The NYPD sent a warrantless subpoena for a copwatcher's Twitter account(hellgatenyc.com)
hellgatenyc.com
The NYPD sent a warrantless subpoena for a copwatcher's Twitter account
https://hellgatenyc.com/nypd-warrantless-subpoena-copwatcher-social-media
312 comments
“Qualified immunity” is what you’re looking for. The original justification was to protect government officials (primarily law enforcement) from excessive, frivolous lawsuits.
Except the courts have since interpreted QI in such a way that there’s a Catch-22 scenario. Plaintiff needs to establish violation of a clearly established constitutional precedent to have standing, but since QI was only introduced in the 1960s, there’s very little case law proving that precedence.
While I understand the initial thought behind QI, it does seem the bar to holding law enforcement accountable is way too high. Time to adjust the laws (which requires a functional Congress, which we don’t have).
Except the courts have since interpreted QI in such a way that there’s a Catch-22 scenario. Plaintiff needs to establish violation of a clearly established constitutional precedent to have standing, but since QI was only introduced in the 1960s, there’s very little case law proving that precedence.
While I understand the initial thought behind QI, it does seem the bar to holding law enforcement accountable is way too high. Time to adjust the laws (which requires a functional Congress, which we don’t have).
> Time to adjust the laws (which requires a functional Congress, which we don’t have).
This is the thing that frustrates me the most about the current state of USA politics. The inability to functionally govern and reach bi-partisan support for a lot of meaningful issues renders us helpless to improve bad systems. Meanwhile, corporations continue to dilute the value of their products and services or jack up the price beyond the rate of inflation and no real regulation seems possible.
This is the thing that frustrates me the most about the current state of USA politics. The inability to functionally govern and reach bi-partisan support for a lot of meaningful issues renders us helpless to improve bad systems. Meanwhile, corporations continue to dilute the value of their products and services or jack up the price beyond the rate of inflation and no real regulation seems possible.
actually, one can argue that bipartisan support is the last thing you want because that's how 90% violate the rights for the 10% (and eventually, to 100% since we all take turns at being part of the 10%).
Case in point: Patriot ACT. SOPA attempts. Asset Forfeiture.
In contrast, see the most unruly place in Europe: Switzerland. Politicians bicker about inane things like updating language spelling, which caused huge uproar in 2006 [0] . 10 years later, you had the Cow Horns debate [1] of 2018, and its own sort of epilogue with the firestorm around cowbells [2]
You also have a weak executive with rotating posts of only 1 year. [3] So, nothing gets done (by design). And when policians work out a small miracle via bipartisanship, they still must jump the hurdle of direct democracy and win over the population. Moreover, anything can be reversed with a very small minority [3,4] calling for a referendum, anytime.
Yet Switzerland its the longest living democracy in the world with insanely high levels of development and prosperity.
[0] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/chaos-fears-loom-over-s... [1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/life-aging/podcast_campaigning-... [2]https://www.iamexpat.ch/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/cowbell-noi... [3] https://www.thelocal.ch/20211129/a-foreigners-guide-to-under... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_2014_Swiss_immigratio...
Case in point: Patriot ACT. SOPA attempts. Asset Forfeiture.
In contrast, see the most unruly place in Europe: Switzerland. Politicians bicker about inane things like updating language spelling, which caused huge uproar in 2006 [0] . 10 years later, you had the Cow Horns debate [1] of 2018, and its own sort of epilogue with the firestorm around cowbells [2]
You also have a weak executive with rotating posts of only 1 year. [3] So, nothing gets done (by design). And when policians work out a small miracle via bipartisanship, they still must jump the hurdle of direct democracy and win over the population. Moreover, anything can be reversed with a very small minority [3,4] calling for a referendum, anytime.
Yet Switzerland its the longest living democracy in the world with insanely high levels of development and prosperity.
[0] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/culture/chaos-fears-loom-over-s... [1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/life-aging/podcast_campaigning-... [2]https://www.iamexpat.ch/lifestyle/lifestyle-news/cowbell-noi... [3] https://www.thelocal.ch/20211129/a-foreigners-guide-to-under... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_2014_Swiss_immigratio...
> Case in point: Patriot ACT. SOPA attempts. Asset Forfeiture. In contrast, see the most unruly place in Europe: Switzerland.
I'm not so sure about that. Swiss public like all westerners seem to turn off their brains and vote for any authoritarian bullshit as soon as someone utter the word "terrorism" in 100km radius around them [0][1]:
"Voters have endorsed a series of measures allowing police to crack down on militant extremists and apply preventive detention methods, giving Switzerland one of the strictest anti-terrorism legislations in Europe ."
"The Swiss government has proposed new legislation aimed at preventing extremist violence and forcing people deemed a threat, including children aged 12 upwards, to be registered with the authorities. House arrest could also be applied to suspects as a last resort in some cases. The idea is to target people who have not yet committed a crime but who are considered to be a risk."
"The experts are concerned that the draft law’s new definition of “terrorist activity” no longer requires the prospect of any crime at all. They fear it may target “legitimate activities of journalists, civil society and political activists”."
[0]: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/controversial-anti-ter...
[1]: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/un-experts-criticise-s...
edit: spelling
I'm not so sure about that. Swiss public like all westerners seem to turn off their brains and vote for any authoritarian bullshit as soon as someone utter the word "terrorism" in 100km radius around them [0][1]:
"Voters have endorsed a series of measures allowing police to crack down on militant extremists and apply preventive detention methods, giving Switzerland one of the strictest anti-terrorism legislations in Europe ."
"The Swiss government has proposed new legislation aimed at preventing extremist violence and forcing people deemed a threat, including children aged 12 upwards, to be registered with the authorities. House arrest could also be applied to suspects as a last resort in some cases. The idea is to target people who have not yet committed a crime but who are considered to be a risk."
"The experts are concerned that the draft law’s new definition of “terrorist activity” no longer requires the prospect of any crime at all. They fear it may target “legitimate activities of journalists, civil society and political activists”."
[0]: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/controversial-anti-ter...
[1]: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/un-experts-criticise-s...
edit: spelling
Democracies can't really be condensed into one political moment; that is why they are so effective against dictatorships. Dictatorships have to make sense to one person.
The usual pattern is authoritarians do something stupid, democracies do something stupid but also erratic, then time passes then the democracies reorganise to try something new and the dictatorship gets stuck in a rut. Eventually the democracy tries something that works to the amazement of all observers. The authoritarians are still pushing the same tired old plan of failure.
Democracy doesn't have any secret sauce for making good decisions. Large groups of people are actually notoriously stupid. But they are much more responsive to situations where the government's official plan is obviously not working and the evidence is rolling in.
The usual pattern is authoritarians do something stupid, democracies do something stupid but also erratic, then time passes then the democracies reorganise to try something new and the dictatorship gets stuck in a rut. Eventually the democracy tries something that works to the amazement of all observers. The authoritarians are still pushing the same tired old plan of failure.
Democracy doesn't have any secret sauce for making good decisions. Large groups of people are actually notoriously stupid. But they are much more responsive to situations where the government's official plan is obviously not working and the evidence is rolling in.
I wasn't arguing that Switzerland is not a democracy, just noted the its political system is nowhere as immune to enacting things like "patriot act" as OP suggested.
Not suggesting Switzerland is immune, and your example perhaps makes citation of Patriot Act a poor choice, but the US has plenty of awful laws to select from that Switzerland has not yet decided to copy (thankfully).
Unfortunately, even Switzerland eventually as we know it will collapse, as all governments do. I do not suggest the Swiss system of government is perfect or even great, only that it is considerably more resilient to breaking vs its Euro peers, for precisely the same reason that US republicanism/Democracy has lasted: Both were forged in the embers of of wildly disparate groups of people to agree to join into a republic/federation.
As a happy accident of those concessions, a lot of powers normally held by the bipartisan ruling body, were stripped away, and therefore, you have 2 democracies thus far that are winning in the test of time.
Also, regarding a canton not allowing vote by X - not going to condone it, but it makes my point. Other countries ban the vote by felons, or by certain classes of people. Yet, they are still called democracies. The only difference is that the agreement to strip voting power is bipartisan in 1 case, and in switzerland it was a niche who approves of it. The fact that Switzerland allows that level of extreme disagreement is the reason why the democratic confederation will persist, for far longer than other neighboring democracies that are not willing to allow the fringes of its population to experiment with self rule, vs conform with the bipartisan viewpoint.
Unfortunately, even Switzerland eventually as we know it will collapse, as all governments do. I do not suggest the Swiss system of government is perfect or even great, only that it is considerably more resilient to breaking vs its Euro peers, for precisely the same reason that US republicanism/Democracy has lasted: Both were forged in the embers of of wildly disparate groups of people to agree to join into a republic/federation.
As a happy accident of those concessions, a lot of powers normally held by the bipartisan ruling body, were stripped away, and therefore, you have 2 democracies thus far that are winning in the test of time.
Also, regarding a canton not allowing vote by X - not going to condone it, but it makes my point. Other countries ban the vote by felons, or by certain classes of people. Yet, they are still called democracies. The only difference is that the agreement to strip voting power is bipartisan in 1 case, and in switzerland it was a niche who approves of it. The fact that Switzerland allows that level of extreme disagreement is the reason why the democratic confederation will persist, for far longer than other neighboring democracies that are not willing to allow the fringes of its population to experiment with self rule, vs conform with the bipartisan viewpoint.
I would disagree about the democracy part in Switzerland. Women weren't allowed to vote in federal elections until 1970 and it took until 1990 before the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden allowed women to vote[1]. I don't think you can call yourself a democracy while banning women from voting.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_Switzerl...
This is a valid criticism, but does not detract from the fact that Switzerland is pretty much a model democracy.
Power is extremely decentralized, not just down to the Cantons, but the counties and then the cities/townships (translated to rough US equivalents) also have a huge degree of autonomy. For any law or political decision that affects a Swiss citizen, it is almost guaranteed that it can be overturned be plebiscite (or in local issues by just showing up at meetings).
The late adoption of Women's suffrage is just a consequence of this system, which is biased towards inaction by design. On the plus side they have not had ideological extremists run their country, or had political violence on the level of some of their neighbors (Italy, Germany, France).
Power is extremely decentralized, not just down to the Cantons, but the counties and then the cities/townships (translated to rough US equivalents) also have a huge degree of autonomy. For any law or political decision that affects a Swiss citizen, it is almost guaranteed that it can be overturned be plebiscite (or in local issues by just showing up at meetings).
The late adoption of Women's suffrage is just a consequence of this system, which is biased towards inaction by design. On the plus side they have not had ideological extremists run their country, or had political violence on the level of some of their neighbors (Italy, Germany, France).
The ancient Greek, who invented the word "democracy" (δημοκρατία / dēmokratía), would disagree with your understanding of it.
Aristoteles divided forms of government benefiting their rulers into tyrannies, oligarchies, and democracies as follows: one, few, many. (Analogous to these three you have monarchy, aristocracy, and polity, which are to the benefit of all). Many here does not mean everyone, otherwise you would have to let children and non-citizens vote as well. However in a later chapter he does break things down further and, for instance, establishes a spectrum ranging from polity to democracy. However the most extreme form of democracy on that spectrum would be unrecognizable to you: Every free citizen is the government, only slaves aren't. There are no laws. If that sounds like nonsense to you, it is. He was mostly firing shots at athen's democracy and not really be fair at all.
Also do note that here democracy is the selfish variant of polity, and would thus is considered the "bad kind", inferior to even monarchy and aristocracy, but still preferable to oligarchy and tyranny.
Aristoteles divided forms of government benefiting their rulers into tyrannies, oligarchies, and democracies as follows: one, few, many. (Analogous to these three you have monarchy, aristocracy, and polity, which are to the benefit of all). Many here does not mean everyone, otherwise you would have to let children and non-citizens vote as well. However in a later chapter he does break things down further and, for instance, establishes a spectrum ranging from polity to democracy. However the most extreme form of democracy on that spectrum would be unrecognizable to you: Every free citizen is the government, only slaves aren't. There are no laws. If that sounds like nonsense to you, it is. He was mostly firing shots at athen's democracy and not really be fair at all.
Also do note that here democracy is the selfish variant of polity, and would thus is considered the "bad kind", inferior to even monarchy and aristocracy, but still preferable to oligarchy and tyranny.
[deleted]
> Switzerland its the longest living democracy in the world
And, a bunch of Internet randos arguing about it here: https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-80426,...
As an outsider, highly advanced democracies appear to argue about very small things because most of the big things are done right. See also: Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Canada, Finland, etc.
>This highly authoritative article from World Economic Forum
You mean highly biased? Switzerland's direct democracy is the antithesis of what the WEF stands for.
You mean highly biased? Switzerland's direct democracy is the antithesis of what the WEF stands for.
WEF is based in Switzerland and their annual meeting is in the Swiss Alps.
The financing of WEF is mostly big corps which are in large part headquartered in Switzerland, and is financed by the Swiss government directly.
Swiss direct democracy is irrelevant to WEF.
The financing of WEF is mostly big corps which are in large part headquartered in Switzerland, and is financed by the Swiss government directly.
Swiss direct democracy is irrelevant to WEF.
Their definition of democracy is quite arbitrary, I would argue that any country where women and minorities cannot vote isn’t a democracy, it is according to them.
Sure but in that case, Switzerland wasn't a democracy until 1990 when women in the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden finally got the right to vote in federal elections.
Wiki says: Women in Switzerland gained the right to vote in federal elections after a referendum in February 1971.
You're correct but women weren't allowed to vote on the canton level in some cantons until 1990. That's almost as bad:
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/a-visit-to-appenzell-i...
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/a-visit-to-appenzell-i...
not going to condone it, but it makes my point. Other countries ban the vote by felons, or by certain classes of people. Yet, they are still called democracies. The only difference is that the agreement to strip voting power is bipartisan in 1 case, and in switzerland it was a niche who approves of it.
The United States is not and never has been a democracy. The Senate and the SCOTUS are not democratic institutions.
Can you explain why the US Senate is not democratic? And do you feel the same about the senior house for all other highly functioning democracies?
I'm assuming they are from a high populous area, and feel that overall popular vote should have the majority representation at the federal level.
I'm quite glad this is not the case, I don't want to be governed by the populist progressive votes in the coastal cities.
I'm quite glad this is not the case, I don't want to be governed by the populist progressive votes in the coastal cities.
> I don't want to be governed by progressive
This is why the world is ending.
This is why the world is ending.
> Yet Switzerland its the longest living democracy in the world…
France conquered Switzerland after its revolution and the current Swiss state only goes back to 1848.
France conquered Switzerland after its revolution and the current Swiss state only goes back to 1848.
Remember, it is perfectly valid to be equally aware of how the parties are different, but being more frustrated by the ways they are the same
Don’t let partisans gaslight you over their desperate struggles for the ring of power
yes, the sides are different, there are ways they are the same
Don’t let partisans gaslight you over their desperate struggles for the ring of power
yes, the sides are different, there are ways they are the same
> Remember, it is perfectly valid to be equally aware of how the parties are different, but being more frustrated by the ways they are the same
That's an easy genericism.
