Rust, in many ways, is a terrible first systems programming language.
To program a system is to engage with how the real devices of a computer work, and very little of their operation is exposed via Rust or even can be exposed. The space of all possible valid/safe Rust programs is tiny compare to the space of all useful machine behaviours.
The world of "safe Rust" is a very distorted image of the real machine.
> Rust, in many ways, is a terrible first systems programming language.
Contrariwise, Rust in, in many way, an awesome first systems programming language. Because it tells you and forces you to consider all the issues upfront.
For instance in 59nadir's example, what if the vector is a vector of heap-allocated objects, and the loop frees them? In Rust this makes essentially no difference, because at iteration you tell the compiler whether the vector is borrowed or moved and the rest of the lifecycle falls out of that regardless of what's in the vector: with a borrowing iteration, you simply could not free the contents. The vector generally works and is used the same whether its contents are copiable or not.
A lot of idiomatic systems code is intrinsically memory unsafe. The hardware owns direct references to objects in your address space and completely disregards the ownership semantics of your programming language. It is the same reason immediately destroying moved-from objects can be problematic: it isn’t sufficient to statically verify that the code no longer references that memory. Hardware can and sometimes does hold references to moved-from objects such that deferred destruction is required for correctness.
How is someone supposed to learn idiomatic systems programming in a language that struggles to express basic elements of systems programming? Having no GC is necessary but not sufficient to be a usable systems language but it feels like some in the Rust community are tacitly defining it that way. Being a systems programmer means being comfortable with handling ambiguous object ownership and lifetimes. Some performance and scalability engineering essentially requires this, regardless of the language you use.
None of these "issues" are systems issues, they're memory safety issues. If you think systems programming is about memory saftey, then you're demonstrating the problem.
Eg., some drivers cannot be memory safe, because memory is arranged outside of the driver to be picked up "at the right time, in the right place" and so on.
Statically-provable memory saftey is, ironically, quite a bad property to have for a systems programming language, as it prevents actually controlling the devices of the machine. This is, of course, why rust has "unsafe" and why anything actually systems-level is going to have a fair amount of it.
The operation of machine devices isnt memory safe -- memory saftey is a static property of a program's source code, that prevents describing the full behaviour of devices correctly.
Yes, touching hardware directly often requires memory unsafety. Rust allows that, but encourages you to come up with an abstraction that can be used safely and thereby minimize the amount of surface area which has to do unsafe things. You still have to manually assert / verify the correctness of that wrapper, obviously.
> This is, of course, why rust has "unsafe" and why anything actually systems-level is going to have a fair amount of it.
There are entire kernels written in Rust with less than 10% unsafe code. The standard library is less than 3% unsafe, last I checked. People overestimate how much "unsafe" is actually required and therefore they underestimate how much value Rust provides. Minimizing the amount of code doing unsafe things is good practice no matter what programming language you use, Rust just pushes hard in that direction.
> For instance in 59nadir's example, what if the vector is a vector of heap-allocated objects, and the loop frees them?
But the loop doesn't free them. This is trivial for us to see and honestly shouldn't be difficult for Rust to figure out either. Once you've adopted overwrought tools they should be designed to handle these types of issues, otherwise you're just shuffling an esoteric burden onto the user in a shape that doesn't match the code that was written.
With less complicated languages we take on the more general burden of making sure things make sense (pinky-promise, etc.) and that is one that we've signed up for, so we take care in the places that have actually been identified, but they need to be found manually; that's the tradeoff. The argument I'm making is that Rust really ought to be smarter about this, there is no real reason it shouldn't be able to understand what the loop does and treat the iteration portion accordingly, but it's difficult to make overcomplicated things because they are exactly that.
I doubt that most Rust users feel this lack of basic introspection as to what is happening in the loop makes sense once you actually ask them, and I'd bet money most of them feel that Rust ought to understand the loop (though in reading these posts I realize that there are actual humans that don't seem to understand the issue as well, when it's as simple as just reading the code in front of them and actually taking into account what it does).
YMMV, naturally, but I've found that some embedded devices have really excellent hardware abstraction layers in Rust that wrap the majority of the device's functionality in an effectively zero-overhead layer. Timers? GPIO? Serial protocols? Interrupts? It's all there.
That systems languages have to establish (1) memory saftey, (2) statically; (3) via a highly specific kind of type system given in Rust; and (4) with limited inference -- suggests a lack of imagination.
The space of all possible robust systems languages is vastly larger than Rust.
It's specific choices force confronting the need to statically prove memory saftey via a cumbersome type system very early -- this is not a divine command upon language design.
sure, rust is not the final answer to eliminating memory safety bugs from systems programming. but what are the alternatives, that aren't even more onerous and/or limited in scope (ats, frama-c, proofs)?
My preference is to have better dynamic models of devices (eg., how many memory cells does ram have, how do these work dynamically, etc.) and line them up with well-defined input/output boundaries of programmes. Kinda "better fuzzing".
