"The Florida department of law enforcement confirmed they had entered Jones’s house on a search warrant. But in a statement the department said the action was related to a recent computer hack of the health department website, in which emergency response coordinators were sent an unauthorised message."
...
"[Jones] told CNN she had come to the conclusion that the raid had been motivated by a desire to root out her source within the state bureaucracy, which is why police took away her phone. “On my phone is every communication I have ever had with someone who works with the state who has come to me in confidence and told me things that could get them fired,” she said."
> On my phone is every communication I have ever had with someone who works with the state
Why? This information should be stored, encrypted, and be almost impossible to decrypt. You need a dead mans switch (which is tried and tested) to destroy any and all data. In fact, you could have a system where if you don't visit a URL within a few hours, it destroys a part of the method to access the decryption mechanism (or something similar to this, which works in "real time" and acts a nuke. If you're in jail for 24+ hours you have the safety to know your system will work and destroy password.txt/keyfile on a server somewhere and make it harder to access your records).
Storing this data in plain text, on a partition that can be decrypted within seconds is negligent and both parties are at fault. You need to ensure both systems meet strict requirements before you start communicating in any medium (digital, face to face etc)
Snowden knew what was going to happen to him, so he had the good sense to somewhat plan ahead. These people are not your friends, and you should assume as much.
You make the wrong person angry and you will end up in a ditch somewhere. Make preparations, retain a lawyer and for gods sake practice good sec ops; if you have privileged information it's vital you make it as hard as possible for both you and the state to access it.
She's quoted in the article as saying "I’m not that tech savvy". The degree of operations security you're describing presumably needs extensive training and familiarity. She's a scientist not a spy.
I don't know much about the details of how things like this go down but it also seems like maybe admitting that wasn't such a great idea for that poor person...Can that admission alone be enough for a judge to compel she unlock the phone for law enforcement?
Yes American cops don't miss an opportunity to amaze the world... (and make people believe that USA is the less secure place in the world to behave like this).
American gun culture has little to do with this case. Cops behave like this because behind door number one there could be a guy with an assault rifle ready to take them down. In 99% of the cases there isn't, but if you do 100 of these raids without taking risks, it becomes more likely than not that your own children will become orphans.
It's hypocritical to attack the cops that (literally) fight to stay alive without saying anything about the root cause.
Yes, american gun culture has little to do with the background of the case: the alleged hacking, the perceived need for a raid etc. We can debate those points, but let's suppose for the sake of argument the cops had no idea if they dealing with a harmless journalist or with Ross Ulbricht, hacker and online drug lord that orders murders.
However, the way the raid has been implemented on the ground is a direct effect of American gun culture, it should have been obvious from the rest of the comment this is what I mean to say, this is the root cause I referred to.
Cops do not create that gun culture, cops do not buy millions of firearms and place them in the hands of civilians, they react to this situation and try to stay alive, as would you, as would anybody in their position.
In the last three years four police officers were killed in the line of duty in the UK. Two by motor vehicles, one by stabbing, and one by gunshot (inside a police station). The gunshot death was the first in eight years and one of seven in the last 20 years. It happens, but it is rare.
In contrast, 44 police officers were shot and killed in 2019 in the US.
(Also, including phrases like "are you stupid" in comments just makes you look foolish)
I was specifically responding to the idea that because guns are banned in the Europe that criminals don't have them. I know that isn't true. It is ridiculous to think so.
> (Also, including phrases like "are you stupid" in comments just makes you look foolish)
Making statements like "In Europe the risk of having someone greet you with an assault rifle is non-existent, because people just can't buy them." is stupid. Where I live (in the midlands outside of the cities) it is non-existant. In London or Manchester it is probably much higher.
Also there is no such thing as an "assault rifle". I not even into firearms and I know the term is bullshit.
> In contrast, 44 police officers were shot and killed in 2019 in the US.
Police in turn, killed about 999 people. At least about half of the victims were armed with guns* and it stands to reason that a peaceful and unarmed police would have seen even higher causalities.
List of professions more dangerous then being a police officer in 2018 [1]: supervisor of mechanics or repairers, construction, agricultural work, grounds maintenance, electrical line-workers, landscaping supervisors, construction supervisors, steel workers, agricultural managers, sales workers, truck drivers, garbage man, roofers, aircraft pilot, fisherman, logging.
And straight BS on the whole "going into dangerous situations" thing - plenty of professions get required to do that (paramedics, firemen) and manage to be both unarmed and not shoot people all the time.
> "going into dangerous situations" thing - plenty of professions get required to do that (paramedics, firemen) and manage to be both unarmed and not shoot people all the time.
Firemen, in fact, take every precaution they can before going into a blaze, such as flame retardant suits and breathing masks.
A gun does not stop fire and fire does not shoot back at you, nor has any intelligence to work around predictable defenses. A human has that intelligence, so the only way to safely handle an armed man that does not want to cooperate is with extreme, overpowering violence.
I'm wondering if this is meant to be satire, but I'll assume not.
The cops were sent to the house of a middle-aged scientist who was reporting on COVID data. The idea that you need to charge in with guns is far beyond ludicrous.
The best part is how, if we accept literally all the unjustified precepts of why they went in guns drawn, you then can look at the reasoning and question why, if it's that dangerous, did they go to the house at all?
What, this was so time-sensitive that we couldn't pick her up with a traffic stop when she was out of the house?
