>...somebody released from prison really is at high risk of reoffending so people do need to be warned of their danger and protected from them.
I think you've reiterated the OC's comment that you're replying to, without realising it.
Let's assume someone gets arrested for a felony and does their time (e.g.: pays their debt to society). At the point of release, in theory, they should have no hindrances to reintegrating into society; yet, we know that this is not the case for people in the states because things like a felony record can keep you getting employed.
So, we've released a person from prison, who can't find a place to live (depending on jurisdictions) and can't find gainful or meaningful employment enough to survive on their own.
Is it any wonder, then, that the resultant might be that they commit more crime? At the very least, if they get caught, they have a guaranteed bed and meals; which is a really shitty alternative, if you think about it.
Let's not forget that the system is incentivised for them re-offend because putting bodies in the cells is what keeps the for-profit prison-industrial complex running.
I don't pretend to have an answer, to be sure, but I think that a plausible avenue of probing might be to truly treat an individual as if they've actually paid their dues to society, once they've left the system. For example, a person with a felony 10 years ago shouldn't still be disbarred from employment, as if it happened yesterday.
To continue to punish them, indirectly, is - obviously - not going to work in anyone's favour, not the person who committed the crime and not society - who should be as concerned with their re-integration with society as much as they're concerned with the offender being "punished to maximum extent of the law".
>Tax declarations are public information there and you can find out the salary of anyone pretty easily.
This true of almost all of the Nordics. For example, you can perform the same request from Skatteverket in Sweden.
>IMHO that kind of transparency is actually a good thing to have and helps prevent unfair practices where (e.g.: men get more than women or nepotism gets you access to better salaries).
This isn't implicitly true. If it were, Iceland wouldn't have had to pass a law to make unfair salaries (based on gender[0]) illegal.
Better than geographic would be state (counties for other countries) level break-down charts, as well. It would demonstrate the gross disparity between, say, Silicon Valley and DFW or Oslo and Trømso or Dublin and Cork.
>...was all the vaping done thus far and into the future worth even one person dying needlessly?
This is a reduction to absurdity that I can't quite grasp: People die of all sorts of maladies every year and a single person dying from vaping is your apex priority because, "it could've been prevented by banning vaping"?
This almost seems like a variation of the "won't someone think of the children" argument.
To whit: What of all of the vehicular deaths every year? Or deaths via trains or planes? Should we just ban all life because it will result in death at an astounding success rate of 100%?
Did 8chan compromise of only /pol/? I think you're demonstrating the problem I'm pointing out perfectly well: 8chan != /pol/ && /pol/ != 8chan
Your argument could've been that 8chan, as a whole, is a cesspool and that would have been a far less disingenuous argument than equating /pol/ to being the entirety of 8chan.
Note that I'm not arguing over the merits of 8chan or /pol/ or anything of the like, I'm merely pointing out that conflating the two precepts is entirely disingenuous and is probably demonstrative of how this whole "fake news" issue started - only it would've started with much earlier news bites containing much of the same conflation problems.
Whether or not /pol/ was indeed "bad" or "good" holds no bearing over the initial point that I made (read: you're moving goal posts).
Finally, the news article covers the violence connected to extremism and/or racism that has surfaced on these boards. This precept is leagues beyond the "Left versus Right" banter (that seems to permeate in the states) and is - clearly - far more damaging.
I don't get the point in the article. It just covers all of the information that the world-at-large is already cognoscente of.
It also seems amiss in it's tangential change in direction, from the "toxic online world where mass shooters thrive" to - pretty much - focusing on the latest cluster of shooters.
They also continually substitute /pol/ for all of 8chan. It would be akin to saying that The Donald is representative of all of /r/ or that The People of Wal-Mart is representative of America (at-large), when we all know that this isn't the case. Yet, this over-generalisation is continually being made. Why? Is it because 8chan is more readily recognisable and easier to write than /pol/? (I ask because I thought the "fake news" crowd used to have no believable foundation but upon seeing this I can now understand/empathise with how that seed manifests/grows.)
>...and the decision to cover up Allen’s tattoos was done in this case to “prevent misidentifying the suspect.”
How are you going to "misidentify" a suspect with facial tattoos against an array without them? Not only that, until the tip, facial tattoos didn't even enter the equation. The prominent one on his right cheek should've been a dead give-away, even in the released surveillance photo.
This seems like a "We got him, boys, let's make sure he doesn't get away!" type of situation.
>...anyway it should be abundantly clear at this point that no one should be using protocols that can trivially be MITM'ed to access anything over the internet.
This is a specious argument because HTTP/HTTPS is regularly (and legally) MITM'ed[0, 1].
If we shouldn't use anything that can be MITM'ed, shouldn't we just shut down the internet? Wouldn't that stop MITM attacks permanently-like? What about phones? Or letters? Or even talking? Where does this scare-tactic of the MITM "boogey-man" end (for you)?
I think you've reiterated the OC's comment that you're replying to, without realising it.
Let's assume someone gets arrested for a felony and does their time (e.g.: pays their debt to society). At the point of release, in theory, they should have no hindrances to reintegrating into society; yet, we know that this is not the case for people in the states because things like a felony record can keep you getting employed.
So, we've released a person from prison, who can't find a place to live (depending on jurisdictions) and can't find gainful or meaningful employment enough to survive on their own.
Is it any wonder, then, that the resultant might be that they commit more crime? At the very least, if they get caught, they have a guaranteed bed and meals; which is a really shitty alternative, if you think about it.
Let's not forget that the system is incentivised for them re-offend because putting bodies in the cells is what keeps the for-profit prison-industrial complex running.
I don't pretend to have an answer, to be sure, but I think that a plausible avenue of probing might be to truly treat an individual as if they've actually paid their dues to society, once they've left the system. For example, a person with a felony 10 years ago shouldn't still be disbarred from employment, as if it happened yesterday.
To continue to punish them, indirectly, is - obviously - not going to work in anyone's favour, not the person who committed the crime and not society - who should be as concerned with their re-integration with society as much as they're concerned with the offender being "punished to maximum extent of the law".