Lets talk about "Swatting" and loss of freedom in America

[Jmustang1968]

You really spun something cowardly, petty, and vindictive to being a positive trait? There have always been elements of corruption and abuse of power in the government, and I think it was worse in years and generations past than now.

Nope. I said that this is negative behavior stemming from a mentality that may have a positive application down the line, once these children grow up and calm down.

Some of this swatting stems from nerd raging and trying to get back at people for pissing them off online. They are actually doing little confrontation.

All the corruption during the growth of the nation such as railroad expansion, dealings with natives, dealings with organized crime, bootlegging, etc... There is still corruption of course because thats how people are, but it just may be more secretive now. They didnt try much to hide it back in our country's past.

The information age makes them a bit more transparent and they cant get away with such things as easily anymore. This is at both national and local levels.

But we cant pretend like rampant corruption is anything new or really even worse.

[Forlorn Drifter]

You really spun something cowardly, petty, and vindictive to being a positive trait? There have always been elements of corruption and abuse of power in the government, and I think it was worse in years and generations past than now.

I think it's probably been about the same, it's just more veiled in some ways, some less than others. The bombings of Cambodia weren't known publicly for several years after Nixon's presidency; drone killings are pretty well known today as they happen.

I don't think the private sector has done much to change its image through decisionmaking or transparency. Seems to be business as usual.

There's moments where "anonymous" tends to do things for positive social change, and then there's internet trolls that do downright nasty malicious things. It'd be too much of a generalization to say that their actions are misguided.

ZeroAX is right--cell phones without a contract and critical personal information should be prohibited. There needs to be a way to trace this and the teeth on such crimes should be hefty. The elusiveness of most internet trolls puzzles me, is it a thrill of not getting caught? Is this phenomenon this generation's prank phone calls, and do they not realize/care about the damage, loss of resources, and waste of time this is? Are they lonely? I don't fully understand.

See, but if you need personal information and contracts to get a cellphone, then you get into the whole mess of imposing on freedoms- and a decent amount of people would believe that enforcing rules such as this would lead to a police state, or similar. Its kinda of a win in some ways lose in others deal, like most political things.



I don't get how anyone can find this funny though. I think the biggest problem with the internet, online gaming, and the like, is being able to hide behind a screen name. It makes you safe, especially if you have the ways to keep yourself from being tracked. The anonymity is both a blessing and a curse. Why worry about the repercussions of my actions if nobody really knows it was me?

[bryan_65]

WOW , I really can't believe people. Its messed up that people do this and its messed up what the cops will do.

[Hobie-wan]

Think of it as an extension of the "order 100 pizzas to this address" gag.

Also jackholes that pull fire alarms as a 'joke'.

ZeroAX is right--cell phones without a contract and critical personal information should be prohibited. There needs to be a way to trace this and the teeth on such crimes should be hefty.

Yes and no. In the past there were pay phones In many places where one could call for help. Since the proliferation of cell phones they're almost all gone, at least in the US. Yes if an accident happens and there are people around, someone can probably call for help, but what if you're in a rural area at 3 AM and something happens? It is understandable to want to have a cheap phone for emergencies without wanting to go through a bunch of red tape or be tracked all the time. Heck just think back to when there were more pay phones and the anonymous calls that were done with them.

Some people are just assholes and think they're being funny when they inconvenience large amounts of people.

[Flake]

Some of this swatting stems from nerd raging and trying to get back at people for pissing them off online. They are actually doing little confrontation.

All the corruption during the growth of the nation such as railroad expansion, dealings with natives, dealings with organized crime, bootlegging, etc... There is still corruption of course because thats how people are, but it just may be more secretive now. They didnt try much to hide it back in our country's past.

The information age makes them a bit more transparent and they cant get away with such things as easily anymore. This is at both national and local levels.

But we cant pretend like rampant corruption is anything new or really even worse.

Okay. No one is, though.

[prfsnl_gmr]

There have always been elements of corruption and abuse of power in the government, and I think it was worse in years and generations past than now.

Undoubtedly. Giving a criminal defendant the "third degree" was completely legal method for extracting confessions in the United States for the first part of the 20th century, and law enforcement continued to use it for many years after it was outlawed (especially on minority suspects).

I think the bigger issue here is that you guys don't realize SWATting and the militarization of the American police force are separate issues entirely.

This is correct; however, the SWATing videos do show the extent to which our police force has become militarized.

It is illegal to misuse the 911 emergency system in the US. There are ways to do it, and some people do. Those are the people who have committed a crime, and if they are traceable then they will likely end up in jail.

This is true. They would also be subject to severe civil liability; so, if you could ascertain the identity of the person who did it to you, you could probably bankrupt them. (I know I could... )

As for the militarization of police and the steadily increasing use of SWAT teams as well as the evolution of the police force's mindset, that's a separate issue.

I have strong feelings on this subject.

Personally, I think that too many police officers and too many prosecutors create an "adversarial" relationship with the populations that they are appointed to serve. (I think that the response to the demonstrations in Ferguson, MO demonstrated this very well.) I also think that many of our criminal laws are unconstitutionally vague, and that, as a result, they allow police officers nearly unfettered authority to search and arrest people. (Recent reporting regarding mothers being arrested for letting their children play unattended in a park or being arrested for leaving their children in a car for a few minutes has some people I know terrified because they have no idea what level of supervision is required to avoid arrest and because the law provides absolutely no meaningful guidance.) An "adversarial" mindest and nearly unfettered authority to search and arrest combined with the military-grade equipment purchsed for local law enforcement agencies after September 11, 2011 and a lack of strong case law interpreting the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution has created what I perceive to be a dangerous situation. As much as I despair regarding some of its decisions, out current Supreme Court has shown an interest in strengthening our 4th Amendment rights, and I am hopeful that it will continue to do so. Ultimately, however, the solution to the militarization of our local law enforcement agencies will be political one, and I think that the militarization of local law enforcement agencies is an issue on which liberal democrats and libertarian republicans can work together to craft a solution.