In fact this particular issue under discussion is quite asymmetric. It's routine for a republican congress to block legislation that would otherwise pass (c.f. current bills for border security and Ukraine aid, our now-quarterly government shutdown jamboree, etc...). The reverse really is not true. I can't think of a notable bipartisan bill in the last decade blocked by a democratically-controlled government organ. Can you?
It's perfectly valid to have complaints about both parties, but not to invent frustrations about how they are the same.
That's an easy genericism.
In fact this particular issue under discussion is quite asymmetric. It's routine for a republican congress to block legislation that would otherwise pass (c.f. current bills for border security and Ukraine aid, our now-quarterly government shutdown jamboree, etc...). The reverse really is not true. I can't think of a notable bipartisan bill in the last decade blocked by a democratically-controlled government organ. Can you?
It's perfectly valid to have complaints about both parties, but not to invent frustrations about how they are the same.
There seem to be some tautologies happening here. There are only 2 major parties in the US Congress. Bipartisan bills, somewhat by definition, are going to be passed by both parties. Similarly, since there are 2 major parties, if legislation is proposed by one party then it would pass unless the other blocks it.
I don't see how you're expecting things to work differently. Would we expect Democrat-sponsored legislation to fail for reasons apart from Republican opposition?
> The reverse really is not true.
I doubt that is a true statement, but assuming it is then logically that would just mean that Republicans only propose legislation after they have talked to the Democrats and confirmed they are willing to vote it through. But that would suggest the Republicans are avoiding opportunities to kick up a fuss which doesn't sound like the US Congress we all know and love.
> c.f. current bills for border security
Unrelated note but it is amazing to me that the US has been an entity for a couple of centuries now and doesn't have legislation already in place to control the border.
I don't see how you're expecting things to work differently. Would we expect Democrat-sponsored legislation to fail for reasons apart from Republican opposition?
> The reverse really is not true.
I doubt that is a true statement, but assuming it is then logically that would just mean that Republicans only propose legislation after they have talked to the Democrats and confirmed they are willing to vote it through. But that would suggest the Republicans are avoiding opportunities to kick up a fuss which doesn't sound like the US Congress we all know and love.
> c.f. current bills for border security
Unrelated note but it is amazing to me that the US has been an entity for a couple of centuries now and doesn't have legislation already in place to control the border.
> I don't see how you're expecting things to work differently. Would we expect Democrat-sponsored legislation to fail for reasons apart from Republican opposition?
There is a popular perception that:
- If Democrats are in the minority and want to block a Republican bill, they will attempt to drum up public pressure, advocate on the floor and with individual legislators, etc.
- If Republicans are in the minority and want to block a Democrat bill, they will by any means necessary. They'll use various edge cases of parliamentary procedure, attach/amend/manipulate bills to poison them, etc. 'Playing dirty'.
I have no idea if this is actually true, but it's a common idea I've heard from both sides. The Democrats see it as a sign of their moral superiority, and the Republicans see it as an demonstration of conviction.
There is a popular perception that:
- If Democrats are in the minority and want to block a Republican bill, they will attempt to drum up public pressure, advocate on the floor and with individual legislators, etc.
- If Republicans are in the minority and want to block a Democrat bill, they will by any means necessary. They'll use various edge cases of parliamentary procedure, attach/amend/manipulate bills to poison them, etc. 'Playing dirty'.
I have no idea if this is actually true, but it's a common idea I've heard from both sides. The Democrats see it as a sign of their moral superiority, and the Republicans see it as an demonstration of conviction.
It sounds kinda stupid as theories go and I'm not going to believe there is anything meaningful happening without specific examples. Although I'll say on the outset that it wouldn't surprise me if it is basically a misdirection that the congresspeople are promulgating on a bipartisan basis to help them brand themselves.
> use various edge cases of parliamentary procedure, attach/amend/manipulate bills to poison them, etc. 'Playing dirty'.
This in particular is the part that seems a bit ridiculous. I'm sure they technically do all that, but if they have the numbers to do these things they also have the numbers to just vote bills down. It isn't 'playing dirty'. And these bills are generally rider-filled messes regardless.
Maybe the argument is that the Republicans are secretly plotting against their own voters and trying to conceal it, which is the sort of theory that people on the right wing already believe. It is the right wing. One of the core political tenants is that politicians are corrupt, incompetent and untrustworthy. The right wing politicians don't really need to pretend, their voters already know - many of them go in with a mandate to try and shut the whole government down to try and limit the damage the Congress does. The bulk of voters on the right seem to be well aware by now that professional politicians, as a class, hate them. That is why there is this whole Trumpian revolt underway.
> use various edge cases of parliamentary procedure, attach/amend/manipulate bills to poison them, etc. 'Playing dirty'.
This in particular is the part that seems a bit ridiculous. I'm sure they technically do all that, but if they have the numbers to do these things they also have the numbers to just vote bills down. It isn't 'playing dirty'. And these bills are generally rider-filled messes regardless.
Maybe the argument is that the Republicans are secretly plotting against their own voters and trying to conceal it, which is the sort of theory that people on the right wing already believe. It is the right wing. One of the core political tenants is that politicians are corrupt, incompetent and untrustworthy. The right wing politicians don't really need to pretend, their voters already know - many of them go in with a mandate to try and shut the whole government down to try and limit the damage the Congress does. The bulk of voters on the right seem to be well aware by now that professional politicians, as a class, hate them. That is why there is this whole Trumpian revolt underway.
Of course the US has legislation to control the border. There is an entire agency called the border patrol. The thing is right now , it seems, additional legislation is needed to actually compel the executive to have the border patrol do their job. Which this last bill didn't even do and would have simply dumped money into an auxiliary judicial system that serves virtually no purpose and would continue to do so even with more money. Shortening the time for an asylum hearing doesn't even matter because people don't show up for them.
Any bill that maintains the current administration's position of simply letting people go completely free during their asylum waiting period is useless. Sure, people with legit claims might show up, but crimminals, which are the problem, are not going to come back for the hearing.
Most Americans don't mind immigrants or immigration at all and not even the idea of illegal immigration is really a problem. It's just the people that commit crimes that are the problem, it's one of the reason we see recent immigrants be so strongly in favor of border security, because the people they specifically tried to get away from are showing up too.
Not only are people caught crossing the border illegally not detained, but apparently even when they commit additional crimes it's too much for some cities and states to even keep them in jail for those crimes.
Any bill that maintains the current administration's position of simply letting people go completely free during their asylum waiting period is useless. Sure, people with legit claims might show up, but crimminals, which are the problem, are not going to come back for the hearing.
Most Americans don't mind immigrants or immigration at all and not even the idea of illegal immigration is really a problem. It's just the people that commit crimes that are the problem, it's one of the reason we see recent immigrants be so strongly in favor of border security, because the people they specifically tried to get away from are showing up too.
Not only are people caught crossing the border illegally not detained, but apparently even when they commit additional crimes it's too much for some cities and states to even keep them in jail for those crimes.
This comment really highlights how you can have someone like GP thinking Republicans are inhibiting border control and Democrats are trying to do something about it. The discourse around the subject dictates what concepts are held in the mind while considering it. The implication by the left seems to be that the US should, obviously, allow anyone into the country and that the problem is the speed of the immigration process. The reality of the situation is that no country, the US included, can maintain the stable identity and order required to be considered “a country” while allowing unrestricted immigration. It’s simply not possible to accept immigrants without requiring that they know and follow the law, and that takes time to learn. Immediate access to the country does not facilitate that learning and obviously causes significant crime.
> The implication by the left seems to be that the US should, obviously, allow anyone into the country
Indeed, there's a disconnect. I can't see anywhere in modern discourse that would have led you to believe that. Can you maybe cite the relevant policymakers or thought leaders or whoever that you are sure hold that opinion? Because I guarantee they don't actually exist.
What you just typed is an echo chamber point. It's not what your political enemies think, at all. It's what your political allies[1] want you to think your political enemies think. It's nonsense.
[1] Specifically the content-makers running the partisan media you consume.
Indeed, there's a disconnect. I can't see anywhere in modern discourse that would have led you to believe that. Can you maybe cite the relevant policymakers or thought leaders or whoever that you are sure hold that opinion? Because I guarantee they don't actually exist.
What you just typed is an echo chamber point. It's not what your political enemies think, at all. It's what your political allies[1] want you to think your political enemies think. It's nonsense.
[1] Specifically the content-makers running the partisan media you consume.
He said the world 'implication' . I don't think you understand what it means.
If I'm your child's teacher, and your child doesn't do his homework and gets and F, you are not able to say to me "show me where my kid said he wouldn't do his homework!" , as a defense.
If I'm your child's teacher, and your child doesn't do his homework and gets and F, you are not able to say to me "show me where my kid said he wouldn't do his homework!" , as a defense.
that's interested because you created a point I didn't make, in order to discredit the point I did make
I won't call it a strawman argument since the grandparent post did say "inability to functionally govern and reach bi-partisan support for a lot of meaningful issues renders us helpless to improve bad systems", I was not making a point about bills passing
my only, isolated point, is that it is valid to be frustrated by the ways in which the parties are the same.
you decided to talk about one way you believe they are different. its fine if that was a misunderstanding of my point, but if you're not aware of any unproductive way the parties are the same, then this discussion isn't for you.
I won't call it a strawman argument since the grandparent post did say "inability to functionally govern and reach bi-partisan support for a lot of meaningful issues renders us helpless to improve bad systems", I was not making a point about bills passing
my only, isolated point, is that it is valid to be frustrated by the ways in which the parties are the same.
you decided to talk about one way you believe they are different. its fine if that was a misunderstanding of my point, but if you're not aware of any unproductive way the parties are the same, then this discussion isn't for you.
> my only, isolated point, is that it is valid to be frustrated by the ways in which the parties are the same.
You made that "isolated" point in a subthread about gridlock and the inability to pass meaningful legislation. And in that particular argument to which you replied, you were wrong: the parties are not "the same".
You made that "isolated" point in a subthread about gridlock and the inability to pass meaningful legislation. And in that particular argument to which you replied, you were wrong: the parties are not "the same".
Republicans block bills because they're stuffed full of unrelated things (by design - that way they can easily be painted as the bad guys - which is working, see your own comment). I'm not saying that the reverse doesn't happen - perhaps Democrats are okay with bloated bills, I dunno.
Good rule of thumb is when a bill is blocked by one party, go find out everything that's in it and what parts the blocking party objected to. I guarantee it won't be the stuff the bill is named after.
Good rule of thumb is when a bill is blocked by one party, go find out everything that's in it and what parts the blocking party objected to. I guarantee it won't be the stuff the bill is named after.
What you’re describing is called compromise: you get what you want in exchange for something else.
In context, he's not describing a compromise, he's talking about a 'wrecking amendment'. Adding something absurd to a bill. The difference is that the person adding the amendment doesn't actually want or expect their amendment to be passed.
Wikipedia has a fun example:
> The Wyoming House of Representatives Committee of the Whole amended House Bill 0085, a proposal to study the state's emergency preparedness, in order to kill the bill. The amendment would have required the state to consider purchasing an aircraft carrier (even though Wyoming is a landlocked state), purchasing fighter jets, establishing a military, initiating a draft, and creating a currency.
Wikipedia has a fun example:
> The Wyoming House of Representatives Committee of the Whole amended House Bill 0085, a proposal to study the state's emergency preparedness, in order to kill the bill. The amendment would have required the state to consider purchasing an aircraft carrier (even though Wyoming is a landlocked state), purchasing fighter jets, establishing a military, initiating a draft, and creating a currency.
No, he definitely is not. Painting every bill Republicans have blocked as having a wrecking amendment is beyond silly. He’s describing a refusal to compromise.
Nonsense. Republicans were given everything they asked for on the border as a stand alone offer and refused it. It has nothing to do with some sort of genuine political position over riders on bills, and a simple examination of literally anything republicans have sponsored in the last 30 years will demonstrate that starkly. The point is obstructionism instead of governance.
It's still quote humorous how Biden can create these messes and yet Republicans are still the bad guys here... This is how nothing changes.
Republicans have blocked any attempt at reforming immigration, going back to Bush Jr's proposed bill in 2005. They have blocked bills with the exact terms they demanded just the day before. They are factually the bad guys here.
QI is atrocious. See some choice quotes from https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/19/qualified-... :
> Although a prior court decision had held that it was unconstitutional to release a police dog on a suspect who was lying down, the court in Alexander Baxter’s case granted qualified immunity to the officers because, it held, the prior decision did not clearly establish the unconstitutionality of the officers’ decision to release a police dog on a person who was seated with his hands in the air.
> Because no prior court opinion had similar facts, the appeals court judges dismissed Jayzel’s excessive-force claim, even though they believed Aikala’s decision to tase a potential domestic violence victim went “far beyond the pale” and violated the Fourth Amendment.
> In Jessop v. City of Fresno, police officers stole $225,000 in cash and rare coins when executing a warrant. Prior cases had held that it was unconstitutional for officers to steal, but those cases were factually distinct — involving the theft of different types of property under different circumstances. According to the appeals court, the officers “ought to have recognized” that it was wrong to steal the coins and cash, but “they did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment” because prior court decisions “did not put the constitutional question beyond debate.”
> Although a prior court decision had held that it was unconstitutional to release a police dog on a suspect who was lying down, the court in Alexander Baxter’s case granted qualified immunity to the officers because, it held, the prior decision did not clearly establish the unconstitutionality of the officers’ decision to release a police dog on a person who was seated with his hands in the air.
> Because no prior court opinion had similar facts, the appeals court judges dismissed Jayzel’s excessive-force claim, even though they believed Aikala’s decision to tase a potential domestic violence victim went “far beyond the pale” and violated the Fourth Amendment.
> In Jessop v. City of Fresno, police officers stole $225,000 in cash and rare coins when executing a warrant. Prior cases had held that it was unconstitutional for officers to steal, but those cases were factually distinct — involving the theft of different types of property under different circumstances. According to the appeals court, the officers “ought to have recognized” that it was wrong to steal the coins and cash, but “they did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment” because prior court decisions “did not put the constitutional question beyond debate.”
and I would argue that any body that clears officers for stealing coins, assuming its as clearcut as has been laid out here, is a failed treasonous(to the people) organisation that morally and ethically can should be destroyed by any means necessary
> “Qualified immunity” is what you’re looking for. The original justification was to protect government officials (primarily law enforcement) from excessive, frivolous lawsuits.
Everyone else just has to get insurance, why can't they? If you don't have a downside for something you do more of it. There's even a name for this, moral hazard. This isn't a new phenomenon, so why are these people treated as exceptions?
Everyone else just has to get insurance, why can't they? If you don't have a downside for something you do more of it. There's even a name for this, moral hazard. This isn't a new phenomenon, so why are these people treated as exceptions?
Nuisance lawsuits would cripple the ability of government to do anything but defend itself in court. That's the theory anyway.
> but since QI was only introduced in the 1960s, there’s very little case law proving that precedence.
And worse, any precedent created is interpreted so narrowly as to be ridiculous. If a cop violates your rights on Tuesday, well you are SOL if they do it on Wednesday because there is no precedent for that.
And worse, any precedent created is interpreted so narrowly as to be ridiculous. If a cop violates your rights on Tuesday, well you are SOL if they do it on Wednesday because there is no precedent for that.
