
Your tax dollars at work: local cops now paid with federal money to troll IRC - mtgx
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/your-tax-dollars-at-work-local-cops-now-paid-with-federal-money-to-troll-irc
======
ben1040
Due to an uptick in violent crime, the St Louis police department last month
enacted a policy of not sending anyone out to investigate crimes like stolen
cars or auto break-ins (and taking reports over the phone instead), because
they needed more cops on the street dealing with crimes against people.

That was after one weekend where a 22 year old woman was shot and killed over
an iPhone, in addition to several other armed robberies.

You'd think whoever was in charge of awarding this grant would look critically
at the situation here in STL and think "gee, this money would be better spent
putting cops on the streets fighting crime, rather than behind desks looking
for intellectual property infringements."

~~~
excid3
I live in one of the better parts of STL and a woman was killed only 4 blocks
from my apartment a few weeks ago. It's definitely becoming more and more of a
problem here.

~~~
rhizome
I live in one of the better parts of San Francisco and a man was killed by an
ex-coworker about two blocks from my apartment about 15 years ago. At the time
there was a lot of hysteria, but as it turns out it hasn't happened since and
so was a freak occurrence rather than an indicator of a trend.

~~~
ryguytilidie
So it was a situation wholly unlike that of St. Louis? Cool.

~~~
rhizome
No, just that one instance doesn't make a trend.

------
lifeisstillgood
Many years ago, I earnt a little extra cash as security at large rock
concerts. It was not my scene, and I was frankly just standing around. I
clearly remember stopping a suspicious clean cut man in his mid forties,
wearing ironed jeans and matching denim jacket... In a stadium of 20,000 long
haired students in dirty black t-shirts.

He flipped a warrent card at me an angrily said "drugs squad" I hoped our boys
in blue also had people who could pass for real - and I suspect the same for
any local cops hanging around on IRC. They will stand out like 40 year olds in
pressed denim.

~~~
jiggy2011
It's probably difficult to recruit teenage goths and turn them into good
narcs.

I imagine he was just there to go for low hanging fruit and was not worried
about being a bit conspicuous, probably just nab people who can be seen
passing little bags full of white powder between people , in a big enough
crowd people aren't going to be able to notice everyone around them anyway.

~~~
aes256
_> It's probably difficult to recruit teenage goths and turn them into good
narcs._

It's easy. Bust a teenager for possession of narcotics, then offer them a
choice between years behind bars, and acting as an informant busting drug
dealers.

See:
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/03/120903fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/03/120903fa_fact_stillman)

------
zacharycohn
"We have seen—far too often—that IP crimes are not victimless. Not only can
they devastate individual lives and legitimate businesses, they also undermine
our nation’s financial stability, can jeopardize the health of our citizens,
and even threaten our national security."

Really? I'd love to see them name three examples - bonus points if the company
was trying to adapt and evolve and innovate instead of clinging to a pre-
internet business model.

~~~
atacrawl
_bonus points if the company was trying to adapt and evolve and innovate
instead of clinging to a pre-internet business model._

I agree with your basic point, but I really hate this argument -- it's a
"blame the victim" justification. Companies deserve to have their IP stolen
because they aren't adapting to technology that makes it easier for IP to _be_
stolen?

~~~
luriel
When your whole business model is based on government granted and government
enforced monopolies, you have very little right to complain IMHO.

~~~
alexqgb
Name one (legitimate) business that doesn't rely on government enforcement at
some point. If you think about it, you'll find that even subway buskers can
operate with the confidence that their hat full of quarters and singles won't
get stolen from under their noses. Stores everywhere allow prospective
customers everywhere free, direct, and anonymous access to merchandise,
confident that if any prove to be thieves, they can delivered into the hands
of people with the legal right to inflict serious damage on their life
prospects.

Given that not everyone is good, you'll find that "giving people (in general)
a reason to buy" comes down to carrots for most and sticks for some. If you
fail to get that balance right, your losses will drive you out of business.

Of course, society can't tolerate merchants who hunt down, attack, torture,
maim, or kill transgressors. Nor can it tolerate the existence of crime
syndicates that will handle this dirty work for a price (offered willingly or
otherwise). So we've come to a pretty good arrangement where the labor
involved in "giving people a reason to buy" gets divided between the private
businessperson, who focuses on carrots like a more competitive product /
service / price, and the State, which handles the stick.

Assuming that the State, in turn, remains generally accountable to the people,
this arrangement works well. What doesn't work well is telling one group of
producers "sorry bitches, but technology has changed and now you need to
adapt" while glossing over the subtext that the "adaptation" you're referring
to is the invention of a business model that's all carrots and no sticks. In a
market where everyone else still gets the benefit of legal protection, this is
both unique and unreasonable.

That doesn't mean IP businesses don't need to adapt at all, or that they
should be given special consideration that retards the general progress of the
arts and sciences. But how they do this depends largely on whether or not they
receive legal support in situations where they are faced with jerks who refuse
to pay.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>Name one (legitimate) business that doesn't rely on government enforcement
at some point.

That's not what he said. It's a matter of scale. Surely every company benefits
from the government at some point. But some companies have their _entire_
business model dependent on government aid. I'm not talking about having the
government as a customer, mind you. I'm talking about companies that became
monopolies _only because_ their lobbyists convinced lawmakers to protect their
businesses.

~~~
alexqgb
"I'm talking about companies that became monopolies only because their
lobbyists convinced lawmakers to protect their businesses."

Don't be ridiculous. No American media company is, or is ever likely to
become, a monopoly. What they depend on is a limited set of property rights in
products they make or buy. That's very different from being a actual monopoly.

------
pyre

      > Not only can they devastate individual lives and
      > legitimate businesses, they also undermine our 
      > nation’s financial stability, can jeopardize the
      > health of our citizens, and even threaten our
      > national security.
    

[citation needed]

------
DanBC
"Let content producers pay for their own enforcement" - this might be a good
method to get companies paying a sensible rate of tax in each country where
they operate rather than allowing companies to use semi-legal tax avoidance
loopholes.

~~~
biff
Might also be a good way to restock the public domain in the face of virtually
unlimited copyright terms, if the holder of those rights became responsible to
determine whether the cost of continued protection is worth it for a given
work.

------
Evbn
Searching/trawling, not trolling.

Still corrupt, as success is measured by "increased prosecution", not
"decreased piracy", which means they have just incentivized an
entrapment+framing program. SL PD could make a fortune by pirating IP and
arresting some of their customers.

~~~
mikeash
The meaning of "to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat"
far predates the internet version of the word "troll". This is correct,
metaphorical usage.

~~~
nightpool
You are definitely confusing the word _troll_ , "A mythical, cave-dwelling
being depicted in folklore as either a giant or a dwarf, typically having a
very ugly appearance." (OED), with the word _trawl_ : "1 an act of fishing
with a trawl net or seine or 2. a thorough search". The parent comment
actually mentioned trawling in his post, too, as a alternative Ars could've
used.

~~~
jspthrowaway
You found troll(1) in the OED.

Now find troll(2).