At every conceivable junction, the police create dangerous situations and then use the danger to justify escalating them to violence.
>
What, this was so time-sensitive that we couldn't pick her up with a traffic stop when she was out of the house?
It is standard operating procedure to catch online criminals in the act, with the computers booted, terminals unlocked and drives unencrypted.
In general, your premise that police should avoid confrontations with (allegedly) very dangerous individuals, and leave them wiggle room to destroy evidence, is untenable. Clearly, this case is an outlier, but the fault lays with whomever ordered the raid without reason, not with police officers themselves, that performed the raid as any raid should be done in a trigger happy country.
That's garbage: almost no crime is so time-sensitive and so unique that this is a problem. Heck look at the take down of Silk Road for example of doing it right: they clearly took their time (despite the impact being obviously greater), and no one had to pull any weapons because the situation was executed in a known safe environment.
Police deserve no leeway for this: the evidence points to repeatedly creating a dangerous situation (by them) and then shooting the person they've decided is dangerous (because they created a situation they thought was dangerous).
If there is not immediate danger to other citizen's lives, it can wait. And most of the time, it should wait because amongst other thing that lets you actually make a plan.
The only difference in this case is "could be dangerous" is being used as pathetically thin cover for ensuring the lives of a political opponent and their family were threatened.
Which is obviously a limited sample, should I continue or are videos of actual incidents, leading to actual casualties, really just "anecdotes"?
I mean we could go with just this: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/jun/16/doj-polic... and ask how the hell is this a thing since the starting point is "discharging a firearm in a populated area" and is reported by the DoJ itself as an incredible problem.
But I suspect you can't point to anything. The null-hypothesis here is definitely not "police procedure is absolutely correct". You know, seeing how the literal subject of this comment chain is "police raid on data scientist's house where guns were pointed at her children as part of a politically motivated shakedown for a crime which is by definition non-violent".
> American gun culture has little to do with this case. Cops behave like this because behind door number one there could be a guy with an assault rifle ready to take them down
i'm struggling to understand this -- are you saying there is no link between 'American gun culture' and the probability of 'there could be a guy with an assault rifle ready to take them down'? in what other 1st world country would the said probability be even close?
Policing in the US is undoubtedly risky - but thats not the issue here. It is very likely that they were sent to intimidate and terrify a scientist who has done nothing except cause embarrassment to a politician. It is legitimate to criticise the police for allowing themselves to be used in this way.
Do you know this for a fact, or is it what you read or were told? I don't know anything about this incident other than what I'm reading here, which puts me at a disadvantage to discuss it, as I'm sure is the case for most if not all others here.
There are rumors that she did not open the door for a long time and hang up on them when they called. Obviously we dont know if that is true but if it is the cops had to assume well prepared people inside the house. It would be gross negligence to just walk in and please everyone to come out regardless of what the people did that caused the raid.
I'm sure if it were to happen to me, I'd feel similar to the citizen posting this on Twitter, especially if they felt it was unjust and weren't expecting it.
However, from a police procedural point-of-view:
When the subject(s) perceive a threat, it only takes a small amount of time for the adrenaline rush that could make them more dangerous than they typically would be.
Subject(s) that would never usually be a threat can act in ways they don't even expect when they are confronted by something they perceive as a threat.
Even if the first subject is calm, one of the others in the house might react poorly and use whatever is at their disposal to resist or harm the perceived threat.
Let's say instead that a single plain-clothes officer calls or emails asking someone to come downtown, or maybe even comes to a house unexpectedly because they couldn't get in-touch with the person, then asks them to come downtown at their convenience. The subject may shortly after throw the kids in the car and speed off so quickly they run into traffic and kill themselves and another driver. So, when police control the situation, they cause a little more temporary stress in the short-term, but may avoid harm for the individual citizen and the rest of the citizens.
The alternative is a society within which each person acts responsibly on their own, but there are bad actors, and using science to treat or evolve bad actors is:
1. imagined as evil, such as in the fictional works:
Brave New World - example of dual-society, half utilitarian scientist gangbangers and the other half free natives; the reader understands the "evolved" culture as disgusting, scary, and harmful.
A Clockwork Orange - attempt to rehabilitate the psychopath, sex-addict subject, but due to the music choice, the psychopath becomes hurt when they play the music, leaving them where they started- with a psychopath.
2. actually evil in real life, for example: psychological and Eugenics experiments, as well as genocides and holocaust.
In social media bubbles, psychotic elements in the bubble tend to be hushed or hidden; they seem not to exist. In real-life, about 1 in 10 people are not sufficiently altruistic to be trusted to act on societal best interests under duress and about 1 in 100 people are psychopathic to the point of being a greater risk to others on any day of the year.
Even for a fully libertarian society to function, some part of the 90% would have to cover for the 10% and some portion of the 99% would have to cover for that 1% to make things run smoothly. So, we have police. And, if you add wild animals and wide open spaces without assistance into the mix, you understand why the U.S. has the 2nd amendment, and that applies to everywhere because it's meant to cover all cases and likely futures (if disaster happens and infrastructure collapses, we may need to hunt to survive, given the amount of space in the U.S.).
But, I don't want gun violence, and I don't want citizens to be unjustly apprehended.
I don’t understand the political motivation here. Let’s say theres actually something to hide. This very public action is certain to have the opposite affect and bring even more attention to Rebekah and her data (Streisand effect).