As an historical point, qualified immunity is actually a softening of the harsher and much older doctrine of sovereign immunity (ie, “the king cannot be sued”). Congress relinquished some of the immunity state actors enjoyed, for instances where they violated a person’s constitutional rights. This left open the question of what happens if as-yet unrecognized rights were violated:
> The evolution of qualified immunity began in 1871 when Congress adopted 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which makes government employees and officials personally liable for money damages if they violate a person’s federal constitutional rights. State and local police officers may be sued under § 1983. Until the 1960s, few § 1983 lawsuits were successfully brought. In 1967, the Supreme Court recognized qualified immunity as a defense to § 1983 claims. In 1982, the Supreme Court adopted the current test for the doctrine. Qualified immunity is generally available if the law a government official violated isn’t “clearly established.”
If qualified immunity applies, money damages aren’t available even if a constitutional violation has occurred. If qualified immunity doesn’t apply, while the government employee or official technically is responsible for money damages, the government entity virtually always pays. So qualified immunity protects states and local governments from having to pay money damages for actions not yet deemed unconstitutional by a court.
Source: https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/qualified-im...
> The evolution of qualified immunity began in 1871 when Congress adopted 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which makes government employees and officials personally liable for money damages if they violate a person’s federal constitutional rights. State and local police officers may be sued under § 1983. Until the 1960s, few § 1983 lawsuits were successfully brought. In 1967, the Supreme Court recognized qualified immunity as a defense to § 1983 claims. In 1982, the Supreme Court adopted the current test for the doctrine. Qualified immunity is generally available if the law a government official violated isn’t “clearly established.”
If qualified immunity applies, money damages aren’t available even if a constitutional violation has occurred. If qualified immunity doesn’t apply, while the government employee or official technically is responsible for money damages, the government entity virtually always pays. So qualified immunity protects states and local governments from having to pay money damages for actions not yet deemed unconstitutional by a court.
Source: https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/qualified-im...
The courts have not "interpreted" qualified immunity to mean something. The Supreme Court in 1967 created qualified immunity out of nowhere to defend obviously racist cops in Mississippi. Specifically, they created it to put an end to people using Third Ku Klux Klan Act (Rights Act of 1871) to sue racist cops. This is part of a long history of preventing people from using Reconstruction Era laws to gain any meaningful civil rights.
They did so by saying that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (which was passed by Grant to fight the KKK) which was meant to allow people to sue for civil rights violations clearly intends to provide an exception for police officers if they acted in good faith (whatever that means; given that good faith here means enforcing a racist law often with extreme violence). But there's absolutely nothing in the actual law, the text passed by Congress or in the intent of Congress, that supports this reading. You can read the Section 1983 yourself:
> Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
A "judicial officer" by the way is a member of the court / judicial branch, not a police officer.
Because there's no law, qualified immunity is a total mess. Different courts and judges apply it very differently. For some it's simply a blanket defense for essentially any acts.
Ironically, Scalia and Thomas have both written dissents on the other side from the liberal judges at times, pointing out that there is literally no basis in law for qualified immunity and the Court should just drop it entirely.
This isn't just a matter of adjusting the law to clarify the interpretation of Section 1983, although that would help. It also requires a long-term realignment of the Supreme Court who shouldn't be able to wholesale write laws this way. That's not me saying this, that's Scalia in Crawford-El v. Britton "[the Supreme Court] find[s] [itself] engaged...in the essentially legislative activity of crafting a sensible scheme of qualified immunities for the statute we have invented—rather than applying the common law embodied in the statute that Congress wrote".
They did so by saying that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (which was passed by Grant to fight the KKK) which was meant to allow people to sue for civil rights violations clearly intends to provide an exception for police officers if they acted in good faith (whatever that means; given that good faith here means enforcing a racist law often with extreme violence). But there's absolutely nothing in the actual law, the text passed by Congress or in the intent of Congress, that supports this reading. You can read the Section 1983 yourself:
> Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
A "judicial officer" by the way is a member of the court / judicial branch, not a police officer.
Because there's no law, qualified immunity is a total mess. Different courts and judges apply it very differently. For some it's simply a blanket defense for essentially any acts.
Ironically, Scalia and Thomas have both written dissents on the other side from the liberal judges at times, pointing out that there is literally no basis in law for qualified immunity and the Court should just drop it entirely.
This isn't just a matter of adjusting the law to clarify the interpretation of Section 1983, although that would help. It also requires a long-term realignment of the Supreme Court who shouldn't be able to wholesale write laws this way. That's not me saying this, that's Scalia in Crawford-El v. Britton "[the Supreme Court] find[s] [itself] engaged...in the essentially legislative activity of crafting a sensible scheme of qualified immunities for the statute we have invented—rather than applying the common law embodied in the statute that Congress wrote".
> Ironically, Scalia and Thomas have both written dissents on the other side from the liberal judges at times, pointing out that there is literally no basis in law for qualified immunity and the Court should just drop it entirely.
What's ironic about that?
What's ironic about that?
It's ironic because conservatives tend to be much more pro-police than liberals. Liberal justices could have ended qualified immunity when they controlled the Court. But they didn't listen to the conservative justices at the time. The thin blue line was more important.
Now liberals want to water down or eliminate qualified immunity, but they've lost all power on the court. And the current conservative justices are far more extreme than Scalia or Thomas. They don't want to eliminate it. That's irony.
Isn't a partisan and political Supreme Court with no limits or oversight that just makes up anything that it wants according to the party wishes great? This is an early sign of a failing state.
We really need to urgently depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Canada has done a lot to make sure its Supreme Court, which is equally powerful, doesn't become political. The US should do the same.
Now liberals want to water down or eliminate qualified immunity, but they've lost all power on the court. And the current conservative justices are far more extreme than Scalia or Thomas. They don't want to eliminate it. That's irony.
Isn't a partisan and political Supreme Court with no limits or oversight that just makes up anything that it wants according to the party wishes great? This is an early sign of a failing state.
We really need to urgently depoliticize the Supreme Court.
Canada has done a lot to make sure its Supreme Court, which is equally powerful, doesn't become political. The US should do the same.
[deleted]
>...Now liberals want to water down or eliminate qualified immunity, but they've lost all power on the court.
Which liberals on the Supreme Court want to water down or eliminate qualified immunity?
Which liberals on the Supreme Court want to water down or eliminate qualified immunity?
Sotomayor has come out against it in dissents. Kagan is in more of a middle ground where she wants to limit it severely. Brown has been much more of a supporter, but that was before she was on the Supreme Court so we don't know much yet.
I know how old common law is, and how far back through time its predecessors go... but 50 years is long enough for loads of case law to appear.
Something else must be a blocker here.
Something else must be a blocker here.
Isn't QI fully something the supreme court made up and unlikely to go away whatever congress does?
See light-hue's sibling response. Yes, SCOTUS made it up, but there's no firm Constitutional basis for QI - their decision was based on other laws. IANAL, but my take is Congress could explicitly remove QI.
if you're asking earnestly, one of the biggest reasons is that the would-be prosecutor relies on the cooperation of the police department to function. This article covers that and some more:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-still-so-rare-f...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-still-so-rare-f...
In some countries it’s possible for civilian lawyers to press criminal charges specifically for situations like this. There’s some gatekeeping by the courts and whatnot to approve the case but it’s pretty reasonable. Also allows victims to “press charges” when the police mysteriously refuse to.
Burden of proof remains the same as for a state-appointed prosecutor. And judges still get similar leeway in sentencing.
Burden of proof remains the same as for a state-appointed prosecutor. And judges still get similar leeway in sentencing.
Oh totally, theres lots of ways it could be improved. Unfortunately, our courts are also in their pocket for various reasons, and invented whole cloth the concept of qualified immunity. So getting the case to the courts is no guarantee either. Still would be better of course.
I find it so sad, how much of the country was united on this for months, and how little has actually happened in response.
I find it so sad, how much of the country was united on this for months, and how little has actually happened in response.
So why not make a special prosecutor who only deals with police cases?
The solution seems too simple.
That makes me think that the underlying thing causing this issue to plague American society isn't what you suggest.
The solution seems too simple.
That makes me think that the underlying thing causing this issue to plague American society isn't what you suggest.
ok, maybe one of the biggest wasn't hedged enough. but it is still an important reason imo.
There are many more of course:
- Police can sabotage the re-elections of politicians that oppose them, by doing their job worse and increasing the rate of crime.
- Courts tend to favor the police, inventing such concepts as qualified immunity
- An unfortunately large percent of the country is happy for the police to trample people as long as it's the people they don't like
- And more, which the article gets into some of. I'm not a huge 538 fan but its pretty decent
There are many more of course:
- Police can sabotage the re-elections of politicians that oppose them, by doing their job worse and increasing the rate of crime.
- Courts tend to favor the police, inventing such concepts as qualified immunity
- An unfortunately large percent of the country is happy for the police to trample people as long as it's the people they don't like
- And more, which the article gets into some of. I'm not a huge 538 fan but its pretty decent
> Why the hell are all the public workers exempt from that? Cops, government workers, inspectors, etc.... in the best case possible, taxpayers pay for the damages and that's it. Why?! Someone wanted this subpoeana, his job is to know if s/he can actually request it, s/he signed his/her name on the paper... and then.. nothing?
Because the regime wants their agents to blindly obey orders they push down, or foster to happen at lower levels. If this could suddenly come back and cause actual consequences for some of the regime henchmen, it could be that they might consider not obeying.
by definition, the incentives that exists in a state is not to do what is best for the people its supposed to serve. The bigger and wider a state becomes, the more perverse incentives exists, and since a regime can create its own laws and regulations, it will do so to protect itself first and foremost
Because the regime wants their agents to blindly obey orders they push down, or foster to happen at lower levels. If this could suddenly come back and cause actual consequences for some of the regime henchmen, it could be that they might consider not obeying.
by definition, the incentives that exists in a state is not to do what is best for the people its supposed to serve. The bigger and wider a state becomes, the more perverse incentives exists, and since a regime can create its own laws and regulations, it will do so to protect itself first and foremost
For the doctors, it is really hard to loose a license. Even then, a doctor can move to another state and continue to run practice.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver just covered this topic on Sunday.
Not all public workers are exempt. We have public health workers here, and there has been cases of people going to jail for looking at medical records without medical justification. This is a nurse that is going 3 years to jail and a 4,000€ fine for checking the records of her ex: https://theobjective.com/espana/tribunales/2023-07-31/conden...
The immunity doesn't reach all public workers. Only politicians and law enforcers
The immunity doesn't reach all public workers. Only politicians and law enforcers
I work in the public sector, local government. I'm personally liable for mistakes at my job. I carry insurance for it.
Isn’t there something special about the arrangement of doctors not being employed by the hospital that might explain some of the individual suits?
> In many countries
Those countries include the US btw. The rules are basically the same for all of them, that they have to have not just made a mistake, but made an unreasonable mistake. It is often hard to lose a license this way as you need to balance just shit happening, things going wrong when you made the right (or a reasonable) choice vs when you made a gross mistake. And of course, the conditions are based on decisions made a priori, not post hoc. Because post hoc is a dangerous game to play given so much more clarity.
e.g. for Doctors: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628513/
Of course, this doesn't say anything about cops or the state of affairs here in the US. What surprises me more is that despite what many think, there is quite a lot of distrust for the police.
What someone needs to tell me is how most Americans have "very little" to no confidence in Congress and they keep getting elected. Its pretty universally agreed that no one wants a geriatric in the White House yet here we are. How we distrust all our institutions and yet continue to prop them up.
At this point I'm no longer mad at them. I mad at us. We are being enablers. Even down to local elections I hear so much uproar and low polling rates and yet watch these officials get reelected. I don't think it is foul play because I hear people talk about how they hold their nose while voting. City, county, state, or federal, it is all the same.
Clearly we've made our own bed, but we just don't want to lie in it. If you're going to half ass your job you can't complain about how shitty everything is. Before you go blaming others, take a long look in the mirror. I'm sure __you__ are better than that, just the way __you__ can't be manipulated by propaganda and how __you__ can't be tricked by scams. Clearly, we've been played. Clearly we're still being played. So stop blaming your neighbor or pointing to others until you look in the mirror. We all need to do it if we're going to get our shit together. Because we're all in this together, for better or worse.
But what I fear most is that because we'd rather stroke our egos to claim our own team is best we won't ever realize that it is this action that creates the radicals. It is my fear that we won't solve problems before they are problems. That we believe so much in "don't fix what ain't broke" that we won't ever perform basic maintenance. It is far more expensive to fix what is broken than to fix what isn't. My fear is we won't fix things until the streets run red. And that's my biggest fear, that we, the people, won't realize that the blood isn't just on the hands of the elites, but that it is on ours too. We are happy to play the mafia boss who has fully convinced himself and matter-of-factly asks "do you see blood on my hands?"
[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-...
Those countries include the US btw. The rules are basically the same for all of them, that they have to have not just made a mistake, but made an unreasonable mistake. It is often hard to lose a license this way as you need to balance just shit happening, things going wrong when you made the right (or a reasonable) choice vs when you made a gross mistake. And of course, the conditions are based on decisions made a priori, not post hoc. Because post hoc is a dangerous game to play given so much more clarity.
e.g. for Doctors: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628513/
Of course, this doesn't say anything about cops or the state of affairs here in the US. What surprises me more is that despite what many think, there is quite a lot of distrust for the police.
What someone needs to tell me is how most Americans have "very little" to no confidence in Congress and they keep getting elected. Its pretty universally agreed that no one wants a geriatric in the White House yet here we are. How we distrust all our institutions and yet continue to prop them up.
At this point I'm no longer mad at them. I mad at us. We are being enablers. Even down to local elections I hear so much uproar and low polling rates and yet watch these officials get reelected. I don't think it is foul play because I hear people talk about how they hold their nose while voting. City, county, state, or federal, it is all the same.
Clearly we've made our own bed, but we just don't want to lie in it. If you're going to half ass your job you can't complain about how shitty everything is. Before you go blaming others, take a long look in the mirror. I'm sure __you__ are better than that, just the way __you__ can't be manipulated by propaganda and how __you__ can't be tricked by scams. Clearly, we've been played. Clearly we're still being played. So stop blaming your neighbor or pointing to others until you look in the mirror. We all need to do it if we're going to get our shit together. Because we're all in this together, for better or worse.
But what I fear most is that because we'd rather stroke our egos to claim our own team is best we won't ever realize that it is this action that creates the radicals. It is my fear that we won't solve problems before they are problems. That we believe so much in "don't fix what ain't broke" that we won't ever perform basic maintenance. It is far more expensive to fix what is broken than to fix what isn't. My fear is we won't fix things until the streets run red. And that's my biggest fear, that we, the people, won't realize that the blood isn't just on the hands of the elites, but that it is on ours too. We are happy to play the mafia boss who has fully convinced himself and matter-of-factly asks "do you see blood on my hands?"
[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/394283/confidence-institutions-...
Because in all those professions, there is enough time to follow a process, or (in the case of pilots) their survival is linked to the survival of everyone else.
In a typical police apprehension, there may be a second or less to draw your weapon and fire. Nobody would take the job if they had to be perfect or lose their freedom or life savings.