I mean, can we run a program in a well-defined "debugging operating system" in a VM, with simulated "debugging devices" and so on?
I dont know much about that idea, and the degree to which that vision is viable. However it's increasingly how the most robust software is tested -- by "massive-scale simulation". My guess is it isnt a major part of, say, academic study because its building tools over years rather than writing one-off papers over months.
However, if we had this "debuggable device environment", i'd say it'd be vastly more powerful than Rust's static guarantees and allow for a kind of "fearless systems programming" without each loop becoming a sudoku puzzle.
The comparison is to use a physics library. Only in the LLM case are you trying to write the physics engine yourself. And if its not the kind of physics that's in a library, yes, you will need to learn it to ship a game.
Some weak evidence of why "exceptional abilities" is not a bad idea, even if gimmiky, is that performance "at the extreme" is highly correlated. So that the people who tend, eg., to be concert pianists, tend also to be very accomplished artists, and the like.
So if you're hitting (a verifiable) top 0-0.5% in some field, there's a reasonable bias towards assuming a high general competence.
I did once hit 0.5 percentile in a multinational PHP exam in my teenage years however I did have a second window open with an interpreter running for the most fringe questions. -- who knows what that means.
Yes! Well specifically someone who is a concert pianist and then who also set out to be a software developer. The ability to get very good at a difficult thing is highly correlated to being able to get very good at another really difficult thing.
Case in point I have a friend who is a top 32 magic player in NA. She recently, not even a year ago recently, made it her goal to become a chess grandmaster and she's already 2000 ELO. You could argue that maybe some skills transfer but it's pretty shaky reasoning.
Exactly. Olympic athletes in one sport have a much higher chance of being an Olympian in another. It’s not that they inherently “sporty” that makes the difference but they’re willing to put in the 100s of hours of training and get up at 5am regularly. You could say it’s discipline that would make them a good SWE?
I expect a concert pianist who's applying for a software developer position to be worthy of an initial consideration.
I know a software developer who could well be a concert pianist, for example. Ie., that pool of people who overlap, in that overlap, are probably extraordinarily talented.
We once interviewed a former national [racket sport] champion from [country] for a React/JS SWE role. Our in-house [racket sport] expert, who happens to be the best player among us, was sure they’d ace the coding exercise. The next day, when we asked for his verdict, he gave us a few words: “He sucks. He got absolutely nowhere.”
Lesson learned: extreme talent in one ___domain not always a predictor of aptitude in another.
It's a good filter for drive/ambition, not immediate talent.
The best grad/intern I have supervised had the least ___domain knowledge starting out, but was an olympic finalist level swimmer. They were easily the most competent by the end of the graduate rotation.
Unfortunately, they were also annoyingly perky first thing in the morning as they had already been awake and training since 4am.
My view has been something of a middle ground. It's not exactly that it reveals relevant domains of activity are merely performative, but its a kind of "accelerationism of the almost performative". So it pushes these almost-performative systems into a death spiral of pure uselessness.
In this sense, I have rarely seen AI have negative impacts. Insofar as an LLM can generate a dozen lines of code, it forces developers to engage in less "performative copy-paste of stackoverflow/code-docs/examples/etc." and engage the mind in what those lines should be. Even if, this engagement of the mind, is a prompt.
1. It isnt clear ICE agents have any legal authority to demand a judge tell them anything. 2. It is highly likely this is an official act, since it would be taken on behalf of court, so the immigrant can give, eg. testimony in a case.
A "private act" here would be the judge lying in order to prevent their deportation because they as a private person wanted to do so. It seems highly unlikely that this is the case.
I updated my post with new information from the updated article, and in the context of that I think you're pretty much right. It sounds like the judge basically said "you need permission to arrest someone in the middle of my hearing, go get it" and then didn't change anything about the process of their hearing while that permission was being obtained.
This was definitely not them being helpful, but I'm incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted for this.
The fact the FBI participated in this arrest is chilling. ICE being a proto secret police seems to be perceived already. The FBI now? There’s question whether the ICE agents even had legal grounds to demand arrest regardless, whether they had a warrant, etc - and the facts established are pretty clearly not prosecutable. So this is pure intimidation, going after the judicial in what will likely be a flagrantly abusive way, yet doing it proudly and across the media - this is a shot across the bow telling judges at all levels they are next. And if there’s anyone that knows being arrested changes your life forever, it’s judges.
I am not alarmist or hyperbolic by nature, and I don’t say this lightly, but this is the next level and the escalation event that leads to the end game. The separation of powers is unraveling, and this is America’s Sulla moment where the republic cracks. The question remains did the anti federalists bake enough stability into the constitution to ensure our first Sulla doesn’t lead to Julius Caesar.
The accused is accused of violating federal law, so it's normal that a federal agency would make the arrest. FBI seems to make more sense than DEA or ATF, no?
