[bombcar]

It's also ignoring that the entire process of being charged with a crime is punishment itself - even if never convicted, even if overturned on appeal.

If you've never been involved in court proceedings it will come as a surprise.

[SnazzyUncle]

Yep. I didn't want to get into all of that because it would have made the post even longer tbh.

[mjburgess]

OK, so reflecting on the world at the moment. Do you want the police to suspend investigating all complaints involving social media, or to continue to investigate them?

If you choose the first one, then you're preventing the investigation of mass riots, conspiracy to murder, mass disruption of public infrastructure -- and so on. All which have happened in the last 9mo, and gone through the courts. BUT you do have the advantage that police wont, once in a blue moon, turn up to someone's house and investigae them for a bit of nonesense that disappears within a day or at most a month when a real judge has looked at the case.

If you choose two, then you can still offer guidance to local police forces to be more careful in assessing complaints -- guidance which has almost certainly been given, since the gov arent happy theyre being distracted with this BS.

Now ask yourself: who at the moment really wants option number 1?

[SnazzyUncle]

> OK, so reflecting on the world at the moment. Do you want the police to suspend investigating all complaints involving social media, or to continue to investigate them?

Yes. I do. I want them to put resources into catch the criminals in my area that have been stealing motor vehicles instead as that actually affect me and my community. Not policing social media.

[mjburgess]

The criminals in your area are probably plotting those thefts on whatsapp.

I dont know what century you think this is, if you're sincere about catching criminals you would want even more intrusion into online spaces.

[SnazzyUncle]

They could you know arrest the person and search the phone under suspicion, or get a court order. They don't need mass surveillance. Maybe they should do their job and actually investigate it, which they don't do.

You can always justify more infringements on personal liberties under the guise of stopping crime, protecting the children, stopping the terrorists. That doesn't mean we should.

What we shouldn't be doing is using resources to find people saying naughty words on facebook (which is literally what they do).

This was literally posted here like last week, I suggest you read it:

https://www.privacyguides.org/articles/2025/04/11/encryption...

[mrguyorama]

>if you're sincere about catching criminals you would want even more intrusion into online spaces

Why?

For 40 years, Police in the US have been given basically carte-blanche to do whatever dragnet surveillance they want, as long as it "technically" is done by a third party they just buy services from. Police have had constant and perfect visibility into the digital world, with almost no moderating force, and yet they're so bad at finding culprits that violent crime clearance rates are still a coinflip.

Oh actually that's just in my State. ME claims the national violent crime clearance rate is ~20%. Jesus.

It seems obvious to me that police departments are either utterly incapable of, or utterly unwilling of, doing their damn job. We have given them near infinite power and zero responsibility and they've spent those immense resources being trained that everyone is trying to kill them, being taught how to shoot people first and ask questions later, and harassing people, often including journalists literally exposing their mob activity.

Please don't give them more power until they demonstrate an ability to productively use the power we have already given them.

[bombcar]

Why is everyone assuming the police should be policing pre-crime?

[mjburgess]

No one's talking about pre-crime. I'm talking about crime.

It's a crime to conspire to murder; to commit fraud; to arrange an act of terrorism; and so on. And in all relevant cases, social media was used in court after-the-fact just as evidence.

So we're talking about activity on social media which are crimes themselves, just being used as evidence after other crimes have been committed.

This is the problem with the propaganda being put out there at the moment, none of it is true -- and all of it is in the service of disgusing the content of actual court cases.

People on the far-right like to use the phrase "posting to social media" when they mean "using online communication platforms to arrange a violent riot with the intent to murder people". And they like to pretend this evidence collection is happening before those actions -- when its after, and presented in court.

[SnazzyUncle]

Is the "far right" in the room now with you now? When have you dealt with any of the "far right". How do you know they really exist? Most of the people I've encountered on the far right have been losers that literally live with their mother or edgy teenagers trolling people online.

It is you my friend that has been propagandised. They always point at a scary person and then say that they need to take away your rights and your privacy.

> It's a crime to conspire to murder; to commit fraud; to arrange an act of terrorism; and so on. And in all relevant cases, social media was used in court after-the-fact just as evidence.

Why should I lose privacy and my ability to speak freely because someone else committed an unrelated crime?

Why does this require mass surveillance, when they can get a warrant to search their electronic devices?

The answer is I shouldn't.

> So we're talking about activity on social media which are crimes themselves, just being used as evidence after other crimes have been committed.

Some of this activity that are crimes is making edgy comments on twitter while drunk and then deleting it the next day. That is illegal under the communications act of 2003.