Speaking of life savings, most of the criminals they apprehend have nothing to lose. So maybe you're on to something. Let's hire police who are currently incarcerated and have no assets, family or wealth to lose. Then they can be subject to the draconian measures of your fantasy and worst case is they got a few months of freedom. Smart guy you are:)
In a typical police apprehension, there may be a second or less to draw your weapon and fire. Nobody would take the job if they had to be perfect or lose their freedom or life savings.
Speaking of life savings, most of the criminals they apprehend have nothing to lose. So maybe you're on to something. Let's hire police who are currently incarcerated and have no assets, family or wealth to lose. Then they can be subject to the draconian measures of your fantasy and worst case is they got a few months of freedom. Smart guy you are:)
Then why do cops and government officials get QI in non-emergency situations?
it is possible to distinquish between situations in a court
I am pleased how X/Twitter responded to this request.
X/Twitter notified the person, sent a copy of the the subpoena, suggested legal representation, provided recommendations, and defied the NYPD order of silence.
X/Twitter notified the person, sent a copy of the the subpoena, suggested legal representation, provided recommendations, and defied the NYPD order of silence.
> The notification included a copy of the subpoena, which warned X not to tell Clancy of its existence. "You are not to disclose or notify any customer or third party of the existence of this subpoena or that records were provided pursuant to this subpoena," the document read.
> But X, following its own corporate policy, told Clancy anyway, and suggested he might want to get some legal representation to fight the subpoena, recommending the American Civil Liberties Union.
When the police dept wrote: "You are not to disclose or notify any customer..." is that a legal demand backed by law, or simply a request? I wish I knew more. I suspect it is a request, and that is why Twitter would ignore it. I am sure that Twitter has very conservative internal and external legal counsel to advise on these matters. Plus, there must be many, many of these requests from NYPD.
> Last Wednesday, Sachs wrote to the NYPD to challenge the administrative subpoena, which the NYPD had sent on its own authority, without any warrant or judicial approval. If the NYPD did not withdraw the subpoena, Sachs told the NYPD, Clancy would go to court with a motion to quash it.
If it's not backed by a court order, it's a polite request.
But even when it's a court demand, companies have several different counter-measurements. For example, they can tell the court "we can't provide data because we don't have that data" (Signal does this), or "we do have that data, but extracting it is resource-intensive, so the court should pay up" (some of the "Twitter Files" were precisely about this), or straight up ignoring non-American court orders (this is or at least was Reddit's general policy).
If it's not backed by a court order, it's a polite request.
But even when it's a court demand, companies have several different counter-measurements. For example, they can tell the court "we can't provide data because we don't have that data" (Signal does this), or "we do have that data, but extracting it is resource-intensive, so the court should pay up" (some of the "Twitter Files" were precisely about this), or straight up ignoring non-American court orders (this is or at least was Reddit's general policy).
My question was about telling the end customer that you are sharing data due to subpoena.
They also could have done the complete opposite. Imagine your life being in the hands of Twitter.
Your life isn’t in the hands of twitter. It’s in the hands of NYPD, an institution designed to protect the public.
While it’s certainly nice to have, we shouldn’t have an expectation that a private business to defend us from the corruption of the police. Like, that’s a much bigger problem that Twitter does or doesn’t do
While it’s certainly nice to have, we shouldn’t have an expectation that a private business to defend us from the corruption of the police. Like, that’s a much bigger problem that Twitter does or doesn’t do
>It’s in the hands of NYPD, an institution designed to protect the public.
It's not at all designed to protect the public; in the US the police don't even have a legal duty to protect the public. It's designed to enforce the law.
It's not at all designed to protect the public; in the US the police don't even have a legal duty to protect the public. It's designed to enforce the law.
Walgreens and CVS do the opposite with our medical data. They turn it over to police without even a warrant.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/12/cvs-rite-aid-walgree...
There should be consequences when large service providers fail to protect the rights of their customers. Walgreens/CVS are pretty close to a duopoly.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/12/cvs-rite-aid-walgree...
There should be consequences when large service providers fail to protect the rights of their customers. Walgreens/CVS are pretty close to a duopoly.
Sounds like twitter acted more ethically than government department. So I guess I choose twitter.
I mean technically Twitter could have hired a hit man to come after you too. But they didn't. So I don't get the point
I'm afraid I don't get your point either. Hit man?
The police overreached here, and the only thing that protected the victim was, of all things, Twitter.
The police are supposed to be the good guys, but that obviously wasn't the case here. My comment was merely expressing surprise at the irony of the situation.
The police overreached here, and the only thing that protected the victim was, of all things, Twitter.
The police are supposed to be the good guys, but that obviously wasn't the case here. My comment was merely expressing surprise at the irony of the situation.
why has nobody responded to this comment? the OP should yield to this comment
fuzztester(1)
I doubt this is the only request that NYPD sent in this matter. How did the other companies behave?
The NYPD may have pulled this request to avoid scrutiny, but they probably didn't pull all the similar requests that succeeded. The problem is that it's impossible to generate standing in the court if you can't know about their requests.
The NYPD may have pulled this request to avoid scrutiny, but they probably didn't pull all the similar requests that succeeded. The problem is that it's impossible to generate standing in the court if you can't know about their requests.
I am baffled by the fact that NYPD can avoid the determination of legality by withdrawing subpoenas.
It seems like it would be in X/Meta/Alphabet's interest to get the question in front of a judge in order to require warranted subpoenas.
It seems like it would be in X/Meta/Alphabet's interest to get the question in front of a judge in order to require warranted subpoenas.
If I were to send an illegal demand to someone (like say a threat of blackmail / extortion), can I simply "withdraw" the demand once it reaches court?
Absolutely ridiculous.
> If I were to send an illegal demand to someone (like say a threat of blackmail / extortion),
The distinction is that blackmail and extortion are crimes. It's the act of sending them itself that is the crime, not the demand. If you withdraw it, it doesn't matter, because the crime already happened.
There's no criminal statute here. The NYPD asked for something. Someone challenged it as being "not something the NYPD is allowed to ask for". The NYPD said "never mind, you're right". That's the end of the story. If you want the law granting the NYPD the power to issue subpoenas to be withdrawn or modified, the solution is to elect representatives to do that for you. Courts are just the backstop for this process, and an imperfect one.
The distinction is that blackmail and extortion are crimes. It's the act of sending them itself that is the crime, not the demand. If you withdraw it, it doesn't matter, because the crime already happened.
There's no criminal statute here. The NYPD asked for something. Someone challenged it as being "not something the NYPD is allowed to ask for". The NYPD said "never mind, you're right". That's the end of the story. If you want the law granting the NYPD the power to issue subpoenas to be withdrawn or modified, the solution is to elect representatives to do that for you. Courts are just the backstop for this process, and an imperfect one.
For patent trolls, the answer is typically yes. Though that’s not “illegal”.
If I remember correctly you can send illegal DMCA requests as many as you want?
I think this may be confusing "without legal approval" with "prohibited by law". For example, I could type up a letter to my neighbor that he must paint his car blue because that's the law 'round these parts... However that wouldn't necessarily be a crime, it's just be dumb/wrong.
That said, if a law was passed to make "knowingly or recklessly false warrants" a crime, that might be one way to approach the issue.
That said, if a law was passed to make "knowingly or recklessly false warrants" a crime, that might be one way to approach the issue.
It's just like pickpocketing in Skyrim; it's legal if you just withdraw.
> can I simply "withdraw" the demand once it reaches court?
For the per se dispute, absolutely. That's what you went to court to get.
If your demand caused damages, that's a separate controversy that isn't cured by withdrawal.
For the per se dispute, absolutely. That's what you went to court to get.
If your demand caused damages, that's a separate controversy that isn't cured by withdrawal.
Do lawyer fees count as damages?
Judge: How do you plead?
Defendant: J/K!!!! lulz!!!!!
Judge: case dismissed! <bang>
It probably depends on how wealthy the defendant is (if an individual), or the size of the the org defendant represents. If you're a LEO type of org, then I'm honestly shocked the judge didn't just dismiss with prejudice from the off
Defendant: J/K!!!! lulz!!!!!
Judge: case dismissed! <bang>
It probably depends on how wealthy the defendant is (if an individual), or the size of the the org defendant represents. If you're a LEO type of org, then I'm honestly shocked the judge didn't just dismiss with prejudice from the off
[deleted]
LEO? Lower earth orbit?
It's not clear that will actually work. Courts are on to the trick of evading judicial review by rendering some issue moot, and there is precedent to work around it. For example, see the "Mootness" discussion in this recent 1st amendment case (Nutt vs. Ritter, 2023):
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-e-d-nor-car-sou...
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-e-d-nor-car-sou...
Because courts use mootness to allow law enforcement to escape criticism all the time.
Why in their interest?
To determine once and for all how to act when receiving this kind of subpoena, or to get police departments to stop sending them, whichever is cheapest.
Processing warrantless subpoenas costs time and money. Given that we're talking about fairly rational megacorporations, though, it's likely they've already decided that the legal battle would cost more.
> Processing warrantless subpoenas costs time and money.
You can actually bill police departments for that. It's not as common when it comes to basic records, but it's not uncommon when it comes to wiretaps/trap and trace.
You can actually bill police departments for that. It's not as common when it comes to basic records, but it's not uncommon when it comes to wiretaps/trap and trace.
In other words, it is an actual cash revenue stream for the business.
They cover the costs of complying although likely wouldn't cover the costs of determining that a request was warrantless and rejecting it, so the incentives align with just blindly complying with everything.
> Processing warrantless subpoenas costs time and money.
Takes me two seconds to throw out the junk mail in my mailbox. Sometimes I save it as firestarter.
How is a “warrantless subpoena” any different? (Maybe it is, actually asking here).
Takes me two seconds to throw out the junk mail in my mailbox. Sometimes I save it as firestarter.
How is a “warrantless subpoena” any different? (Maybe it is, actually asking here).
Because they will go to a court to move to enforce it...
How would you know it's warrantless without further time investment? It's likely cheaper and safer to blindly process any subpoena originating from an authoritative source than to request and validate proof of warrant. Of course, it would be even cheaper to never receive such a subpoena in the first place. Securing a ruling against their legality would help with that, but as I said, it's unlikely the ends justify the means for a rational megacorporation.
I’m guessing there’s some obvious telltale that there’s a warrant (signed/stamped by judge, possibly on court letterhead instead of police letterhead).
Also possible to separate the streams of input. Maybe can’t force it, but having a “warrants” stream that gets priority triage and another for “other” that works a lot slower because it’s mostly garbage. Can create a shit list for those that abuse the “warrants” stream.
Also possible to separate the streams of input. Maybe can’t force it, but having a “warrants” stream that gets priority triage and another for “other” that works a lot slower because it’s mostly garbage. Can create a shit list for those that abuse the “warrants” stream.
> I’m guessing
I'm not, at least in the extent I've participated in subpoena response and had conversations with an employer's counsel in that connection.
If you're b2c and past a certain point of scale, it just becomes an overhead, a bit of a pain but no big deal. That's if you respond promptly and completely - any company that screws around with something credibly subpoena-shaped is taking a dangerous risk; that's a great way to draw the interest of courts ("contempt of"), and SDNY in particular is known for being quite proddy.
I'm not, at least in the extent I've participated in subpoena response and had conversations with an employer's counsel in that connection.
If you're b2c and past a certain point of scale, it just becomes an overhead, a bit of a pain but no big deal. That's if you respond promptly and completely - any company that screws around with something credibly subpoena-shaped is taking a dangerous risk; that's a great way to draw the interest of courts ("contempt of"), and SDNY in particular is known for being quite proddy.
Doesn't sound very safe to shitlist NYPD.
Which seems to be what NYPD are attempting to leverage.
If you received an illegal subpoena from the government you wouldn’t have any costs associated with it at all? Just throw it in the trash, move on with your day, and surely you will never have to think about it again?
At least where I work, if a random user bypasses the helpdesk with an informal request, my manager will back me up if they complain about no-response because there’s a formal method to follow for a reason.
It’s not an “illegal” subpoena, police can try and ask whatever they want, but I’m assuming there’s no penalties for ignoring.
But I asked a question, maybe there are exceptions and you must respond anyway despite lack of warrant.
While there could be reasons considered valid to respond to an informal request (some urgent life/safety matter), the police can and do lie, but are less likely to do so to a judge.
Lived in a building once where management agreed to police installed warrantless spycams in some hallways and told management it was to investigate a car theft ring, but it was some guy (edit:) storing drugs and keeping to themself.
Sadly, I don’t think there’s any kind of post-review of urgent informal requests to assess validity/accuracy of the request with consequences.
It’s not an “illegal” subpoena, police can try and ask whatever they want, but I’m assuming there’s no penalties for ignoring.
But I asked a question, maybe there are exceptions and you must respond anyway despite lack of warrant.
While there could be reasons considered valid to respond to an informal request (some urgent life/safety matter), the police can and do lie, but are less likely to do so to a judge.
Lived in a building once where management agreed to police installed warrantless spycams in some hallways and told management it was to investigate a car theft ring, but it was some guy (edit:) storing drugs and keeping to themself.
Sadly, I don’t think there’s any kind of post-review of urgent informal requests to assess validity/accuracy of the request with consequences.
When the subpoena comes from the government, it seems potentially short-sighted to assume that the same government is going to be as kind as your manager regarding a random user's complaint.
Also, like the article explains, it is possibly illegal for them to send this warrantless subpoenas. Further, they are not simply "asking," as you describe - the text of the subpoena starts off "We command you," and ends with the explicit threat of legal action if twitter fails to comply.
Also, like the article explains, it is possibly illegal for them to send this warrantless subpoenas. Further, they are not simply "asking," as you describe - the text of the subpoena starts off "We command you," and ends with the explicit threat of legal action if twitter fails to comply.
Its not illegal to ask for voluntary cooperation. Its illegal to issue a subpoena under color of authority you don't actually have. It clearly stated this happened.
> Its not illegal to ask for voluntary cooperation
Cooperation obtained under false pretences may be fraud.
Cooperation obtained under false pretences may be fraud.
>Its not illegal to ask for voluntary cooperation.
Privacy laws exist, with exceptions for illegal behavior. It may well be illegal to give data to cops unless you have user permission or a warrant (IANAL).
Privacy laws exist, with exceptions for illegal behavior. It may well be illegal to give data to cops unless you have user permission or a warrant (IANAL).
Are those walls bulletproof in the building? If that "keeps to himself" druggie lost his stash or got in a tight spot, you'd be clamoring about how the police didn't "see the signs" and act to stop the illegal activity before the stray bullet claimed innocent lives.
If lives are at stake, then what is the problem with getting a warrant?
It's not the cameras that GP is complaining about, it is the lack of warrant.
It's not the cameras that GP is complaining about, it is the lack of warrant.
It's possible for a document to be submitted in error, in actual good faith. Not to say it was in this case, nor that we don't need more accountability for abuse, but there could be legitimate reason to skip this judgement if it's withdrawn appropriately. Especially when it's done by an organization without this history of abuse.
Did Michael Gerber, the Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, commit the crime of perjury by signing a document asserting he had authority which clearly he did not?
