Now the Police want a cops only net?
Yes, the Police actually want to have an easier time investigating you, and be able to stop waiting around for some person at a company to quit taking days to comply with a Subpoena.
By looking at the history of the police, and their abuse of technology, we can clearly see that each database we give them, and give them access to, is abused by someone. From the NCIC being used by then Chief of Police Southers to run background checks on people he had no business interfering with. If the former Chief of Police was running background checks on his ex-wife's new boyfriends, then how many other police officers are doing the same thing? Is this something that all the cops are doing? Are the police running people through the computer at the slightest whim of curiosity?
My belief is if you give a group a chance to screw up, then someone in that group will screw up eventually. If it is a chance to abuse power and authority, then someone will do it eventually.
The police are also hoping that changing the law will require Internet Service Providers to maintain records for up to five years. The article claims that frustrations for the police are extreme.
Hunches such as the ones described above, may be a good enough reason to take a look at someone. However, if the evidence doesn't support your hunch, you admit you made a mistake, and move along. Yet, the police in question, don't blame their hunches, they blame the evidence. Talk about shooting the messenger.
I say that the Police do NOT need a cops only Internet, and I say that the investigations were flawed from the get go. If a person is guilty, you should be able to prove that. If all you have is some weak circumstantial evidence, then the person is innocent, until proven guilty.
By looking at the history of the police, and their abuse of technology, we can clearly see that each database we give them, and give them access to, is abused by someone. From the NCIC being used by then Chief of Police Southers to run background checks on people he had no business interfering with. If the former Chief of Police was running background checks on his ex-wife's new boyfriends, then how many other police officers are doing the same thing? Is this something that all the cops are doing? Are the police running people through the computer at the slightest whim of curiosity?
My belief is if you give a group a chance to screw up, then someone in that group will screw up eventually. If it is a chance to abuse power and authority, then someone will do it eventually.
The police are also hoping that changing the law will require Internet Service Providers to maintain records for up to five years. The article claims that frustrations for the police are extreme.
Kardasz's survey, based on questionnaires completed by 100 police investigators,Allow me to translate this for you from the blame game, to human speak. The police investigated, and felt the suspect was guilty as could be. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough evidence that the guy committed the crime. So it's not that the police investigated an innocent person, it's that the Internet Service Providers didn't keep enough stuff around for the Police to prove the guy was guilty.
says that 61 percent of them had their investigations harmed "because data was
not retained" and only 40 percent were satisfied with the timeliness of
responses from Internet providers.
Hunches such as the ones described above, may be a good enough reason to take a look at someone. However, if the evidence doesn't support your hunch, you admit you made a mistake, and move along. Yet, the police in question, don't blame their hunches, they blame the evidence. Talk about shooting the messenger.
I say that the Police do NOT need a cops only Internet, and I say that the investigations were flawed from the get go. If a person is guilty, you should be able to prove that. If all you have is some weak circumstantial evidence, then the person is innocent, until proven guilty.
posted by Max Conservative at 9:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home