It’s not that the agency is wrong; it’s that the agency would do it. This is the agency that since J Edgar Hoover has very carefully rebuilt its reputation and is very guarded in it. This act is entirely reminiscent of the political corruption of the FBI of old. That regression, that fast, is frightening.
ICE being shady is by many people accepted, the DEA, ATF even. But the FBI has built itself a pretty strong reputation of integrity and professionalism, and resistance to political pressure and corruption. In some ways I at least viewed it as a firewall in law enforcement against this sort of stuff.
ICE, ATF, and CBP has always been the house for the dregs of federal LEO. It is for the people that fail to get into anything else.
FBI is prestigious because they get the most qualified tyrants, who are smart enough to lie and deceive in ways that are airtight enough that those at ICE take the heat. The surprising thing here isn't the fact that they did it, but that they didn't do the normal way of digging or manufacturing something else to pin on the judge.
US Marshalls IIRC is also the hardest to get into. If I recall they have like one day a year they accept applications and they all (only certain # accepted) get filled within seconds. (I'm probably embellishing but not by much).
For most of its life the FBI has been a hand of the federal government to quell dissent, this new perspective on the FBI being professional and non-partisan is pretty new.
This might be the largest problem with the US government, most of what we used to take for granted isn't really enshrined in law anywhere, it was mostly a gentlemen's agreement that "you just don't do that, it's ungentlemanly" and not really law or anything enforceable.
The fact you can just fire the whole federal government (yes, i understand the probation thing) and there's *nothing* that blocks it is just completely bonkers to me. All you really needed was a bad actor that had no respect for the norms, because there's no real consequence to breaking them.
>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You can't just arrest someone for nothing. You need probable cause. The question is whether a judge going about their day, doing nothing illegal, is probable cause. It's very likely not.
> The fact the FBI participated in this arrest is chilling
Even more frightening is that there was a federal judge that was willing to sign off on an arrest warrant for a fellow jurist, based on what is clearly political showmanship (they didn't need to arrest her at all to prosecute this crime!).
There were a lot of Rubicons crossed today. This ends with opposition politicians in jail. Every time. And usually to some level of armed revolt around/preventing transfers of power.
There's one effective sentence, if gained, which avoids this. I'm ordinarily #NotAFan, and that's another Rubicon once crossed presents massive peril, but in cases of flagrant constitutional violation I'm increasingly open to arguments in favour.
If that sentence cannot be attained, options are even more parlous.
This is certainly not the first autocratic act of the FBI under Patel. They have been thoroughly compromised and lost integrity even before this arrest.
people think the Musk administration is dumb and incompetent, but this is incredibly clever. ICE is the prefect cover for a new unaccountable secret police.
anybody can be disappeared under the excuse of illegal immigration. if there's no due process, they can come for you and you have no recourse.
plenty of MAGAs are so ready to shout "but they're criminals" - and they still don't understand that it could be them next.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
How is this being followed? Specifically,
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This is what people are upset with, not your (loaded language) "violent immigrants"
This is the key is that the president presides over the execution of the law created by the legislature under the framework of the constitution as judged by the judicial. The president being elected by a vast majority l to do X isn’t license to achieve X under any method - let alone by a minority of the electorate. The presiding over the execution under the law is by constitutional construction an administrative role, and the political promises made to be elected are not justification to break the constitutional order of the republic. The promises made must be executed legally and constitutionally, and when the law and the constitution prohibits that execution, the president must break their promise to the electorate. That’s the order of things and it’s entirely intentional. I expect this from any elected president regardless of party, promises made, or any other details of the situation. Anyone who doesn’t see this is either a) not particularly committed to the American system of government, b) not particularly literate of the system, or more often than not likely both.
So, yeah, “Trump promised to do X so he’s doing it by any means necessary” doesn’t hold water. And it’s specifically shocking coming from people who have been howling about the “other sides” overreach. I just can’t understand if it’s just hypocrisy, if it’s naked ambition to overthrow the democracy and replace it with a single party system, blindness to the overreach - but it’s probably the most disturbing part of all of this. If the “others” did these things and that was a problem, why is it ok for your guy to do it too ?
The way I read it is that US citizens have a right to not be murdered or assaulted by people who enter the country illegally.
So it seems like a Judge would have an obligation to prevent someone accused of being in the country illegally and accused of a violent crime to not leave the courthouse and instead turn that person over to the federal authorities who are outside the court waiting for the proceedings to finish.
Being accused of a violent crime is not the same as being guilty of a crime. She has obligation to conduct her court in an orderly fashion that ensures due process and compliance. Police marching into proceedings of the court administering due process and trying to arrest people in front of the court without even providing a warrant violates all sorts of laws - including the fact the judge has say over the events in their court and the disposition of the accused during the session. This is crucial because if people who are at risk from arrest by federal authorities are routinely arrested when they appear before the court, people will stop appearing before the court. This means the administration of justice breaks down fundamentally and victims have no real opportunity to press their cases. If someone is a murderer or committed assault we should absolutely NOT deport them. We should send them to prison and punish them; then deport them. However this structure of ICE using the courts to make their burden of finding people easier breaks that system for the expediency of ICE, but our system isn’t built for the expediency of the police but for the expediency of justice.