It's also odd that the PDF redacted the name of Michael Gerber, the Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, when the NYPD issued a press announcement naming him (https://www.publicnow.com/view/A505A75813F7F2F483905D075F4AD...) and tout him on their public website (https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/bureaus/administrative/legal.p...)
It seems that either Michael Gerber, the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, is clueless about the law, which reflects poorly on his Harvard Law alma matter, or Michael Gerber, the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, was illegally using threats and coercion and false subpoenas to investigate political opponents and chill free speech.
Either way, this does not reflect well on Michael Gerber, the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, nor the Harvard Law school from which he allegedly graduated.
It's also odd that the PDF redacted the name of Michael Gerber, the Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, when the NYPD issued a press announcement naming him (https://www.publicnow.com/view/A505A75813F7F2F483905D075F4AD...) and tout him on their public website (https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/bureaus/administrative/legal.p...)
It seems that either Michael Gerber, the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, is clueless about the law, which reflects poorly on his Harvard Law alma matter, or Michael Gerber, the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, was illegally using threats and coercion and false subpoenas to investigate political opponents and chill free speech.
Either way, this does not reflect well on Michael Gerber, the NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, nor the Harvard Law school from which he allegedly graduated.
I've lived in NYC for almost 15 years. I've never seen a more corrupt and shiftless organization than the NYPD. It's almost comical. I grew up in a small, Midwestern town and was never anti-cop until moving here, and it got immeasurably and irreparably worse during the George Floyd protests. Every single time anything ever got accelerated or instigated, it was by the police and not by a single protestor. Between the kettling, the instigation, and disrespect it became clear that they're a glorified gang that has operates with almost complete impunity and it shocks me that anyone in the city respects them or considers them a friend to the common good.
The most common run-in I have with them is standing at a crosswalk or sitting in an Uber and watching them put on the sirens and move everyone out of the way just so they don't have to sit in traffic. I'd estimate seeing this happen, oh, I don't know, about a thousand times while simultaneously I have never once seen them pull anyone over for any kind of traffic or moving violation.
The most common run-in I have with them is standing at a crosswalk or sitting in an Uber and watching them put on the sirens and move everyone out of the way just so they don't have to sit in traffic. I'd estimate seeing this happen, oh, I don't know, about a thousand times while simultaneously I have never once seen them pull anyone over for any kind of traffic or moving violation.
The LASD literally has multiple gangs internally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs
I’ve lived in NYC much longer than that and the NYPD during the past 15 years has, whenever I’ve observed them, which is many times, been very professional.
During that time period, NYPD tried to involuntarily commit one of their own police officers to a mental institution when he tried to blow the whistle on some of the corruption, with full knowledge of top brass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
wtf are you talking about? The dude was held against his will for 6 days in a psychiatric facility
If he wanted, he could continue to press this in court, even after its was withdrawn. There is precedent in at least some jurisdictions for this: otherwise, bad actors could keep avoiding judicial scrutiny just like the NYPD is doing here.
Lawyers don't do this though because the best thing to do for their client is get the NYPD to withdraw, not fight a lengthy and expensive legal battle over the NYPD's subpoena power.
The NYPD would legally fight to retain this power to the bitter end.
The NYPD would legally fight to retain this power to the bitter end.
Not to mention lawyers have to work with the police fairly regularly. They see fostering an adversarial relationship as bad for them.
So while the police may have broken the law, caused damages, etc, and whatever, other police aren't going to pursue it and neither will most district attorneys.
So while the police may have broken the law, caused damages, etc, and whatever, other police aren't going to pursue it and neither will most district attorneys.
There’s also a significant personal risk. The NYPD has been very casual about abusing their powers before and anyone fighting it that hard might find it necessary to leave the city if they didn’t want 100% enforcement targeting them personally.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/whistle-blower-p...
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/whistle-blower-p...
> NYPD has been very casual about abusing their powers before and anyone fighting it that hard might find it necessary to leave the city
That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops. It's obviously criminal. But the NYPD is sued all the time, and I haven't seen evidence of them systematically acting vindictively against either plaintiffs nor their attorneys.
That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops. It's obviously criminal. But the NYPD is sued all the time, and I haven't seen evidence of them systematically acting vindictively against either plaintiffs nor their attorneys.
> But the NYPD is sued all the time, and I haven't seen evidence of them systematically acting vindictively against either plaintiffs nor their attorneys.
That'd be a full time job. Over the last 15 years, NYC has been paying out a million dollars per WEEK for NYPD abuse of power lawsuits alone.
That'd be a full time job. Over the last 15 years, NYC has been paying out a million dollars per WEEK for NYPD abuse of power lawsuits alone.
get real, they'll be vindictive if you file too many 311 complaints
I agree that it’s unlikely but going after their subpoena ability seems like the kind of thing which would be taken personally.
> That was a cop collecting evidence on fellow cops.
Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this somehow justifies the gang behavior?
Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this somehow justifies the gang behavior?
> Why is that relevant? Are you implying that this somehow justifies the gang behavior?
Explaining, not justifying. Gang-like organisations react more forcefully to perceived betrayal (one up from competition) than bog-standard adversarialism.
Explaining, not justifying. Gang-like organisations react more forcefully to perceived betrayal (one up from competition) than bog-standard adversarialism.
Explaining why something happens doesn't go very far proving it doesn't?
> Explaining why something happens doesn't go very far proving it doesn't?
Not sure what you're getting at. I'm asking for evidence of someone suing the NYPD in the manner this journalist might be harassed in the manner a cop collecting evidence on other cops was.
Not sure what you're getting at. I'm asking for evidence of someone suing the NYPD in the manner this journalist might be harassed in the manner a cop collecting evidence on other cops was.
To me it works the other way round. You wouldn't want evidence it will happen, you would want evidence it wont happen. I think there will be no consequences if they go there?
> neither will most district attorneys
Why would a DA pursue it? Is there an allegation of a crime by the NYPD?
This looks like a civil matter. The NYPD is sued for--and pays out on--civil damages all the time.
Why would a DA pursue it? Is there an allegation of a crime by the NYPD?
This looks like a civil matter. The NYPD is sued for--and pays out on--civil damages all the time.
> Lawyers don't do this though because the best thing to do for their client is get the NYPD to withdraw
This is where groups like the ACLU come in.
This is where groups like the ACLU come in.
The ACLU on their own doesn't have standing. They still have to best represent their client.
Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred.
The ACLU would only have the opportunity if this kind of subpoena was used on the ACLU itself.
Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred.
The ACLU would only have the opportunity if this kind of subpoena was used on the ACLU itself.
> Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred.
This is not true. Check out the American Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...).
Broadly speaking, lawyers are bound to the client's wishes, and are expected to represent their client the best they can under those circumstances.
If a lawyer's client wants to sue the NYPD, even if the chances of winning are slim, they can represent that client (barring some niche scenarios).
This is how the ACLU typically works. They find someone with standing who cares enough to bother with following the lawsuit through and they represent that person.
This is not true. Check out the American Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...).
Broadly speaking, lawyers are bound to the client's wishes, and are expected to represent their client the best they can under those circumstances.
If a lawyer's client wants to sue the NYPD, even if the chances of winning are slim, they can represent that client (barring some niche scenarios).
This is how the ACLU typically works. They find someone with standing who cares enough to bother with following the lawsuit through and they represent that person.
I'm not saying that they wouldn't. I'm saying that they shouldn't.
The client isn't the only person with things to lose here, it's their sources who are at risk if he loses the case.
The client wouldn't pursue it for journalistic ethics reasons.
The client isn't the only person with things to lose here, it's their sources who are at risk if he loses the case.
The client wouldn't pursue it for journalistic ethics reasons.
> not saying that they wouldn't. I'm saying that they shouldn't.
You said it would be grounds for disbarment.
You said it would be grounds for disbarment.
Yes if people are harmed by your actions as an attorney that is my opinion of what should happen.
This seems like a spurious attribution of harm. If a client wants to take an ill-advised approach I expect the attorney to inform them that it is ill-advised and why, but I do not believe the attorney bears any blame for subsequent harm.
I think it also presumes that attorneys fill a role that they do not.
The law, and attorney professional conduct, presumes that litigants are reasonable, rational people who are entitled to weigh their own pros and cons and arrive at a conclusion. Attorneys are there to provide context and information, but are not the decision maker. Note that the 6th Amendment guarantees a person the right to counsel, but specifically says the defendant has the right to know the charges, face their accuser, etc.
You can see this in the competency standards for trial from Dusky v US:
"It is not enough for the district judge to find that 'the defendant is oriented to time and place and has some recollection of events', but that the test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding -- and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."
Or Godinez v Moran:
"The standard adopted by the Ninth Circuit is whether a defendant who seeks to plead guilty or waive counsel has the capacity for "reasoned choice" among the alternative available to him."
Edit: Courts are also aware of and can accommodate sensitive sources. The ACLU could also drop the case at any point if discovery would require disclosing sensitive sources, same as NYPD have done.
I think it also presumes that attorneys fill a role that they do not.
The law, and attorney professional conduct, presumes that litigants are reasonable, rational people who are entitled to weigh their own pros and cons and arrive at a conclusion. Attorneys are there to provide context and information, but are not the decision maker. Note that the 6th Amendment guarantees a person the right to counsel, but specifically says the defendant has the right to know the charges, face their accuser, etc.
You can see this in the competency standards for trial from Dusky v US:
"It is not enough for the district judge to find that 'the defendant is oriented to time and place and has some recollection of events', but that the test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding -- and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him."
Or Godinez v Moran:
"The standard adopted by the Ninth Circuit is whether a defendant who seeks to plead guilty or waive counsel has the capacity for "reasoned choice" among the alternative available to him."
Edit: Courts are also aware of and can accommodate sensitive sources. The ACLU could also drop the case at any point if discovery would require disclosing sensitive sources, same as NYPD have done.
> if people are harmed by your actions as an attorney that is my opinion of what should happen
This isn't how disbarment works. Given we're in an adversarial system, I'm glad it doesn't. (Could you imagine a lawyer refusing to advance litigation against a city because it would harm the city's taxpayers?!)
This isn't how disbarment works. Given we're in an adversarial system, I'm glad it doesn't. (Could you imagine a lawyer refusing to advance litigation against a city because it would harm the city's taxpayers?!)
> (Could you imagine a lawyer refusing to advance litigation against a city because it would harm the city's taxpayers?!)
Your client doesn't have a responsibility to protect the city's taxpayers.
This client does have a responsibility to protect their sources.
Your client doesn't have a responsibility to protect the city's taxpayers.
This client does have a responsibility to protect their sources.
> This client does have a responsibility to protect their sources
An ethical responsibility. Not a legal one. Not the lawyer's job, and certainly not the legal bar's. That's not only presumptuous, it's unprofessional and potentially dangerous.
An ethical responsibility. Not a legal one. Not the lawyer's job, and certainly not the legal bar's. That's not only presumptuous, it's unprofessional and potentially dangerous.
> Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred
This is a novel take. Were this me, I'd require my lawyer pursue the NYPD for the cost of the original legal fees. They would not refuse.
This is a novel take. Were this me, I'd require my lawyer pursue the NYPD for the cost of the original legal fees. They would not refuse.
See my response to NewJazz.
> See my response to NewJazz
Sure, and I'd expect them to explain that to me. But to outright refuse--I would have a serious issue with that.
EDIT: Just asked. Friend, my counsel and partner at a Big Law firm. He'd absolutely do it.
Sure, and I'd expect them to explain that to me. But to outright refuse--I would have a serious issue with that.
EDIT: Just asked. Friend, my counsel and partner at a Big Law firm. He'd absolutely do it.
Refusing is easy. As about two dozen attorneys have told my family members in their case after taking tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of their money:
"I can no longer represent you in this case."
As for your friend, I'm not even sure I care unless this lands squarely in his practice area. Once it gets to court NYPD's lawyers could just say some handwavey "homeland security" shit and your judge might just piss their robes and rule against you.
In civil matters it's always better to seek agreement outside of court.
"I can no longer represent you in this case."
As for your friend, I'm not even sure I care unless this lands squarely in his practice area. Once it gets to court NYPD's lawyers could just say some handwavey "homeland security" shit and your judge might just piss their robes and rule against you.
In civil matters it's always better to seek agreement outside of court.
> As about two dozen attorneys have told my family members in their case after taking tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of their money
Not that you have to disclose, but I am taking an educated guess, as someone who has also worked for a (very) large law firm...
You reference a single civil case.
Where "two dozen" attorneys have each been retained as counsel, done work for your family on this one case, and every one of the two dozen of them have individually withdrawn their representation?
At some point (multiple points, really), something has to be very very wrong here:
Who are these attorneys who are all constantly withdrawing from your family's case, and why? That to me (and please, I am not attempting to judge) sounds like 1) their client (your family) failed to disclose fairly substantial material information to them, causing them to withdraw, or 2) their client has been notably/repeatedly uncooperative with their attempts to represent them, or 3) their client has (repeatedly) ignored statements about the futility of their case, and stubbornly pushed it forward, still.
And then we get to the court. A judge that doesn't raise an eyebrow at the second withdrawal of an attorney, let alone twenty plus is comatose at the bench. In my area, a capital city, judges want explanations from attorneys on their withdrawal, and the predicament doing so might leave their client in. They've even been ordered to brief public defenders (I know, criminal) before they could withdraw. Hell, even civil continuance orders for more than a month or so require justification as to why the continuance need be that long.
Not that you have to disclose, but I am taking an educated guess, as someone who has also worked for a (very) large law firm...
You reference a single civil case.
Where "two dozen" attorneys have each been retained as counsel, done work for your family on this one case, and every one of the two dozen of them have individually withdrawn their representation?
At some point (multiple points, really), something has to be very very wrong here:
Who are these attorneys who are all constantly withdrawing from your family's case, and why? That to me (and please, I am not attempting to judge) sounds like 1) their client (your family) failed to disclose fairly substantial material information to them, causing them to withdraw, or 2) their client has been notably/repeatedly uncooperative with their attempts to represent them, or 3) their client has (repeatedly) ignored statements about the futility of their case, and stubbornly pushed it forward, still.
And then we get to the court. A judge that doesn't raise an eyebrow at the second withdrawal of an attorney, let alone twenty plus is comatose at the bench. In my area, a capital city, judges want explanations from attorneys on their withdrawal, and the predicament doing so might leave their client in. They've even been ordered to brief public defenders (I know, criminal) before they could withdraw. Hell, even civil continuance orders for more than a month or so require justification as to why the continuance need be that long.
Some of these things are close enough to true, but my family has semi-famously been involved in an in-family legal battle that has been ongoing in various forms since 1989. Everyone involved on both sides has been a complete asshole to each other, lawyers, the court and uninvolved family members (like myself).
This particular court is very slow and exceptionally so since COVID. This current appeal was supposed to have a decision 3 years ago and that still hasn't happened and we know there will be no court date for at least 6 months.
This particular court is very slow and exceptionally so since COVID. This current appeal was supposed to have a decision 3 years ago and that still hasn't happened and we know there will be no court date for at least 6 months.
> Refusing is easy
Nobody claimed otherwise.
> not even sure I care unless this lands squarely in his practice area
He asked a litigation partner who represented me the one time Nassau County police got cute with me. In that case, we weighed being aggressive after the department pulled its accusations and I decided not to pursue given my financial condition. Were that to happen today, I'd decide differently.
