Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Hmmm ... (Score 1) 166

by meta-monkey (#48649777) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

The cops can commit crimes in the pursuit of justice. They cannot hurt anyone, there are standards, their actions have to be authorized, and there is a review process. This has always been the case. Cops can sell drugs while busting those buying or selling drugs. But they're not commiting crimes for personal gain or entertainment.

Really, the problem is people only object when the cops bust people for things they don't think should be crimes like drugs or prostitution. When they ask somebody to buy or sell drugs, give then drugs to sell, pay them, whatever, and they say "yes" people scream "entrapment!" When that's not what entrapment is. You were free to say no and walk away at any time. Entrapment is the corruption of your free will. Coercsion. "Commit this crime or we'll kill you or your mom." That's actually entrapment. But it's perfectly fine to ask people to commit crimes and then bust the ones who say yes.

When the same tactics work for other crimes, nobody cares. People cheer. Like a cop posing as a hitman a woman hires to kill her husband. Busted! And nobody cries "Entrapment!"

Part of the purpose of jail is to separate those who would harm from the rest of society so they can't hurt us.

"Wanna go rape and murder toddlers?" "Boy would I!" Jail.
"I wanna rape and murder toddlers but I don't have a stabbin' knife." "Oh I'll give you one!" "Thanks!" Jail.
"I don't wanna rape and murder toddlers." "Give you $50." "Okay then!" Jail.

Do you really not want any of the people who would say yes to (and actually attempt to carry out) those actions in jail? Of course you would! The practice is fine. People only get butt-hurt when the target is a drug user instead of a toddler murderer.

Comment: Re:Not seeing the issue here (Score 1) 166

by meta-monkey (#48649643) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

They have to read you your rights if you are in custody and they're interrogating you (interrogation does not have to be formal or even ask questions. It means anything attempting to illicit an incriminating response). Also, custody means any time you are not free to leave unless its obviously temporary, like a traffic or street stop.

Also, Miranda is there to protect the cops. It proves that if you've been read your rights and you still don't shut your stupid mouth, you can't claim "I didn't know I didn't have to answer!"

The answer is, as soon as you're in custody, explicitly state you're invoking your right to silence and that you want a lawyer. Then they must stop all interrogation until you have a lawyer. Unless of course your stupid ass starts talking (about your case. You can ask to use the bathroom or about the weather. Just not your case). Say you're using your rights, then actually use them. They only tell them to you so it's clear if you keep talking awterwards that you're waiving them.

Comment: Re:Not seeing the issue here (Score 1) 166

by meta-monkey (#48649617) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

Errrrr no. Absolute silence is a bad idea. You need to explicitly invoke your right to silence and state clearly that you want a lawyer. That will end the interrogation. If you just say nothing, they are free to continue interrogating you and use your reaction or lack thereof against you. Invoke your rights and then shut up, and they have to shut up, too.

Comment: Re:Not seeing the issue here (Score 1) 166

by meta-monkey (#48649599) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

Actually, yes, cops are allowed to commit crimes while undercover. They can't hurt anyone, but they can absolutely go sell drugs or something.

There's also a frequent misunderstanding of what entrapment entails. Entrapment is about the state corrupting or coercing someone to commit crime. Entrapment is about the overriding of your free will. But they can ask, lie, beg, bribe, whatever. So long as you're free to say no without negative consequences, it's fine.

And I'm fine with that. Most of the time what people are really upset about with regards to police deception is really the crime the perpetrator has committed. Cops use snares to catch people committing victimless crimes like drug sales and prostituiton because otherwise they have no way of finding these crimes. People get upset with the method because they don't think the crime should be a crime. I agree, I support drug legalization and legalized prostitution, but there's nothing wrong with the method. Cops can ask you to commit crimes and then arrest the people who say yes.

Part of the reason we imprison people who commit crimes is to remove them from society so they can't harm us.

If the cops call up somebody and say, "hey, wanna go rape and murder some school children?!?" And the guy says, "boy, would I ever!" I'd like that guy removed from society. If he says, "well I would, but I don't have a stabbin' knife," it's okay for the cops to give him one (and arrest him). If he balks, but perks up when the cops offer him $50, bust him.

Now if they tell him "go stabbing or we'll kill your whole family," that's actually entrapment, and illegal. But so long as he's free to say no and walk away, it shouldn't matter at all whether the cops came up with the idea, asked him, supplied him, bribed him. If any of those things make you agree to raping and murdering, that's on you.

People get pissed about deceptive practices because they're used to bust people for things they don't think should be crimes, like drugs.

Comment: Re: Not seeing the issue here (Score 1) 166

by meta-monkey (#48649469) Attached to: Judge: It's OK For Cops To Create Fake Instagram Accounts

Actually, no, you can't do the whole "you'll get the chair" thing. While all interrogation while in custody is coercive, death threats if you don't confess are beyond anything the courts have deemed reasonable. You can say "we'll make things easier on you," but you can't threaten someone with death to extract a confession.

Comment: Re:News at 11.. (Score 1) 645

by meta-monkey (#48649009) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

No. Every state statute has slightly different wording, but in order for something to be "theft" you must deprive the legitimate owner of the property. Copyright infringement cannot ever be theft, because the owner is deprived of no property. A copy is made and the original owner still has his copy. No matter how many times you call copyright infringement "theft" it never will be. And the Supreme Court agrees. You lose. Good day.

Comment: Re:if there is no evidence presented in how they.. (Score 4, Interesting) 46

No, what happened to you was odd. It's always been the case that if the cop had probable cause for conducting the search the results are admissible. If he heard screaming coming from inside your house and thought someone was being murdered so he busted inside but it turned out it was just the TV (but he genuinely thought it was real) he can still bust you for the brick of cocaine sitting on your coffee table.

So he could always get you despite being mistaken on the facts. Now it's the case he doesn't even have to be right on law. The Supreme Court just ruled that the cop doesn't even have to know the law he stopped you under.

What is inadmissible, though, is evidence obtained intentionally without warrant or cause. The cop cannot break into your house without a warrant or probable cause and snoop around, find something and then come back in the daylight with a warrant and bust you. And that's the question here. I don't understand how they can present the evidence of wrong doing if they don't say how they obtained the evidence. If they illegally hacked into his servers...then no, it shouldn't be admissible. There has to be a valid chain of custody, and we don't know if the chain is valid if we don't know where it started.

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.