I assume you can understand that the 'illegal' part is found as a result of the 'due process' part.
Otherwise, do you have any proof that you're not an illegal criminal? Is there any reason why I should not turn you in for crimes against the state and have you deported?
> On one hand I find the current administration's approach to deportations too heavy-handed, but on the other hand it seems almost necessary because of the level of obstruction at the judicial level compared to the Obama era
This is just "ends justifies the means" via hand waving. If you claim to have principles at least stand by them.
Not really. I want law and order to be upheld for the benefit of the broader society. If this can't happen due to systematic obstruction, then it's not a violation of my principles to be less critical of toeing a line I'd otherwise not like to see breached. If we all had hard lines drawn in the sand that never moved around, this wouldn't even be a conversation, because 15 years ago mass deportations were uncontroversial.
It would help to discuss this using the same terms. This is not different from the "due process" that others talk about. I would presume you don't think that due process is needlessly obstructive but you also seem to think this obstruction is needless. If I'm wrong, what am I wrong about? If I'm not wrong, why do you think this obstruction is needless?
The idea is that the justice system should work in a reasonable way so that victims and potential victim rights are protected.
For example, someone who allegedly beat their wife, has a right to a trial. But if activist judges make decisions that cause the trial to not take place for 10 years that is obstructive and the alleged victim doesn't get justice or protection from future assaults. So if that person is deported before the trial you could complain about lack of "due process" but you would be ignoring the rights of the victim.
In my understanding, the Obama administration expelled 2.5 million illegal immigrants under the same emergency powers now being invoked by the Trump administration and did bypass standards of "due process" being raised today to block deportations. If it's practically impossible to expel the illegal immigrants allowed in via open border policies over the previous term, that's dysfunctional and the standards should be relaxed.
This case is particularly egregious, as the judge personally helped a violent illegal immigrant evade law enforcement outside of her jurisdiction, which explains the arrest; but "systematic obstruction" refers to the injunctions being issued constantly to block executive actions, suggesting that the Trump administration's attempts to reverse open border policies are subjected to a much higher standard than Democrats were under Obama just 15 years prior when they correctly viewed illegal immigration as a problem.
> In my understanding the Obama administration expelled 2.5 million illegal immigrants under the same emergency powers now being invoked by the Trump administration
The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked was about two decades before Barack Obama was born.
> If it's practically impossible to reverse open border policies that let in a flood of illegal immigrants for almost 4 years
The US hasn't had anything like open borders policies for more than a century (more precisely, since the original national origin quota system was adopted in 1921.)
It's probably easier to discuss policy in this area if the premises are something resembling facts rather than partisan propaganda fictions.
"You can beat the rap but not the ride" is phrased like the judge actually did anything wrong. That seems very doubtful. This administration has shown they are not entitled to the presumption that they are acting in good faith.
I don't think it implies the judge did anything wrong. If you're arrested, you're going to experience whatever the cops want to do to you, regardless of whether they can convict you of it.
"You can beat the rap but not the ride" is an indictment of the cops, not the arrestee.
Imagine that someone is being charged with shoplifting and literally at trial. Some other law enforcement agency shows up to the trial and wants to arrest them for jaywalking.
It seems dysfunctional that the court would release them when they know a different law enforcement agency is literally in the building and wanting to arrest them.
Is this how it works when the FBI comes to a county court looking for someone the county cops have in custody?
Talk to the cops, not the judge who is in a proceeding? Go talk to the chief justice?
The idea that the judge did anything wrong here, based on the description given by the FBI themselves, is absolutely beyond the pale. There's zero reason for ICE agents to barge into court and demand to take somebody.
They didn't even leave one of the multiple agents in the courtroom to wait for the proceedings to end. To blame the judge at all in this requires making multiple logical and factual jumps that even the FBI did not put forward.
Edit: the Trump administration has also been attacking the Catholic Charities of Milwaukee, which this judge used to run:
> Before she was a judge, Dugan worked as a poverty attorney and executive director of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.
It seems pretty clear that this is a highly politically motivated arrest that has zero justification.
Oh, I’m certainly not endorsing the arrest of the judge.
But wouldn’t the bailiff hold the person?
Is it typical for the FBI to lose a suspect in this manner? If so, this seems dysfunctional as if someone is in the court system then jurisdictions need to coordinate to just operate efficiently. It needs fixing so if ICE wants someone and a local courthouse has them in custody that ICE can pick them up.
But arresting judging is not going to help fix this bureaucratic silliness.
On what grounds would the bailiff hold the person?
I'm not sure why the courthouse should hold someone for ICE, it wasn't even necessary here they still got the person. All they had to do was stay where they were.