> your judge might just piss their robes and rule against you
Sure. And I'd have wasted time and money and possibly more.
> In civil matters it's always better to seek agreement outside of court
Constrained to the case or controversy, sure. But that isn't always the entire picture. Seeing that context is what separates the great lawyers from the commodity ones.
Nobody claimed otherwise.
> not even sure I care unless this lands squarely in his practice area
He asked a litigation partner who represented me the one time Nassau County police got cute with me. In that case, we weighed being aggressive after the department pulled its accusations and I decided not to pursue given my financial condition. Were that to happen today, I'd decide differently.
> your judge might just piss their robes and rule against you
Sure. And I'd have wasted time and money and possibly more.
> In civil matters it's always better to seek agreement outside of court
Constrained to the case or controversy, sure. But that isn't always the entire picture. Seeing that context is what separates the great lawyers from the commodity ones.
> Sure. And I'd have wasted time and money.
No, you'd have pinned your NYPD officer sources asses up against the wall because you leaked their information by losing your subpoena fight.
THAT is why this wouldn't be pursued in court.
No, you'd have pinned your NYPD officer sources asses up against the wall because you leaked their information by losing your subpoena fight.
THAT is why this wouldn't be pursued in court.
> you'd have pinned your NYPD officer sources asses up against the wall because you leaked their information by losing your subpoena fight
Why is that my problem?
Why is that my problem?
Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred.
Even if the client asks for that?
Even if the client asks for that?
Are you even thinking about the risks if he loses the case?
He'd be giving up his sources and even opening himself up to the risk of them investigating him and charging him with other crimes.
Any intelligent attorney would advise their client against it.
Once you go to court anything can happen and either way it's prohibitively expensive.
People in my own family have done nothing wrong and lost everything they owned fighting in civil court over smaller stakes than this. Going to civil court is the absolute last resort. Nobody wins but the attorneys.
Going to court is only worth it in criminal cases and insurance/liability cases.
/s used to work at one of the largest lawfirms in the US.
He'd be giving up his sources and even opening himself up to the risk of them investigating him and charging him with other crimes.
Any intelligent attorney would advise their client against it.
Once you go to court anything can happen and either way it's prohibitively expensive.
People in my own family have done nothing wrong and lost everything they owned fighting in civil court over smaller stakes than this. Going to civil court is the absolute last resort. Nobody wins but the attorneys.
Going to court is only worth it in criminal cases and insurance/liability cases.
/s used to work at one of the largest lawfirms in the US.
What a lawyer would "advise against" and what they "should be disbarred for doing" is not nearly the same thing.
Is that the only way the ACLU works? Can't they offer to cover the expense of the person with standing by either using their attorneys or footing the bill for the team already in place?
> Can't they offer to cover the expense of the person with standing by either using their attorneys or footing the bill for the team already in place?
This is how they actually work.
This is how they actually work.
Provided you're fighting for the liberties they care about.
> Provided you're fighting for the liberties they care about
Sure. The point is the ACLU doesn't wait to get sued itself. That would be stupid. It finds test cases and supports them with external resources.
Sure. The point is the ACLU doesn't wait to get sued itself. That would be stupid. It finds test cases and supports them with external resources.
This is a judgment call. The courts could respect the idea that this is a sword hanging over the plaintiff, even if this specific case becomes moot. This has happened elsewhere in first amendment cases. In no way is this something that would merit disbarment.
I love the closing quote.
> Clancy, for his part, said that he's undaunted, and that the NYPD has no business rummaging through his social media content and metadata.
> "Why would you use a shower curtain and close the bathroom door when you take a shower, if you have nothing to hide?" he asked. "Because it's none of your business, that's why. What the police might want to know and what they have a legal right to know are two different things."Unaddressed is why nothing is done, by the target of the subpeona, the NYCLU, the court, the city, or someone else, about this practice and about the apparent investigation into critics.
They all seem to treat it as a one-off event, when it doesn't seem to be. I can guess at the difficulties involved, but the question isn't raised and the issues aren't examined.
They all seem to treat it as a one-off event, when it doesn't seem to be. I can guess at the difficulties involved, but the question isn't raised and the issues aren't examined.
The lawyers in the NYPD that signed off on the subpoena should face ethics charges. There seems to be no gray area here on multiple levels. The NYPD knew it wasn't a valid subpoena and they told X not to inform the account holder.
What's HIDTA? Is that the "high intensity drug trafficking area"? What does that have to do with cop-watching? Maybe they're trying to plant some cocaine on this guy and get him sent away?
Also wtf kind of email is [email protected]? I guess it probably means "New York New Jersey High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area" but why do they need their own domain? Why not just use an NYPD email?
Weird stuff.
https://lede-admin.hellgatenyc.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/...
Also wtf kind of email is [email protected]? I guess it probably means "New York New Jersey High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area" but why do they need their own domain? Why not just use an NYPD email?
Weird stuff.
https://lede-admin.hellgatenyc.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/...
The drug divisions almost all police departments in all major cities are completely riddled with corruption.
They're dealing with the primary monetary fault line of organized crime and gangs.
And drug enforcement is their big cover for almost all abuses.
We need to decriminalize and end the drug war, if only just to stop the Mexican drug gangs.
To take it to a higher geopolitical level... China is likely undergo a demographic collapse soon and possibly one due to totalitarian government paralysis. The geopolitical significance of petroleum is vastly decreasing with EVs American bakken shale oil supply and alternative energy. That means the u.s probably will not be policing the oceans as much to enable free extended trade and logistics lines.
So we will be onshoring manufacturer, and likely a great deal of it in Mexico.
So we're going to need to solve the Mexican drug problem and our drug war in a constructive manner in the next decade
They're dealing with the primary monetary fault line of organized crime and gangs.
And drug enforcement is their big cover for almost all abuses.
We need to decriminalize and end the drug war, if only just to stop the Mexican drug gangs.
To take it to a higher geopolitical level... China is likely undergo a demographic collapse soon and possibly one due to totalitarian government paralysis. The geopolitical significance of petroleum is vastly decreasing with EVs American bakken shale oil supply and alternative energy. That means the u.s probably will not be policing the oceans as much to enable free extended trade and logistics lines.
So we will be onshoring manufacturer, and likely a great deal of it in Mexico.
So we're going to need to solve the Mexican drug problem and our drug war in a constructive manner in the next decade
The NYPD actually has 'international offices':
* https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nypd-stationed-oversea...
* https://archive.is/ZOYiw / https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/terrorism-nypd-i...
* https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/nypd-stationed-oversea...
* https://archive.is/ZOYiw / https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/terrorism-nypd-i...
I’m not sure how I feel about the logistics of this.
On the one hand, municipality to municipality (Antwerp to NYC) makes sense since both will have similar challenges in law enforcement activities.
On the other hand, this seems to be a channel that bypasses the Feds, who are ultimately the ones with the National Security purview, and most/all foreign threats to NYC will pass through the Feds jurisdiction (border control, customs, coast guard etc)
On the one hand, municipality to municipality (Antwerp to NYC) makes sense since both will have similar challenges in law enforcement activities.
On the other hand, this seems to be a channel that bypasses the Feds, who are ultimately the ones with the National Security purview, and most/all foreign threats to NYC will pass through the Feds jurisdiction (border control, customs, coast guard etc)
> most/all foreign threats to NYC will pass through the Feds jurisdiction (border control, customs, coast guard etc)
After 9/11, it seems fair for New York to want to take anti-terrorism into its own hands, even if that duplicates certain federal functions. (I'm not arguing it's effective. Just that it makes sense for the city to not entirely trust the Feds.)
After 9/11, it seems fair for New York to want to take anti-terrorism into its own hands, even if that duplicates certain federal functions. (I'm not arguing it's effective. Just that it makes sense for the city to not entirely trust the Feds.)
Does it? Why does the NYPD have an office in Tel Aviv for example?
> Why does the NYPD have an office in Tel Aviv for example?
Presumably to coördinate intelligence? (I'm guesing.)
If you don't trust the Feds, your options are to partner or duplicate that capability in house. Partnering seems the cheaper option.
Presumably to coördinate intelligence? (I'm guesing.)
If you don't trust the Feds, your options are to partner or duplicate that capability in house. Partnering seems the cheaper option.
foreign intelligence is outside the purview of a domestic municipal police department. the US does not allow foreign municipalities to install police departments on US soil.
> foreign intelligence is outside the purview of a domestic municipal police department
Demonstrably, not the NYPD's.
> US does not allow foreign municipalities to install police departments on US soil
Sure. But those foreign countries allowed them. And again, nobody is granting the NYPD extraterritorial policing powers. They're there to collaborate on intelligence.
Demonstrably, not the NYPD's.
> US does not allow foreign municipalities to install police departments on US soil
Sure. But those foreign countries allowed them. And again, nobody is granting the NYPD extraterritorial policing powers. They're there to collaborate on intelligence.
>> foreign intelligence is outside the purview of a domestic municipal police department
> Demonstrably, not the NYPD's.
Is it demonstrable? Allow me to skeptical until New York's Finest crack a case that the NSA, CIA, and FBI can't handle.
This looks like a cushy assignment for some people with union pull.
> Demonstrably, not the NYPD's.
Is it demonstrable? Allow me to skeptical until New York's Finest crack a case that the NSA, CIA, and FBI can't handle.
This looks like a cushy assignment for some people with union pull.
The NYPD has had a Joint Terrorism Task Force with the FBI since 1980.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/joint-terrorism-ta...
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/joint-terrorism-ta...
And not what we're talking about. Not even relevant.
You want an actual relevant link? Here you go!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/terrorism-nypd-i...
>Other law enforcement and intelligence agencies, particularly the F.B.I. and C.I.A., have opposed the department’s overseas deployment. Mr. Kelly was criticized for sharing information about terror attacks in London in 2005 and Mumbai in 2008. Federal officials have also complained about the police “freelancing” their own terrorism investigations.
What are these "terrorism" investigations? Jewelry store robberies.
>But Chief Galati said the mission of the program had shifted over time, and these days his officers were investigating other crimes. “As it evolved from terrorism, we started to see more and more criminal cases coming up,” Chief Galati said. He cited an instance where some of the $800,000 worth of watches taken in a December 2017 gunpoint robbery from the A. Lange & Söhne boutique on Madison Avenue were tracked down to a pawnshop in Amman, Jordan. “The world is a small place,” Chief Galati said.
You want an actual relevant link? Here you go!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyregion/terrorism-nypd-i...
>Other law enforcement and intelligence agencies, particularly the F.B.I. and C.I.A., have opposed the department’s overseas deployment. Mr. Kelly was criticized for sharing information about terror attacks in London in 2005 and Mumbai in 2008. Federal officials have also complained about the police “freelancing” their own terrorism investigations.
What are these "terrorism" investigations? Jewelry store robberies.
>But Chief Galati said the mission of the program had shifted over time, and these days his officers were investigating other crimes. “As it evolved from terrorism, we started to see more and more criminal cases coming up,” Chief Galati said. He cited an instance where some of the $800,000 worth of watches taken in a December 2017 gunpoint robbery from the A. Lange & Söhne boutique on Madison Avenue were tracked down to a pawnshop in Amman, Jordan. “The world is a small place,” Chief Galati said.
> Is it demonstrable? Allow me to skeptical until New York's Finest crack a case that the NSA, CIA, and FBI can't handle.
It's demonstrable that foreign intelligence is within the NYPD's purview given they're doing it. No claims were made about efficacy.
Also, I don't think the NYPD aims to crack cases the Feds can't. It's more about directing resources towards areas they believe the Fed's aren't monitoring effectively or won't commit the resources they believe it deserves. If something were picked up, the NYPD would loop in the Feds.
It's demonstrable that foreign intelligence is within the NYPD's purview given they're doing it. No claims were made about efficacy.
Also, I don't think the NYPD aims to crack cases the Feds can't. It's more about directing resources towards areas they believe the Fed's aren't monitoring effectively or won't commit the resources they believe it deserves. If something were picked up, the NYPD would loop in the Feds.
>It's demonstrable that foreign intelligence is within the NYPD's purview given they're doing it. No claims were made about efficacy.
No. If an animal control officer starts delivering mail, that doesn’t mean mail delivery is now part of the Department of Fish and Game.
There is a terms for this: a bureaucratic overreach, wasteful government spending, a distraction.
What do you think a city cop can even do in a foreign country? What resource does the NYPD even have?? Who is going to say, “I can’t talk the local cops, or the local intelligence agency, nor can I tell the Americans directly, but maybe i can tell some foreign country’s local cop! But I can’t just tell them directly. If only this foreign country’s local police had an office here!”
An NYPD cop has less training and less resources than someone working for a federal intelligence agency. That’s just the truth. It’s a post-9/11 grift founded by former police commissioner, convicted felon, and embezzler, Bernie Kerik.
That’s what it is. It’s obvious, and it was obvious almost 23 years ago. Come on! The NYPD Israeli office isn’t even in the Israeli capital. It’s in a beach resort!
No. If an animal control officer starts delivering mail, that doesn’t mean mail delivery is now part of the Department of Fish and Game.
There is a terms for this: a bureaucratic overreach, wasteful government spending, a distraction.
What do you think a city cop can even do in a foreign country? What resource does the NYPD even have?? Who is going to say, “I can’t talk the local cops, or the local intelligence agency, nor can I tell the Americans directly, but maybe i can tell some foreign country’s local cop! But I can’t just tell them directly. If only this foreign country’s local police had an office here!”
An NYPD cop has less training and less resources than someone working for a federal intelligence agency. That’s just the truth. It’s a post-9/11 grift founded by former police commissioner, convicted felon, and embezzler, Bernie Kerik.
That’s what it is. It’s obvious, and it was obvious almost 23 years ago. Come on! The NYPD Israeli office isn’t even in the Israeli capital. It’s in a beach resort!
Exactly what coordination of intelligence is required? To me this would be like my local utility needing to have an anti-nuclear proliferation Taskforce with another utility from a different country...
They can freely engage in 4A breaches outside US soil. The Israeli panopticon is for sale to interested parties.
They don't?!
I guess the real question that is not openly posed is whether NYPD has mandate do that before we even get to the part as to whether it is cost-effective, warranted or even desirable. Sheriff of my podunk lil town doesn't run work with Italy's podunk town mayor for example.
Ah yes, coordinating intelligence half way across the planet with the same country that legalises its IT companies selling illegal tracking of political and ethnic targets.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_Project_(investigati...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_Project_(investigati...
They have a subway system in Tel Aviv. I'm sure they will be happy to have NYPD patrolling it, keeping it safe. /s
You see things like this and wonder how that money escapes scrutiny when everything else is debated endlessly.
You see things like this and wonder how that money escapes scrutiny when everything else is debated endlessly.
That doesn't really make sense, will the NYPD start patrolling airports in Europe and flights to the US?
I was surprised to see US border control at Toronto Pearson but I suppose it makes sense to screen passengers on this side given the proximity of Toronto to a US workforce, and it would alleviate US airports to receive Canadian traffic as a pseudo-domestic arrival (I assume this is what happened when I flew YYZ->DFW)
They do this in a number of other places that have lots of flights to the US.
