[tempnow987]

These are not at all comparable.

The stop and frisk program was directed towards reducing gun crime. This is a crime that is understood to be a negative for society.

Moscow is trying to reduce dissent over an invasion of another country.

Do you not see the difference here?

[efuquen]

What does the reason the police are doing it for matter? Isn't either action an egregious violation of privacy? Sometimes society has allowed these things for emergency reasons, but stop and frisk was a program that was instituted for many many years. I can't understand how you can view the forced cell phone search as a clear violation of rights but defend stop and frisk, other than one is happening in evil Russia and the other happened in the US.

People talk about stop and frisk in such an abstract sense, because it happened in poor minority neighborhoods, so most people talking about didn't have to go through. Imagine strangers being able to legally frisk your whole body for no apparent reason. It is such a huge violation of personal space and privacy and it's so demeaning, especially when you know it's being specifically targeted at your community.

[tempnow987]

Stop and frisking for guns is not getting into a thought crime type situation where what you say, are writing matters.

Asking to reviews your phone is.

One is a much more serious invasion of privacy in my view.

This is clear generally. We ALREADY walk through metal detectors at airports. We walk through body scanners. We do NOT expect to have to turn over our phones (unless going through a country border perhaps and if I expected it I'd just have a blank phone for that).

So we have already made the distinction here and it's not unreasonable (even if you don't agree that removing an assault weapon from a felon with a restraining order is different from going through someone's phone messages).

[mellavora]

> Do you not see the difference here?

Are you claiming that when the Russian cop asks if he can see your phone, he says "Excuse me, this is to reduce dissent over an invasion of a foreign country?"

The difference I see is that for the US case you accept the stated purpose ('reduce gun crime') and ignore the outcome as felt by the person on the receiving end, and for Russia, you reverse these.

[FpUser]

>"The stop and frisk program was directed towards reducing gun crime."

Anti terror laws and powers are abused and applied to a general population. The declared goals and real intention / outcome are 2 different things.

>"Do you not see the difference here"

Yes and no. There is less fig leaf in case of Russia telling people fuck you and your freedoms but either is still deeply disgusting.

[Brian-Puccio]

So the ends (gun crime reduction) justified the means (stop and frisk, subway bag searches, etc.)?

[tempnow987]

These are different levels of privacy invasion, at least in the US.

Going through a phone to check what you are thinking / saying is seen as more intrusive. So even in a stop and frisk, going through someone's phone would not generally be justified.

The rules here are very clear. In particular, even in a terry stop police generally are not authorized to seize / search your cell phone. But they can pat down your outer clothing for weapons.

[megous]

That's how it works with most things. If you ride somewhere with a tank and shoot at something, it makes a difference if you're "defending your country" vs "invading".

If you shoot at someone, it makes a difference if your goal is to stop him from shooting you, or if you're trying to kill him to steal his car.

Ends justify means. Though ends need to be justified, too.