What federal warrant was there? I don't see any mention of one but the best that ICE could issue is not a judicial warrant and does not meet most of the requirements under the 4th amendment for detainment of a person.
Generally state and local law enforcement and courts have no legal requirement to enforce most federal arrest warrants. This is due to our dual sovereignty system. Of course they also can't actively interfere with federal law enforcement or lie to federal officers, but it doesn't seem like that's what happened in this incident.
> The US is not yet at the level of dysfunction where jurisdiction is settled with gunfire, but ICE seem to be determined to move that closer.
I don't think they intended to imply that the judge did anything wrong. Rather, they're saying that if you live in a world where the FBI or ICE or other official agencies can rough you up regardless of whether you're guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law, disputes are going to get settled with violence. After all, if the police are just going to make life difficult for you when you're arrested (the "ride") regardless of whether you're guilty in the eyes of the law (the "rap"), what's the logical response when you see a policeman coming to you? You shoot them. Don't let them arrest you because you're gonna have a bad time anyway.
Various marginalized communities (in both other countries and parts of the U.S.) already function that way - violence is an endemic part of how problems are solved. And going back to the threadstarter, that's why police departments have instituted sanctuary city policies. They don't want to get shot, and so they try to create an incentive structure where generally law-abiding (except for their immigration status) residents are unafraid to go to the police and help them catch actual criminals, rather than treating all police as the enemy.
That's certainly one interpretation of it, and a pretty reasonable one. However, I typically interpret it as "if the police think you've committed a crime, you are going to jail and almost nothing is going to stop that." In that incredibly famous "Don't Talk to the Police" talk[0], the attorney asks the former-cop-turned-law-student if he's every been convinced not to arrest someone based on what the suspect said. Not a single time in his entire law enforcement career.
This is also sort of the crux of the talk - if nothing you can say will convince the police not to arrest you, and things you do say can make things worse, your best bet is to just shut up and talk to an attorney if it gets to that point.
I think we're all agreeing here. "You can't beat the ride" means that if the cops want to arrest you, lock you up, etc., you can't do anything about it. Doesn't matter if you're guilty, innocent, or just a random bystander, you're not going to stop them from taking you and doing whatever they want in the process.
ICE should’ve been reformed after Trump 1, but at this point we’re going to need to unwind the whole organization when we get that man out of power. They’ve shown themselves to be pretty disinterested in laws, democracy, etc.
This is the reform of ICE. Trump was elected explicitly promising to do much more arrests and deportations of illegal immigrants, which is instantiated by having agents of the federal government do things like arrest and deport illegal immigrants on trial for unrelated crimes and actually charge citizens like this judge who interfere with this process with crimes, in order to induce them to not interfere with the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants.
GP wasn't saying that one leads to another in a causal sense - simply that there are levels of dysfunction and this step is closer to the dysfunction of gunfire than the previous level.
The first time someone uses an impossible to trace drone to take out a law enforcement officer in the US is going to change everything.
The status quo has been that law enforcement can operate in an openly corrupt way with impunity because they can absolutely positively find someone who fights back.
But all the pieces are there for people to fight back with equal impunity. The technology is mature and deployed and has been tested in Ukraine and Syria for several years now.
It's just a matter of time before someone takes out a corrupt cop or ICE official and they get away away with it.
It will have a chilling effect on this kind of behaviour.
After Hinckley and especially after 9/11 I didn't think it would be possible for someone to successfully assassinate a US president with a firearm. I was shocked at how trivial it was for two people to almost pull that off last year with Trump. It was pure luck that it didn't happen, and I'm skeptical that the Secret Service has fundamentally changed how they protect people in a way that will permanently prevent even something as mundane as assassination by firearm let alone drones.
If they can't stop someone from killing the president with a gun how could they possible stop someone from using a swarm of these to do the same?[0]
And how can law enforcement protect themselves from something like this? Like honestly, what is a counter to this kind of attack that scales up to provide protection for the hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers in America?
The only thing I can see scale to that level is reform of behaviour. If people respond to abuse of authority with these kinds of tools then the only viable method of prevention is to stop abusing authority.
> The only thing I can see scale to that level is reform of behaviour. If people respond to abuse of authority with these kinds of tools then the only viable method of prevention is to stop abusing authority.
I think that presumes that only "good" people will use drones (etc) that way.
You've got a bunch of people who you see as* "openly corrupt … with impunity", and a new tech that lets people attack with impunity. The result is that the same cops you're paying attention to* just change from wearing a badge to controlling a joystick.
* I'm phrasing it like this because while I know what 1312 means, I don't buy the "all" part.
It's not so much that I see subjectively see them as openly corrupt and operating with impunity, it's that there are objectively corrupt officials operating openly with impunity[0]. Every institution has corruption -- it's just a matter of degree.
