Finally, Stop and Frisk ends

[Nintendesert]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html

In a repudiation of a major element in the Bloomberg administration’s crime-fighting legacy, a federal judge has found that the stop-and-frisk tactics of the New York Police Department violated the constitutional rights of tens of thousands of New Yorkers, and called for a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms.

I could never wrap my mind around how these kinds of tactics were remotely legal and it appears neither could the Federal judge. Maybe we'll start finally moving back towards liberty and the protections of the Constitution on a national level too. This is at least a start.

 

[TerryMathews]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html






I could never wrap my mind around how these kinds of tactics were remotely legal and it appears neither could the Federal judge. Maybe we'll start finally moving back towards liberty and the protections of the Constitution on a national level too. This is at least a start.

So stop and frisk is illegal but copy every bit off my PC is not?

 

[JTsyo]

So stop and frisk is illegal but copy every bit off my PC is not?

they don't copy from you PC, only what you send out into the web. It's like being in public, by sending the information out, it's allowed to be observed. </sarcasm>

How hard will it be for cops to come up with a bogus reason to stop people anyway? They can still stop and ask for your name right? It's the frisking that's be ruled on? Seems the stopping was happening too often and she wants it toned down.

 

[fskimospy]

So stop and frisk is illegal but copy every bit off my PC is not?

Who said that copying everything off your PC was legal?

 

[TerryMathews]

they don't copy from you PC, only what you send out into the web. It's like being in public, by sending the information out, it's allowed to be observed. </sarcasm>

How hard will it be for cops to come up with a bogus reason to stop people anyway? They can still stop and ask for your name right? It's the frisking that's be ruled on? Seems the stopping was happening too often and she wants it toned down.

I am assuming your sarcasm tag means you're joking. If not, Google Xkeyscore.

Who said that copying everything off your PC was legal?

President Obama. The FISA court.

 

[fskimospy]

President Obama. The FISA court.

No, neither of them have ever said that.

EDIT: To be clear, you may not understand what XYKeyscore does; it appears to be a system by which the NSA can monitor emails, documents, etc that you've sent out over the internet. It is not a system where the entire contents of your PC are made available to the government, which is what your original post said.

While I believe both intrusions to be unconstitutional, they are clearly very different things.

 

[TerryMathews]

No, neither of them have ever said that.

EDIT: To be clear, you may not understand what XYKeyscore does; it appears to be a system by which the NSA can monitor emails, documents, etc that you've sent out over the internet. It is not a system where the entire contents of your PC are made available to the government, which is what your original post said.

While I believe both intrusions to be unconstitutional, they are clearly very different things.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3281555

Maybe you are the one that doesn't fully understand what Xkeyscore is capable of. This plus VPN penetration means they are not just looking at "what is sent out over the internet".

 

[HumblePie]

Since the OP has the NSA tangent going on in terms of looking at people's PCs.... I thought I'd let you know that every majorback bone to the internet for the US goes through one single bottle neck area. That bottleneck area is on government land. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how easy it is for a major government agency to tap those lines and just copy everything going through them.

 

[DrPizza]

OP might want to read the article he linked to and fix the title.

This ruling does NOT end stop and frisk.

Noting that the Supreme Court had long ago ruled that stop-and-frisks were constitutionally permissible under certain conditions, the judge stressed that she was &#8220;not ordering an end to the practice of stop-and-frisk. The purpose of the remedies addressed in this opinion is to ensure that the practice is carried out in a manner that protects the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection.&#8221;

NY Police merely have to do stop and frisk in a way that doesn't target minorities more often than statistics say they should. (In other words, they need to stop and frisk more white people, and/or be a little more reasonable about what constitutes suspicious behavior.)

I believe that practically all stop & frisks are unconstitutional, though I'm sure there are some cases that aren't. I.e., a robbery just reported and a person matches the description.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Maybe you are the one that doesn't fully understand what Xkeyscore is capable of.

You don't even seem to know what it is. It's a database search tool.

Damn, why are people who don't know anything about tech even on this site? Anandtech really needs to stop with the Apple reviews.

 

[fskimospy]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3281555

Maybe you are the one that doesn't fully understand what Xkeyscore is capable of. This plus VPN penetration means they are not just looking at "what is sent out over the internet".

No, I've got a pretty good grasp on it. Your article link does not relate to your post.

 

[fskimospy]

OP might want to read the article he linked to and fix the title.

This ruling does NOT end stop and frisk.



NY Police merely have to do stop and frisk in a way that doesn't target minorities more often than statistics say they should. (In other words, they need to stop and frisk more white people, and/or be a little more reasonable about what constitutes suspicious behavior.)

I believe that practically all stop & frisks are unconstitutional, though I'm sure there are some cases that aren't. I.e., a robbery just reported and a person matches the description.

That is not the case, that is not all the NYPD must do..

The judge made two rulings: First she ruled that the police's criteria for frisking people were too broad, which violated the 4th amendment.

Second, she also said that the racial disparities violated the 14th amendment.

So, they need to stop being so racist in their stops AND they need to amend their overall procedures.

