[levinb]

> Just because it made your job easier doesn't mean that it was legitimate.

So, I suppose that the main point. In these cases, we weren't investigating the individual as a suspect, we were trying to understand the nature of an incident that could affect the safety of others in a relatively linear fashion.

Imagine it's 20 years ago, there's no cameras everywhere, GPS is limited to multi-meter precision - did the 50-barge tow coming down the Mississipi river with millions of tons of cargo hit the interstate bridge broadside or did it just scrape it? There's a big pylon-shaped dent in the side of a naptha barge with cement dust on it, but the captain swears he just glanced it with the grain barge at the head of the tow. It's ancient and looks like it's battered 100 docks in the past year.

So, Mr. Deckhand, what hit the bridge?

In this scenario, he is not responsible for navigating the vessel, so we assume that it's unlikley that this would evolve into an investigation that would jeopardize him. And thus are free to issue a subpoenea if needed to find out if we need to shut down the only passage over the Mississippi for 100 miles.

I think it's fair that the public has the right to his honesty in this scenario.

Of course, these powers present the potential for abuse, and I'm sure it happens. Just not in the world I ever operated in; our powers and obligations were taken very seriously internally.

[chimeracoder]

> So, I suppose that the main point. In these cases, we weren't investigating the individual as a suspect, we were trying to understand the nature of an incident that could affect the safety of others in a relatively linear fashion.

That doesn't matter. You're still talking about accessing private, sensitive data about an individual.

> I think it's fair that the public has the right to his honesty in this scenario.

Yes, and that's exactly why warrants exist. The courts are specifically responsible for determining the outcome of cases in which private rights potentially conflict with public ones (or with private rights of other parties).

> Of course, these powers present the potential for abuse, and I'm sure it happens. Just not in the world I ever operating in; our powers and obligations were taken very seriously internally.

Having worked extensively in this area, I'll be blunt and say: anytime someone who works in law enforcement says that there are no abuses of power in their workplace, that means either they were so oblivious that they never saw abuses that are occurring around them, or they were so mired in the system that they are incapable of recognizing the abuses of power that they themselves are participating in.

Out of charity, I'll assume the former. But to be honest, every time I've spoken at length about this with LEOs, it's inevitably turned out to be the latter.

[levinb]

> Out of charity, I'll assume the former. But to be honest, every time I've spoken at length about this with LEOs, it's inevitably turned out to be the latter.

I am sure this is often true at the local LE level. But remember, they deal almost entirely with criminal investigations about individuals for things that do not present a broader risk to the public (beyond their continued individual behavior).

In our case, we are not reifying 'the drug menace' to a public level; we are trying to find out if a barge is full of vegetable oil or an explosive polymerization agent. And in those cases, no, I don't think your rights to privacy supersede our obligation to understand if there's a major threat to other people.

> That doesn't matter. You're still talking about accessing private, sensitive data about an individual.

This is true and I can assure you I know quite a bit about what can be in people medical records (I am a MD who has worked extensively in medical records exchange and machine learning). I don't think accessing this kind of data should be possible without genuine need.

> Yes, and that's exactly why warrants exist.

In our case at least, warrants wouldn't even make sense. We were not conducting criminal investigations and asking for access to pursue a person against their will, in response to a crime. We were trying to find out about near-term threats to other people.

I think you and I probably agree on the spirit here - it's just that in our case (and cases like the NTSB or FAA) there are compelling public interests that supersede someones right to privacy. Finding out if you were prescribed benzos so I can charge you for some garbage possession misdemeanor is not one; finding out if there's 30,000 barrels of explosive leaking under a highway is.

No?

[chimeracoder]

> In our case at least, warrants wouldn't even make sense. We were not conducting criminal investigations and asking for access to pursue a person against their will, in response to a crime. We were trying to find out about near-term threats to other people....Finding out if you were prescribed benzos so I can charge you for some garbage possession misdemeanor is not one; finding out if there's 30,000 barrels of explosive leaking under a highway is.

Nothing you have said, in this comment or in the rest of the thread, refutes the point that warrants are the mechanism by which the legal system intermediates this power. It's quite telling that even in a completely constructed example chosen for the discussion at hand, you're not actually making a case that cops need access to people's medical information without a warrant.

> I think you and I probably agree on the spirit here - it's just that in our case (and cases like the NTSB or FAA) there are compelling public interests that supersede someones right to privacy.

No, I'm saying that it is literally not your job as a member of law enforcement to decide when the public interest "supersedes" someone's right to privacy. That's what a judge is for. That's why warrants exist.

[stackskipton]

Yes, No.

  there are compelling public interests that supersede someones right to privacy.

This is road to hell path paved with good intentions. All crime has compelling public interests to be prevented. Using that logic, cops should be able to search everywhere. It's compelling public interest to stop people who do bad things.

[caskstrength]

> And in those cases, no, I don't think your rights to privacy supersede our obligation to understand if there's a major threat to other people.

> No?

No.

[yieldcrv]

Just because you couldn't think of a tool to "understand the nature of an incident that could affect the safety of others" doesn't mean it legitimizes your department policy or personal tactics

I would be 100% fine with stripping that group of this discretion, sanctioning them, and sending them back to the drawing board on how to "understand the nature of incidents that could affect the safety of others", aka investigate.