I'm not suggesting that only 'good' people will use drones that way, far from it. What I'm suggesting is that a moderating force that hasn't existed for a long while due to asymmetry in police ability vs. the ability to resist them will return. The return of this moderating force will eliminate those few 'bad apples' eliminating their ability to abuse their authority, create fear in other law enforcement officers who would do those kinds of things or at least tolerate them, and would see some sort of law enforcement effort to crack down on corruption.
I'm sure you're right that corrupt police will find new and exciting ways to terrorize innocent people with technology as corrupt police will always continue to be corrupt but there will just be less of them because they'll be struck down by vigilantes and there will be more official efforts made to clamp down on them out of necessity.
You can probably model this like population dynamics with predator and prey populations in the wild.
The allegation is that the judge got upset that ICE was waiting outside the courtroom, sent the law enforcement officers to the chief judge's office, and then adjourned the hearing without notifying the prosecutor and snuck the man with a warrant out through a non-public door not normally used by defendants.
If those facts are accurate, it sure sounds like obstruction. Judges have to obey the law just like everyone else.
You are basically saying that everybody has to help ICE for free and on occasion do the job of ICE for free. That’s very totalitarian.
At the same time, it is settled law that a police officer cannot be held liable for not protecting citizens or not arresting someone. So you have more obligations than a police officer yet getting none of the pay or legal protections
Imagine you were a private tutor, in a private school on private land. ICE barges into the class trying to arrest one of the kids, but their paperwork is not in order so they promised to come back in 20 minutes
Do you imagine it will be possible to continue with the lesson as normal after such an event?
It is your discretion, when to start or stop a lesson, you work for yourself.
Do you imagine you should be obligated as a teacher to continue the lesson as if nothing has happened?
And if children want to leave to hold them by force?
why is it your problem That ICE isn’t competent and can’t get their shit right the first time?
ICE had a warrant. They were being courteous to the court by waiting until after the hearing instead of scooping the guy up on his way in.
And no, you don't have to help ICE, you just can't obstruct them. Sneaking a suspect out a back door while you stall the police is textbook, classic obstruction.
You're downvoted because ICE did not have a warrant.
ICE prints pieces of paper which they call "administrative warrants." Those were never reviewed by a judge and are internal ICE documents. An administrative warrant is not an actual warrant in any meaningful sense. It's a meaningful document (contrary to what you might read; it's not something one can just print on a laser printer and called it a day), but the "administrative" changes the meaning dramatically.
It seems like there were plenty of errors all around, in this situation, both on the judge's side and on ICE's side. However, I can't imagine any of those rose to the level of criminal behavior.
Sneaking a suspect out a back door while you stall the police is textbook, classic obstruction, but that changes quite a bit when it's a government employee operating within their scope of duty. Even if they make a mistake.
Schools don't want students scared to be there. Courtrooms want to count on cases not being settled by default because people are scared to show up. There is a valid, lawful reason for not permitting ICE to disrupt their government functions. That's doubly true when you can't count on ICE following the law and might ship someone off to El Salvador.
Asking an LLM, whether or not the judge broke laws is ambiguous. It is unambiguous that they showed poor judgment, and there should probably be consequences. However, what's not ambiguous is that the consequences should be through judicial oversight mechanisms, and not the FBI arresting the judge.
As a footnote, a judge not being able to rely on ICE following lawful orders significantly strengthens the government interest argument.
> incredibly doubtful that they could be successfully prosecuted
Strongly agree. But, as I’m sure we both know, some other less-politically-connected people will be a bit more afraid of getting arrested on ridiculous grounds because of this. So, mission accomplished.
> It sounds like the judge basically said "you need permission to arrest someone in the middle of my hearing, go get it" and then didn't change anything about the process of their hearing while that permission was being obtained.
This is untrue if the FBI affidavit is believed. The judge adjourned the case without speaking to the prosecuting attorney, which is a change to the process of the hearing regarding three counts of Battery-Domestic Abuse-Infliction of Physical Pain or Injury.
Later that morning, Attorney B realized that FloresRuiz’s case had never
been called and asked the court about it. Attorney B learned that
FloresRuiz’s case had been adjourned. This happened without Attorney B’s
knowledge or participation, even though Attorney B was present in court to
handle Flores-Ruiz’s case on behalf of the state, and even though victims
were present in the courtroom.
A Victim Witness Specialist (VWS) employed by the Milwaukee County District
Attorney’s Office was present in Courtroom 615 on April 18, 2025. The VWS
made contact with the victims in Flores-Ruiz’s criminal case, who were also
in court. The VWS was able to identify Flores-Ruiz based upon the victims’
reactions to his presence in court. The VWS observed Judge DUGAN gesture
towards Flores-Ruiz and an unknown Hispanic woman. [...] The VWS stated that
Judge DUGAN then exited through the jury door with Flores-Ruiz and the
Hispanic woman. The VWS was concerned because Flores-Ruiz’s case had not yet
been called, and the victims were waiting.