 

[Wreckem]

The only ruling that can completely end stop and frisk(not just NYC's stop and frisk program) is a ruling from the Supreme Court overruling its own precedent. Its long been thought that NYC stop and frisk scheme didn't comply with Terry v. Ohio and its progeny, so this ruling isn't surprising.

 

[TerryMathews]

No, I've got a pretty good grasp on it. Your article link does not relate to your post.

Quite right you are, let's try this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailored_Access_Operations

 

[fskimospy]

Quite right you are, let's try this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailored_Access_Operations

Right. Nothing in there says anything about how the NSA is warrantlessly searching the entire contents of your PC.

 

[TerryMathews]

Right. Nothing in there says anything about how the NSA is warrantlessly searching the entire contents of your PC.

Why, exactly, would they need the capability to penetrate VPNs, automatically hack exploitable machines, and download "2 petabytes per hour" if they weren't?

Caution this requires some deductive reasoning.

ETA: Unless, reading your post again, I'm supposed to take the YOUR literally as in I lack standing to complain because I don't know that they are scanning my machine specifically.

To which I would reply, review "First they came for the jews" by Niemoller.

 

[Rakehellion]

OP might want to read the article he linked to and fix the title.

This ruling does NOT end stop and frisk.



NY Police merely have to do stop and frisk in a way that doesn't target minorities more often than statistics say they should. (In other words, they need to stop and frisk more white people, and/or be a little more reasonable about what constitutes suspicious behavior.)

I believe that practically all stop & frisks are unconstitutional, though I'm sure there are some cases that aren't. I.e., a robbery just reported and a person matches the description.

This thread is now about the NSA, apparently.

 

[TerryMathews]

This thread is now about the NSA, apparently.

My bad. I besmirched the Obama. Oops.

 

[Nintendesert]

OP might want to read the article he linked to and fix the title.

This ruling does NOT end stop and frisk.



NY Police merely have to do stop and frisk in a way that doesn't target minorities more often than statistics say they should. (In other words, they need to stop and frisk more white people, and/or be a little more reasonable about what constitutes suspicious behavior.)

I believe that practically all stop & frisks are unconstitutional, though I'm sure there are some cases that aren't. I.e., a robbery just reported and a person matches the description.

You're right, it however ends stop and frisk at its core and means stop and frisk as it's known is over. Something new will have to come of it and with oversight requiring observing of the 4th and 14th amendment.

The current iteration of stop and frisk is built around violating people's rights and targeting minorities, requiring changes that stop these practices is pretty significant.

 

[fskimospy]

Why, exactly, would they need the capability to penetrate VPNs, automatically hack exploitable machines, and download "2 petabytes per hour" if they weren't?

Caution this requires some deductive reasoning.

ETA: Unless, reading your post again, I'm supposed to take the YOUR literally as in I lack standing to complain because I don't know that they are scanning my machine specifically.

To which I would reply, review "First they came for the jews" by Niemoller.

Your attempt at argumentum ad Hitlerum aside, you made an assertion that the contents of your PC is being searched without warrants and have provided absolutely nothing to back that up.

Zero. Zip. Nada.

 

[fskimospy]

You're right, it however ends stop and frisk at its core and means stop and frisk as it's known is over. Something new will have to come of it and with oversight requiring observing of the 4th and 14th amendment.

The current iteration of stop and frisk is built around violating people's rights and targeting minorities, requiring changes that stop these practices is pretty significant.

To be clear, what DrPizza said is not actually correct, the NYPD has to do much more than simply change the amount of minorities it targets.

 

[TerryMathews]

Your attempt at argumentum ad Hitlerum aside, you made an assertion that the contents of your PC is being searched without warrants and have provided absolutely nothing to back that up.

Zero. Zip. Nada.

So the government invested millions, at a minimum, to develop a capability they are not using?

Maybe the evidence is coming? I mean until a very short while ago, they were lying to us that this was even happening. Who knows what the next Snowden avalanche will bring?

 

[fskimospy]

So the government invested millions, at a minimum, to develop a capability they are not using?

Maybe the evidence is coming? I mean until a very short while ago, they were lying to us that this was even happening. Who knows what the next Snowden avalanche will bring?

Why on earth would you think they aren't using it? Of course they are using it, but there's no evidence they are using it on US citizens. If you aren't a US citizen or on US soil you have never had any protections from US surveillance whatsoever as everyone should well know.

If evidence does come out that says differently that would be one thing, but predicating your argument on the hope that something might later show up that supports you is a bad idea.

 

[DrPizza]

To be clear, what DrPizza said is not actually correct, the NYPD has to do much more than simply change the amount of minorities it targets.

Actually, what YOU need to do is reread my post:

be a little more reasonable about what constitutes suspicious behavior

In other words, I addressed the TWO problems in my post: racial profiling AND when a search is reasonable.

 

[Patranus]

Police merely have to do stop and frisk in a way that doesn't target minorities more often than statistics say they should. (In other words, they need to stop and frisk more white people, and/or be a little more reasonable about what constitutes suspicious behavior.)

Which is why this is a pathetic ruling.
Minorities commit more crimes in New York thus they should be stopped more.