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance
> Today, CBP has more than 600 officers and agriculture specialists stationed at 15 Preclearance locations in 6 countries: Dublin and Shannon in Ireland; Aruba; Bermuda; Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates; Nassau in the Bahamas; and Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Victoria, and Winnipeg in Canada.
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance
> Today, CBP has more than 600 officers and agriculture specialists stationed at 15 Preclearance locations in 6 countries: Dublin and Shannon in Ireland; Aruba; Bermuda; Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates; Nassau in the Bahamas; and Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Victoria, and Winnipeg in Canada.
Not just the US. UK passport control going from France to England by ferry is on the French side of the channel.
And vice versa.
The French Border Police are quite different in attitude to the UK Border Force.
The French Border Police are quite different in attitude to the UK Border Force.
It allows Canadian flights to go to (US) domestic airports, including those without active customs.
the other reason is that if canadian traffic can come into the US as domestic pre-cleared, then travelers are free to transfer within the US much more easily. this makes things much easier for places that do not have direct connections to Canadian airports.
(in the US, even if transiting to another country you are required to clear US customs.)
(in the US, even if transiting to another country you are required to clear US customs.)
It's not just Canada, there are several countries in this program: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/preclearance
> will the NYPD start patrolling airports in Europe and flights to the US?
To my knowledge, the NYPD doesn't patrol outside its borders. The international offices are for coördinating intelligence.
To my knowledge, the NYPD doesn't patrol outside its borders. The international offices are for coördinating intelligence.
I keep hearing (from abroad) about the "militarisation of the police" in the US. Unless the NYPD took this as far as SAM batteries, what could they do against another 9/11, given the original four planes didn't take off from NY state let alone city?
The only thing anyone can do against another 9/11 is what we've already done. Reinforced cockpit doors.
All the rest is just bullshit and security theater (Which NYC is exceedingly good at.)
All the rest is just bullshit and security theater (Which NYC is exceedingly good at.)
> unless the NYPD took this as far as SAM batteries, what could they do against another 9/11
Notify the Feds.
(Though I guess we can shoot down planes now? [1])
[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/nypd-able-to-shoot-down-planes...
Notify the Feds.
(Though I guess we can shoot down planes now? [1])
[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/nypd-able-to-shoot-down-planes...
[deleted]
The NYPD's budget in FY 2024 is 5.3 *BILLION* dollars[0]
This is more than total military expenditure of Romania.[1]
A $115 million of this 5.3 billion was used to settle lawsuits last year.[2]
[0] https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/nyregion/nypd-police-misc...
This is more than total military expenditure of Romania.[1]
A $115 million of this 5.3 billion was used to settle lawsuits last year.[2]
[0] https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/nyregion/nypd-police-misc...
The NYPD's budget is also a significant underestimate, since the NYPD typically blows through hundreds of millions of dollars of additional overtime funding each year[1]. It would be accurate to say that the NYPD's budget is both gigantic and under-accounted.
[1]: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/nypd-overspending-on-ov...
[1]: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/nypd-overspending-on-ov...
NYPD has more resources than most countries' militaries
> NYPD has more resources than most countries' militaries
It has a more complicated remit than most countries' militaries. (For example, the NYPD functions as the UN's ersatz security force.)
It has a more complicated remit than most countries' militaries. (For example, the NYPD functions as the UN's ersatz security force.)
Get rid of the UN and the statement would likely still be true.
Their budget is roughly equivalent to 2020 Ukraine's.
Their budget is roughly equivalent to 2020 Ukraine's.
> Get rid of the UN and the statement would likely still be true
Get rid of the UN and the NYPD can be smaller.
And it's not just the UN. New York is a second diplomatic capital. So you're also replicating D.C.'s consular security force. This is before we get to it being a financial and cultural centre, to say nothing of the largest city in America and a precedented target of international terrorism.
> budget is roughly equivalent to 2020 Ukraine's
New York City's economy is double the size of Ukraine's pre-war economy [1][2]. Were it a country, it would sit between Turkey and Indonesia, eclipsing even the economy of Saudi Arabia [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City#Gross...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine#Main_econom...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
Get rid of the UN and the NYPD can be smaller.
And it's not just the UN. New York is a second diplomatic capital. So you're also replicating D.C.'s consular security force. This is before we get to it being a financial and cultural centre, to say nothing of the largest city in America and a precedented target of international terrorism.
> budget is roughly equivalent to 2020 Ukraine's
New York City's economy is double the size of Ukraine's pre-war economy [1][2]. Were it a country, it would sit between Turkey and Indonesia, eclipsing even the economy of Saudi Arabia [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City#Gross...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ukraine#Main_econom...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
The fact remains that single cities in the US - NY is hardly the only example - have budgets, manpower, and weaponry that exceed much of the world's nation states.
Chicago and LA are roughly #60 on the list of the world's militaries.
Chicago and LA are roughly #60 on the list of the world's militaries.
> fact remains that single cities in the US - NY is hardly the only example - have budgets, manpower, and weaponry that exceed much of the world's nation states
And I'm contextualising it. Given its population and economy, the NYPD should have the resources of similarly-sized nation-states.
> we're the third highest in percent of GDP spent on cops
America is definitely over-policed. I'm not sure New York is.
And I'm contextualising it. Given its population and economy, the NYPD should have the resources of similarly-sized nation-states.
> we're the third highest in percent of GDP spent on cops
America is definitely over-policed. I'm not sure New York is.
> Given its population and economy, the NYPD should have the resources of similarly-sized nation-states.
I just can't say I agree with this statement. NYC itself being part of an even bigger nation-state should mean that a number of the responsibilities that fall under the purview of your example similarly sized nation-states militaries/establishments are likewise handled by NYC's parent state, allowing for efficiencies that free up resources better spent on other programs. On its face the duplication of effort on several levels seems wasteful.
E: So my thesis is that I agree that NYC should have the resources of similarly-sized nation-states, however they could be better apportioned.
I just can't say I agree with this statement. NYC itself being part of an even bigger nation-state should mean that a number of the responsibilities that fall under the purview of your example similarly sized nation-states militaries/establishments are likewise handled by NYC's parent state, allowing for efficiencies that free up resources better spent on other programs. On its face the duplication of effort on several levels seems wasteful.
E: So my thesis is that I agree that NYC should have the resources of similarly-sized nation-states, however they could be better apportioned.
I agree. I also can't see a New York politician dismantling that infrastructure, given the downsides that would result were a plot to get through. (Irrespective of whether the NYPD's international offices would have helped.)
Cops over-bully people but the actual policing is severely lacking. There's a problem with funding and allocation of said funds. So that apparent over-policedness is a result of under-policying. :/
[deleted]
> I'm not sure New York is.
By $ it seems almost certainly; by capability perhaps not.
By $ it seems almost certainly; by capability perhaps not.
why are you comparing NYC police force to Ukraine military rather than Ukraine police force? The fact that anyone sees the roles as comparable is a lot of the problem.
I'm not disagreeing with how ridiculous it is, but when you have their commissioners making statements confirming that they can shoot down aircraft, we've moved past the normal definition of a police force: https://nationalpost.com/news/nypd-able-to-shoot-down-planes...
> why are you comparing NYC police force to Ukraine military rather than Ukraine police force?
I never cited either figure? I'm comparing the sizes of GDPs.
I never cited either figure? I'm comparing the sizes of GDPs.
Assuming that's true for the sake of argument, it shouldn't be that surprising given that NYC is more-populous than the long tail of "most" countries as well. Having 8.5 million people puts it near Austria, Switzerland, Hong Kong [0], or Serbia.
[0] Yeah yeah, "one country two systems", whatever, it's still a relevant comparison.
[0] Yeah yeah, "one country two systems", whatever, it's still a relevant comparison.
NYC has a higher GDP than most countries. So what?
> The NYPD actually has 'international offices':
I wonder whether the media is going to write hysterical propaganda pieces about this, like they did with chinese 'international offices'.
With the media, it's always accuse others of what you are doing.
I wonder whether the media is going to write hysterical propaganda pieces about this, like they did with chinese 'international offices'.
With the media, it's always accuse others of what you are doing.
Not sure what you consider "hysterical propaganda", but this is a thing that has been widely, and critically, covered in the media for decades.
Isn't a Chinese international office called a consulate? Why would it come across as strange that they would have them?
They are accused and indeed 2 charged with running essentially outposts for the ccp gestapo to spy on citizens and former citizens living abroad and critics.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-are-chinas-allege...
Its not hysteria at all.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-are-chinas-allege...
Its not hysteria at all.
> like they did with chinese 'international offices'
The NYPD's international offices do not have policing powers. They can't arrest people. They can't search or seize suspects. They're there with the full knowledge and coöperation of their hosts.
The Chinese police departments were exercising police powers on foreign soil without the host countries' permission. Night and day.
The NYPD's international offices do not have policing powers. They can't arrest people. They can't search or seize suspects. They're there with the full knowledge and coöperation of their hosts.
The Chinese police departments were exercising police powers on foreign soil without the host countries' permission. Night and day.
Why do you write 'cooperation' with an umlaut?
Probably a diaeresis, a diacritic which indicates that two vowels aren't to be read as a digraph or diphthong. It's fancy and pretentious, and frequently seen in New Yorker articles.
I went through a phase of this because it made sense and I didn’t realize that it wasn’t standard English.
It is standard English, just somewhat antiquated at this point. Still, you see it quite a bit with "naïve".
> Why do you write 'cooperation' with an umlaut?
I grew up speaking French, English and a variant of German and have trouble not reading the double-o as a long vowel. After that autocorrect picked up on it and it doesn't bother me enough to change it.
I grew up speaking French, English and a variant of German and have trouble not reading the double-o as a long vowel. After that autocorrect picked up on it and it doesn't bother me enough to change it.
In English words it's a diaeresis.
simpletone(1)
Of course they do. They're the military for the country of New York City. There's also an intelligence bureau with overseas offices too. They regularly conduct undercover buys at gun shops in foreign nations like Ohio and Virginia. Personally I hope that they'll sign peace treaties with these other places someday. Too much hate in the world.
> They're the military for the country of New York City.
no, there is a lot of law and history to make those laws.. that specifically and in great detail, separate the roles, responsibilities, oversight, legal powers and funding, for obvious reasons.
no, there is a lot of law and history to make those laws.. that specifically and in great detail, separate the roles, responsibilities, oversight, legal powers and funding, for obvious reasons.
it really is funny how much abuse by the government people in the US will tolerate if it's by cops and not the tax office or trying to make the health insurance market slightly less insane.
why is that? is it like australia, where everyone is just deep down a narc?
why is that? is it like australia, where everyone is just deep down a narc?
Lobbying and marketing.
Police make money and provide services for profitable corporations.
Taxes cost profitable corporations money, except when they're really annoying to deal with, in which case they give money to a small group of corporations.
So taxes are designed to be as irritating and painful as possible, and are continually attacked, whereas police are defended.
Police make money and provide services for profitable corporations.
Taxes cost profitable corporations money, except when they're really annoying to deal with, in which case they give money to a small group of corporations.
So taxes are designed to be as irritating and painful as possible, and are continually attacked, whereas police are defended.
> why is that?
Because the same group of people that hate the tax office and a working healthcare system also have a deep pathological fear of the underclasses rising up. And the only thing that will protect them from this is a gang of uniformed thugs.
That group also holds ~half the political power in the country.
Because the same group of people that hate the tax office and a working healthcare system also have a deep pathological fear of the underclasses rising up. And the only thing that will protect them from this is a gang of uniformed thugs.
That group also holds ~half the political power in the country.
> a deep pathological fear of the underclasses rising up
At least in New York, support for the police diminishes with income. Manhattan is the anti-police borough. The richest neighbourhoods within it elect the most anti-police politicians (with few exceptions).
At least in New York, support for the police diminishes with income. Manhattan is the anti-police borough. The richest neighbourhoods within it elect the most anti-police politicians (with few exceptions).
Yes, famous examples like Bloomberg
I’m talking in the last decade. I was closely involved with Manhattan electoral politics 2014 to 2021. It’s not a coïncidence that the outer boroughs elected an ex cop.
No, it's not a coincidence but that doesn't mean its because of what you said. Go to the wealthiest parts of Manhattan and see if they don't want the cops.
> Go to the wealthiest parts of Manhattan and see if they don't want the cops
They want cops. But they vote for restrictions. It’s a bit paradoxical, but one would repeatedly see e.g. the Upper East Side request more officers and overwhelmingly support legal restrictions, independent oversight and transferring cops’ workloads to social workers.
They want cops. But they vote for restrictions. It’s a bit paradoxical, but one would repeatedly see e.g. the Upper East Side request more officers and overwhelmingly support legal restrictions, independent oversight and transferring cops’ workloads to social workers.
I don’t think it’s paradoxical at all, it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that we should have more police AND they should do their jobs according to the law
Not in the wealthiest parts they don't. Go to the UES, they are not for "defunding the police" or whatever else you seem to think. The things you describe aren't "anti-police" and you are disingenuously associating reasonable restrictions, like independent oversight and the inclusion of social workers in responses when they would be appropriate, with something like district attorneys that do not wish to prosecute various categories of crimes. To be honest I didn't take you to be this disingenuous based on your earlier post, but this is just ridiculous.
for most people the day to day interaction with police is positive. For example, i know the names of the police that patrol my neighborhood and we wave/chit chat whenever i'm out walking my dogs and they drive by. The only interaction i have with the tax office is a form I have to fill out and a check I have to write. Further, it seems no matter how much money i hand over the quality of social service remains the same. My local public schools are funded in a large part by my property tax, it has skyrocketed but the schools are the same disaster they've always been.
Why would a subpoena have a warrant?
It doesn't need a warrant, but a subpoena is just to compel Twitter/X to release the information, while a warrant would legally require Twitter/X to release the information.
The issue is that the subpoena told Twitter/X not to inform the accountholder that their information was going to be given to the NYPD, nor inform the accountholder of the subpoena's existence. While that's enforceable with a warrant, it is not enforceable with a subpoena.
This shows how NYPD is attempting to compel companies to provide them with personal information of users, and keep it secret from the users, all without needing a judge's approval or warrant. That is not the proper channel to do this, and they know they have no legal leg to stand on which is why they aren't going to try to fight it's legitimacy in court.
The issue is that the subpoena told Twitter/X not to inform the accountholder that their information was going to be given to the NYPD, nor inform the accountholder of the subpoena's existence. While that's enforceable with a warrant, it is not enforceable with a subpoena.
This shows how NYPD is attempting to compel companies to provide them with personal information of users, and keep it secret from the users, all without needing a judge's approval or warrant. That is not the proper channel to do this, and they know they have no legal leg to stand on which is why they aren't going to try to fight it's legitimacy in court.
My understanding as a non-practitioner is that subpoenas are addressed to a person (individual or corporate) compelling them to produce evidence or testimony, while a warrant is addressed to police, giving them the power to effect a specific search, seizure, or arrest.
Yes, but if presented with a warrant for your property (ex. subscriber information) you must comply or be charged with obstructing justice or impeding an investigation.
When presented with an administrative subpoena not backed by a warrant you may be able to deny the subpoena without being guilty of such crimes.