Successful prosecution isn't needed, the harassment and incurring high legal fees will discourage a dozen other judges who might be less than boot-licklingly helpful to the autocrat.
That's the reality less equal animals have had to live under since basically forever.
I have a hard time seeing it as a bad thing that state and local authorities would have to view the feds the way we have to view all three because it brings our incentives more in alignment.
But they were successfully arrested for it. The level of naïveté displayed in the HN comments here seems like willful ignorance of autocratic behavior.
Considering the ongoing due process deprivations this is the most concerning aspect to me. This is a sitting judge which is a significant escalation against the judiciary.
I was talking to someone earlier about how we in America, today, are not entitled to anything. Just in the last hundred years, people lived under secret police, dictators, state-controlled media, occupation, you name it. Hundreds of millions of people lived their whole life under the KGB or Stasi. Hundreds of millions live in autocracy even today. Some straight up live in a warzone as we speak. The idea that "we" can't be going through this is beyond entitled. Nothing is guaranteed to us. We are being shown how fragile this all is by the universe.
I expect America to be a beacon of light and I will fight for it. We all need to fight for it, especially the people who frequent this message board because we are among the most privileged and capable. It’s disappointing to me how many of our tech leaders forget what made them great in the first place and abuse us all in the pursuit of personal wealth.
For people who don't live in crazy town, this would be considered an oppressive action, arresting a judge for following procedure simply because it inconvenienced you.
Ah, but: freedom for "me". The libertarian HN posters are in favor of unlimited freedom for themselves and a police state for everyone else, especially non-Americans who dare to exist in America.
And yet many people calling themselves "Libertarian" signed themselves up for full-throated support of this fascist wannabe dictator. Their supposed interest in "freedom" doesn't extend past their own interest in oppressing others. The dynamic is especially pronounced in the surveillance industry, where digital authoritarianism gets a pass by appealing to the individual fantasy of creating your very own digital authoritarian startup.
I'm not saying it's good, for sure. But I don't think it's a sign that the push for autocratic authoritarianism is winning, either.
My optimistic take is that this is the sort of stupid overreach that works to turn other arms of government against the executive. The judiciary tends to be prickly about its prerogatives, and Trump's far from the point where he can just push stuff through without some cover.
The fact that HN is letting political posts stay on the front page after months of suppression shows that we are past the point of denying the authoritarian road we are on.
We've been heading this direction with hardly a pause, let alone step back, since the '70s.
Authoritarianism was winning for 50+ years. Nobody with power meaningfully tried to stop it, and voters didn't give enough of a shit to elect people who would. Where we're at now, is that it won.
> My optimistic take is that this is the sort of stupid overreach that works to turn other arms of government against the executive
This is your take given the blatant corruption and clear constitutional violations of this administration? Sure, let's hope that norms and vibes save us against an executive ignoring due process. Those other branches don't even have a way to enforce anything; the executive are the ones who arrest people.
The power of the executive is constrained, ultimately, by what people let them do. Including people inside the executive branch -- the people who're doing the arresting, transporting the prisoners, gunning down the protesters, etc. There's a lot of people involved who aren't committed to some authoritarian project, they're just... doing their job. They can be swayed by vibes, and general unpopularity of the regime.
The alternative to this view is either giving up or preparing for armed struggle. It's certainly possible that we could get there, but I don't think it's guaranteed yet.
(I acknowledge that this position is quite the blend of optimism and cynicism.)
Like this judge they're being ousted for the smallest pushback and are being replaced by project 2025 people, they even set up a system that you can apply to do exactly this. Trump (or Vance that is fully in with Thiel) will have full control over all agencies where all low level employees are on board with this Christo fascist takeover and the judiciary will be powerless.
Trump is calling for the Fed's Jerome Powell to be fired for not lying and saying everything will be fine as a result of tariffs. He pulled the security clearance of former CISA Director Chris Krebs, and anyone associated with him, for not lying about the result of his cyber security investigation of the 2020 election. He also pulled security clearances for political rivals including Biden, Harris, and Cheney as well as the Attorneys General involved in his civil case for fraud, which he lost and was ordered to pay $355 million.
This is blatant and unambiguous. "If you cross me, I will use executive power to destroy you". There is no optimistic view of this.
If it turns autocratic then there's no discussion to be had. Judge will waterboarded in Gitmo and Trump is de-facto king. We are no longer a nation of laws, the USA is renamed to Trumpopolis and we all have to get government mandated orange spray tans.
So assuming that doesn't happen, this is an action by a non-autocratic executive meant to have a chilling effect on low level judges who don't want to spend a few days in lockup just because. A knob that the executive is (mostly) allowed to turn but that is considered in poor taste if you wish to remain on good terms with the judiciary. The bar for arrest is really low and the courts decide if she committed a crime which she obviously didn't.
Autocracy comes in shades. Arresting judges who do things you don't like is yet another shade darker than we've seen so far... And things were already pretty dark.