[Blu]

See, but if you need personal information and contracts to get a cellphone, then you get into the whole mess of imposing on freedoms- and a decent amount of people would believe that enforcing rules such as this would lead to a police state, or similar. Its kinda of a win in some ways lose in others deal, like most political things.

I don't get how anyone can find this funny though. I think the biggest problem with the internet, online gaming, and the like, is being able to hide behind a screen name. It makes you safe, especially if you have the ways to keep yourself from being tracked. The anonymity is both a blessing and a curse. Why worry about the repercussions of my actions if nobody really knows it was me?

I agree, it's a double edged sword but I think in our lives we'll see a decision on this intersection of two important issues: security vs. imposing on freedoms. In these circumstances, security should trump and individuals should be held accountable. Data breaches, etc, yes are all concerns that we should be upset about, too.

I agree Hobie, tracphones and pre-paid are popular in rural areas too. Difference is I think you could probably triangulate that easier and have a picture of who was around rather than a city/suburban locale. I wonder if the sparser the population, if it's easier to determine.

Glad to hear about prfsnl_gmr's interpretations of the law on search and seizure. I agree that there's some considerable oversteering on a lot of things, like letting your children play in a park or leaving them in the car briefly. That scares me.

[Jmustang1968]

Some of this swatting stems from nerd raging and trying to get back at people for pissing them off online. They are actually doing little confrontation.

All the corruption during the growth of the nation such as railroad expansion, dealings with natives, dealings with organized crime, bootlegging, etc... There is still corruption of course because thats how people are, but it just may be more secretive now. They didnt try much to hide it back in our country's past.

The information age makes them a bit more transparent and they cant get away with such things as easily anymore. This is at both national and local levels.

But we cant pretend like rampant corruption is anything new or really even worse.

Okay. No one is, though.

But you did. You said corruption and abuse of powers are at the highest levels...

Edit** it seems I misinterpreted a bit on highest levels. You may have meant highest levels of government. My apologies.

But your post still implies that the corruption is rampant or worsening and this mindset will fix it.

[Ack]

As for the militarization of police and the steadily increasing use of SWAT teams as well as the evolution of the police force's mindset, that's a separate issue.

I have strong feelings on this subject.

Personally, I think that too many police officers and too many prosecutors create an "adversarial" relationship with the populations that they are appointed to serve. (I think that the response to the demonstrations in Ferguson, MO demonstrated this very well.) I also think that many of our criminal laws are unconstitutionally vague, and that, as a result, they allow police officers nearly unfettered authority to search and arrest people. (Recent reporting regarding mothers being arrested for letting their children play unattended in a park or being arrested for leaving their children in a car for a few minutes have some people I know terrified because they have no idea what level of supervision is required to avoid arrest and the law provides absolutely no meaningful guidance.) An "adversarial" mindest and nearly unfettered authority to search and arrest combined with the military-grade equipment purchsed for local law enforcement agencies after September 11, 2011 and a lack of strong case law interpreting the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution has created what I perceive to be a dangerous situation. As much as I despair regaridng some of its decisions, out current Supreme Court has shown an interest in strengthening our 4th Amendment rights, however, and I am hopeful that it will continue to do so. Ultimately, however, the solution to the militarization of our local law enforcement agencies will be political one, and I think that the militarization of local law enforcement agencies is an issue on which liberal democrats and libertarian republicans can work together to craft a solution.

I think it's also a survivalist mindset with police. When the police worldview changed from "serve and protect" to "get home safe at night," and when police recruitment and training videos began to focus on the more militant aspects of police work, the basic idea of police work and who it appeals to in the population changed.

And I understand the reasoning why police forces were given access to military hardware. Such programs actually predate the World Trade Center attacks and go back to the 1990s, when the military needed to reduce inventory at the end of the Cold War while police departments were dealing with funding issues and lack of equipment. The 1997 North Hollywood shootout is a perfect example, where even a Los Angeles SWAT team was held at bay by two bank robbers high off their asses, decked out in body armor, and wielding illegally-modified AK-47s. The police had to send a man to purchase AR-15s from a local gun store because their arms simply weren't effective, because the residents of LA had voted against funding for better equipment. The solution? Give police departments access to gear that was going to be discarded anyway.

The issue is that in the post-9/11 US, DHS steadily ramped up the program, giving access to more and more equipment being discarded from Iraq and Afghanistan while not necessarily providing proper training, doing anything to adjust to a law enforcement mindset, or even questioning why law enforcement organizations needed the equipment.

So now we have a major issue: an adversarial, survivalist, militaristic attitude in police and prosecutors, easy access to military hardware with limited oversight, and vague legal definitions, combined with the ongoing issues regarding drugs, race, and crime in the United States.

Can we fix it? Yes, I believe so.

[Flake]

[

But your post still implies that the corruption is rampant or worsening and this mindset will fix it.

Corruption is both rampant and worsening. I said this mindset is needed. I didn't say anything about it being everything that is required to fix it.