When presented with an administrative subpoena not backed by a warrant you may be able to deny the subpoena without being guilty of such crimes.
Subpoenas are never "backed by a warrant." Probably what you mean is a subpoena signed by a judge, rather than the self-issued "administrative" subpoena being discussed here.
Per Federal Law (Stored Communications Act), authorities that want to access electronic records need a court-issued warrant. This failed to meet that requirement.
The article does a bad job explaining why this subpoena is different from a regular subpoena. The "warrentless subpoena" bit is really misleading.
However it does look like this is different from the normal subpoena process. This doesn't seem to be part of discovery - there is no action. The referenced "Section 14-137 of the New York City Administrative Code" seems to basically grant the NYPD commissioner powers a judge usually has. So there is something to worry about.
However it does look like this is different from the normal subpoena process. This doesn't seem to be part of discovery - there is no action. The referenced "Section 14-137 of the New York City Administrative Code" seems to basically grant the NYPD commissioner powers a judge usually has. So there is something to worry about.
There are two types of subpoenas in use: 1) police-issued ("administrative"); 2) court-issued ("warranted").
Having been the victim of these on many occasions, I can also see the original article seems to have things slightly twisted. The SCA gives the power to any governmental body to subpoena metadata from providers under an administrative subpoena without notice to the user. 18 U.S. Code § 2703(c)(2) I think.
It's the content of records that starts to get into constitutional areas such as 4th Amend. requirements.
Having been the victim of these on many occasions, I can also see the original article seems to have things slightly twisted. The SCA gives the power to any governmental body to subpoena metadata from providers under an administrative subpoena without notice to the user. 18 U.S. Code § 2703(c)(2) I think.
It's the content of records that starts to get into constitutional areas such as 4th Amend. requirements.
The fourth amendment requires them for search and seizures.
Can you provide any example of a "warranted subpoena"?
All court orders are warrants. That is the most basic definition of a warrant. So a subpoena issued by the court is warranted. A subpoena not issued by a court but accompanied by a separate warrant for the same information constitutes a warranted search or seizure where failure to comply with said search/seizure by the warranted party (ie. law enforcement) could constitute multiple crimes depending on the circumstances.
> fourth amendment requires them for search and seizures
The third-party doctrine muddies this under current law.
The third-party doctrine muddies this under current law.
This is what confuses me. NYPD subpoenaed Twitter. Twitter said "no".
I don't understand why Rabbi Copwatch would be involved in fighting the subpoena.
Rabbi Copwatch should sue NYPD for infringing his civil rights by spying on him.
He has nothing to defend against. Under current law, if he doesn't want NYPD siezing papers and effects about him from Twitter, that is not his papers and effects, he needs to stop giving copies of data about himself to Twitter. I don't like that law, but I think that's where the law sits today.
I don't understand why Rabbi Copwatch would be involved in fighting the subpoena.
Rabbi Copwatch should sue NYPD for infringing his civil rights by spying on him.
He has nothing to defend against. Under current law, if he doesn't want NYPD siezing papers and effects about him from Twitter, that is not his papers and effects, he needs to stop giving copies of data about himself to Twitter. I don't like that law, but I think that's where the law sits today.
My understanding is that the customer of a service (like Twitter or an ISP) can sometimes file a motion to quash a subpoena given to their service provider. It depends on the jurisdiction and the nature of the case, however.
"warrantless subpoena" is a nonsense phrase.
> Mallory McGee, an attorney with the NYPD Legal Bureau, using another email attached to the drug task force.
This action puts Mallory at risk of getting disbarred. Submitting illegal subpoena's under the color of authority is fraudulent and a disbarrable offense.
Multiple people at the NYPD broke the law and should face criminal action.
This action puts Mallory at risk of getting disbarred. Submitting illegal subpoena's under the color of authority is fraudulent and a disbarrable offense.
Multiple people at the NYPD broke the law and should face criminal action.
NYPD is famously full of criminals who abuse their position and it seems unlikely to change any time soon
> NYPD is famously full of criminals
There are ways to hold lawyers accountable that sadly don't exist for cops.
There are ways to hold lawyers accountable that sadly don't exist for cops.
At this point the only option to hold police accountable is at the ballot box. The voters need to vote for politicians who will change the system. Or not, if we're getting what we want.
This is similar to a shareholder action for a public company that is being run poorly (however you define that), but where the board is also complicit. No choice except to vote for new board members. If you want, and care enough, and can get enough others to care enough also.
This is similar to a shareholder action for a public company that is being run poorly (however you define that), but where the board is also complicit. No choice except to vote for new board members. If you want, and care enough, and can get enough others to care enough also.
But voters have to stick with said politician while they rebuild the security force.
If a politician, who is technically the boss, starts to clean house of the unified and armed tribe supposedly meant to work for the people of the city, the tribe will usually make quality of life for everyone go down, if not just from the myriad legal challenges, but also from work slowdowns and stoppage.
So then the question is will voters stand by the politician while crime goes up and unsolved for the 10+ years it takes to rebuild a more accountable police force (which isn’t a guarantee either).
If a politician, who is technically the boss, starts to clean house of the unified and armed tribe supposedly meant to work for the people of the city, the tribe will usually make quality of life for everyone go down, if not just from the myriad legal challenges, but also from work slowdowns and stoppage.
So then the question is will voters stand by the politician while crime goes up and unsolved for the 10+ years it takes to rebuild a more accountable police force (which isn’t a guarantee either).
Also don't forget at least 40% of the board, employees, and other shareholders are ADAMANT that the internal armed tribe which is actively harming everyone in retribution are actually the good things, call them a tiny cyan boundary, keeping the world from anarchy.
Speaking of crimes, I've murdered this analogy
Speaking of crimes, I've murdered this analogy
The people that exert force over us to enforce restrictions, often to the extent that it infringes on civil rights (and sometimes to the extent that it ruins the subject's life), qualify for immunity from responsibility for their actions! And their friends refuse to step in when doing so is clearly the moral choice.
Hey, wait... this sounds a lot like a gang. How did the rebel nation get so "cucked"?
Hey, wait... this sounds a lot like a gang. How did the rebel nation get so "cucked"?
NYPD? All the way up. Last I heard, Adams appointed an NYPD Chief being investigated by the FBI for $300,000 of unexplained cash in his bank account as the public safety officer. [1]
And there's only been a straw donor scheme with multiple guilty pleas, a fundraiser with $150,000 in unexplained gifts, and illegally accepted donations from Turkish citizens resulting in FBI seizure of electronic devices. [2] This all feels like it's gonna get a Clarence Thomas response.
[1] https://nypost.com/2022/01/07/mayor-eric-adams-hires-ex-nypd...
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/13/investigations-eric...
And there's only been a straw donor scheme with multiple guilty pleas, a fundraiser with $150,000 in unexplained gifts, and illegally accepted donations from Turkish citizens resulting in FBI seizure of electronic devices. [2] This all feels like it's gonna get a Clarence Thomas response.
[1] https://nypost.com/2022/01/07/mayor-eric-adams-hires-ex-nypd...
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/13/investigations-eric...
He’s making sure the public is safe from misspent funds by keeping the funds in his personal bank account. Nothing to see here.
The Clay Davis way! "I'm cutting through all the red tape. Then I load my pockets up with cash, and by the time I do my walk through the neighborhoods, it's all gone!"
Anecdotally most vice in New York City is now more or less run through the police or involves some form of NYPD protection racket. Every couple years a large prostitution or drug ring gets broken up and it's always current and former officers running them. Barely makes the headlines. I know people here who have bought drugs from police officers.
There was an NYPD officer who was an active tong member in NY....
I'll take the other side of the bet if any will offer. This guy won't be disbarred. Will play on manifold markets or with real money here in SF. Up to maybe $1k. They are not at any risk.
Cynical nihilism may be a good prediction market bet but it doesn’t make a very interesting HN comment.
Interestingness may be in the eye of the beholder, but it's neither cynical nor nihilist to observe what usually happens in situations like this and to make predictions about the future based on observations of the past.
Accurate is more important than interesting
It's not cynical nihilism. There's a lot of things I believe in. Just not this.
Many people get this kind of dopamine hit from saying that something is going to happen (similar to the one from telling people you're going to do something). "Twitter is going to fail in 2 weeks" / "Trump will be impeached next month" / "Hunter Biden is going to be jailed". It's traumschadenfreude.
Wishcasting is a kind of interesting, yes, but I think truth seeking is more interesting.
Many people get this kind of dopamine hit from saying that something is going to happen (similar to the one from telling people you're going to do something). "Twitter is going to fail in 2 weeks" / "Trump will be impeached next month" / "Hunter Biden is going to be jailed". It's traumschadenfreude.
Wishcasting is a kind of interesting, yes, but I think truth seeking is more interesting.
[deleted]
> The notification included a copy of the subpoena, which warned X not to tell Clancy of its existence. "You are not to disclose or notify any customer or third party of the existence of this subpoena or that records were provided pursuant to this subpoena," the document read.
> But X, following its own corporate policy, told Clancy anyway, and suggested he might want to get some legal representation to fight the subpoena, recommending the American Civil Liberties Union.
That's actually the first decent thing I've heard about x since the rename. Good job!
(I assume there won't be any penalties for this action given that it was warrantless in the first place.)
> But X, following its own corporate policy, told Clancy anyway, and suggested he might want to get some legal representation to fight the subpoena, recommending the American Civil Liberties Union.
That's actually the first decent thing I've heard about x since the rename. Good job!
(I assume there won't be any penalties for this action given that it was warrantless in the first place.)
It only works if all of the platforms you use do this.
> As my lawyer put it: “Sounds like you could have a first amendment right to quash the subpoena”. Cool, let’s go.
> Surprisingly, it worked! I think it cost around $7,000 but the subpoena was quashed
> [While] Google was nice enough to let me know there was a subpoena for my account data but guess what? Nobody else even bothered to tell me. And by nobody else I mean: Paypal, eBay, 3 domain registrars, merch makers, VPN providers, and every other online service I had used with that email in the last five years. They had all been subpoenaed and happily handed it over without even letting me know and it works that way even to this day.
https://anons.ca/p/i-used-to-operate-a-dss-hacking-network/
> As my lawyer put it: “Sounds like you could have a first amendment right to quash the subpoena”. Cool, let’s go.
> Surprisingly, it worked! I think it cost around $7,000 but the subpoena was quashed
> [While] Google was nice enough to let me know there was a subpoena for my account data but guess what? Nobody else even bothered to tell me. And by nobody else I mean: Paypal, eBay, 3 domain registrars, merch makers, VPN providers, and every other online service I had used with that email in the last five years. They had all been subpoenaed and happily handed it over without even letting me know and it works that way even to this day.
https://anons.ca/p/i-used-to-operate-a-dss-hacking-network/
> It only works if all of the platforms you use do this
Why?
It obviously works better if more people do this. But the single notice is still working to some degree.
Why?
It obviously works better if more people do this. But the single notice is still working to some degree.
Depends on your threat model & consequences. Avoiding doxxing means you need more bulletproofing.
For OP, Twitter might have been the holy grail and they’re now cool, but maybe not if there’s $x others that have already rolled over.
For OP, Twitter might have been the holy grail and they’re now cool, but maybe not if there’s $x others that have already rolled over.
> Twitter might have been the holy grail and they’re now cool, but maybe not if there’s $x others that have already rolled over.
This is totally different from "it only works if all of the platforms you use do this." That's a collective action problem. One which does not present itself in this case, where marginal actions produce marginal benefits.
What you're now saying is the marginal actions (and thus benefits) may be bounded. Which, sure. But that also doesn't change if all the platforms "do this," but boundedly.
This is totally different from "it only works if all of the platforms you use do this." That's a collective action problem. One which does not present itself in this case, where marginal actions produce marginal benefits.
What you're now saying is the marginal actions (and thus benefits) may be bounded. Which, sure. But that also doesn't change if all the platforms "do this," but boundedly.
No, it doesn't take coordinated effort.
If one company stands up and says "no" and then discloses to the subject, it both raises the risk of exposure on other government entities considering the same and increases the likelihood of another company opposing it next time.
Both are wins to build upon.
If one company stands up and says "no" and then discloses to the subject, it both raises the risk of exposure on other government entities considering the same and increases the likelihood of another company opposing it next time.
Both are wins to build upon.
I’m very happy to hear X did the right thing by its users and by the law. One can only hope we have more Orgs like and Qwest (the latter one was taken down but the d gov in retribution).
Congress needs to let the patriot act lapse. We’re not in an emergency anymore, despite the rhetoric -it’s been over 20 years!
Congress needs to let the patriot act lapse. We’re not in an emergency anymore, despite the rhetoric -it’s been over 20 years!
Dude, the patriot act expired back in March of 2020. Trump threatened to veto it and everyone kinda just shrugged and let it expire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#Reauthorizations (scroll to the bottom of the section)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#Reauthorizations (scroll to the bottom of the section)
It's great Trump let it lapse, but there are lots of provisions still in place, such as being able to label political protestors as domestic terrorists --any of the pro or anti Hamas/Israel protesters can be labeled as such if they want to. Spying on Americans is till permissible. DHS is still in effect. Lots of added bureaucracy from that time is still there. Do we need all this overhead? The bureaucracy just keeps on growing.
Now, that's not to say some things are not necessary. We need to surveil foreign terrorists and also kerb money laundering, etc. but it should all be above board using legitimate warrants and not secret subpoenas.
Now, that's not to say some things are not necessary. We need to surveil foreign terrorists and also kerb money laundering, etc. but it should all be above board using legitimate warrants and not secret subpoenas.
Sure, but you specifically called out the patriot act, which hasn't been a thing for 4 years.
I agree. I assume that twitter doesn't do that for every subpoena they get. For some situations notifying a user that they are under investigation by police would be disastrous. That means they're likely carefully evaluating the legal requests they get instead of leaving the process largely automated or rubber stamping everything that comes though. The willingness to accept possible repercussions by informing users in some cases is really admirable.
I can imagine some companies being afraid of pissing off the NYPD. If you have a presence in new york, a police department has lots of tools at their disposal to make your life miserable even if you haven't violated the law
[deleted]
The NYPD is well known for taking attempts at oversight personally[1][2], overstepping both regulatory and legal limits in the process.
[1]: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/08/29/cop-left-creepy-voice...
[2]: https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-officer-poses-as-311-operato...
[1]: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/08/29/cop-left-creepy-voice...
[2]: https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-officer-poses-as-311-operato...
They hate citizens, they hate internal reformers [1]/[2], they hate their own families [3], and it's true of every single police department in the country.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Serpico
[3] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/07/what-if-your-a...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Serpico
[3] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/10/07/what-if-your-a...
[deleted]
Same for eg. doctors... yes, hospital can get sued, but if you, a doctor, a person, fucked up, you personally can get sued, get into trouble, lose your licence etc.
Same for truck drivers... drive too fast, kill someone, drive drunk, play flappy bird while driving... you personally responsible. Pilots, ship captains too.
etc.
Why the hell are all the public workers exempt from that? Cops, government workers, inspectors, etc.... in the best case possible, taxpayers pay for the damages and that's it. Why?! Someone wanted this subpoeana, his job is to know if s/he can actually request it, s/he signed his/her name on the paper... and then.. nothing?