circumstantial evidence that targets innocent people and causes suspicion.
- zahlman 1mo agoThis is non-sequitur. "Investigating crimes" entails knowledge that a crime has actually occurred, and deliberately seeking information specifically related to that crime; "fishing for circumstantial evidence" does not.
- DANmode 1mo agoYou would hope.
- zahlman 1mo agoThere's no "hope" involved here. I'm talking about what the words actually mean.
- rileymat2 1mo agoBeing located in an area of a crime is circumstantial evidence. Any info on what drivers license plates drove by a camera is absolutely circumstantial evidence to a crime in the area that is known to have occurred, almost definitionally.
- rileymat2 1mo agoStep one get a list of people in the area. Step two look at drivers license photos for the person that most closely matches the description. Step three take the person that most looked like the described person and ask a witness with a poor memory if that was the person. Step four convict.
- tshaddox 1mo agoI mean it's just not true at all. We don't want police to torture people for information. We don't want police to detain people for questioning, even briefly, without reasonable suspicion. We don't want police to search people or their property without a warrant. And so on.