You seem to be quite blasé about the possibility of autocracy. But yes, there is a risk that Trump becomes a dictator and we're no longer a nation of laws. It depends on how people like us react to consolidations of power like this, or the illegal impoundment, or cases like Kilmar Abrego Garcia's. The law only matters insofar as we and our representatives can enforce it.
I'm not so much blasé about it, more just nihilistic because I am the last person with any kind of power to stop it. I imagine most of HN falls
into this bucket of people with no real political power or influence. My realistic option if it happens is to move.
Protest! People power is the best way to resist autocracy especially in the early stages when resistance has a chance of success. Don’t ignore the fact that protests are happening. Musk is fleeing Washington because the backlash successfully tanked Tesla. That’s a big win right there!
Consider just how much more inconvenient/shitty/tragic it will be for you and the people you know if you are indeed forced to move, as compared to successfully pushing back right now.
I'm also making plans contingency plans to move, but I may not be able to. Individually, no, we don't have power, but if everyone actually protested, we would - the Ukrainian revolution[1] started out as just mass protests (Euromaidan), for instance. The problem is that not enough of us are doing it, maybe because too many people are apathetic, uninformed, or don't take the possibility of autocracy seriously.
According to the FBI complaint that was just made available:
Judge Dugan escorted the subject through a "jurors door" to private hallways and exits instead of having the defendant leave via the main doors into the public hallway, where she visually confirmed the agents were waiting for him.
I couldn't tell if the judge knew for certain that ICE was only permitted to detain the defendant in 'public spaces' or not.
Regardless, the judge took specific and highly unusual action to ensure the defendant didn't go out the normal exit into ICE hands -- and that's the basis for the arrest.
I don't necessarily agree with ICE actions, but I also can't refute that the judge took action to attempt to protect the individual. On one side you kind of want immigrants to show up to court when charged with crimes so they can defend themselves... but on the other side, this individual deported in 2013 and returned to the country without permission (as opposed to the permission expiring, or being revoked, so there was no potential 'visa/asylum/permission due process' questions)
If this is all true, it still requires the judge be under some legal order to facilitate the deportation -- unless they have a warrant of the relevant type, the judge is under no such obligation. With a standard (administrative) warrant, ICE have no authority to demand the arrest.
The violation is not that the judge _did not assist_, but that the judge took additional actions to ensure the defendant could access restricted areas they otherwise would have no right to be in so that they could get out of the building unseen.
The judge was aware of the warrant and ensured the defendant remained in private areas so they could get out of the building.
The FBI's argument is that her actions were unusual (a defendant being allowed into juror's corridors is highly unusual) and were only being taken explicitly to assist in evading ICE.
As we've heard from many lawyers recently regarding ICE... You are not required to participate and assist. However, you can't take additional actions to directly interfere. Even loudly shouting "WHY IS ICE HERE?" is dangerous (you probably should shout a more generic police concern, like 'hey, police, is there a criminal nearby? should i hide?'
That applies to warrants for arrest. The standard warrant ICE operate with is a civil warrant, and does not confer any actual authority to arrest an individual.
I keep hearing over and over the ICE warrants aren't real.
If they are arresting people using them and judges are recognizing them, they are real and the people demanding an arrest warrant are the sovereign citizen-tier people screaming at the sky wishing there was a different reality.
There are multiple types of warrants. All types are "real", but they convey different authority and different requirements upon both the arrestee and the arresters.
It is both rational and legal to insist that law enforcement stay within the bounds of the authority the specific type warrant they obtained. ICE civil warrants grant different authority than every-day federal arrest warrants. That ICE is abusing that authority is no reason to capitulate to it.
There are two different warrants. Ones issued by judges, which are "real" and ones signed by ICE supervisors which are little more than legal authorisation that this agent can go out and investigate a person -- even if they nevertheless attempt to arrest them.
I'm amazed the immigrant actually even attended the court hearing in a climate like this. The person went to the court hearing in good faith. Anyway, probably less people will be going to court hearings now.
---
Wisconsin is also a major money pit for Elon, for whatever reason it's a battleground for everything that's going on this country:
Musk and his affiliated groups sunk $21 million into flipping the Wisconsin Supreme Court:
I'd wager dollars to donuts this is a "You'll beat the rap but you won't beat the ride" intimidation tactic: the FBI knows it doesn't have a case, but they don't need to have a case to handcuff the judge and throw them in jail for a few days. That intimidation and use of force against the judicial branch is the end in itself.
Donuts at the local grocery store are $7/dozen. If you're somewhere with generally higher prices, this bet might not be as lopsided as it's traditionally meant to be.
I don't think you understood my point: there's no undoing the arrest, which was the only real goal here. The administration is publicly demonstrating that it can perform wrongful arrests of judges with impunity. They don't care if they get released later.
Did you read the warrant? They did not demand the judge tell them anything. They knew he was there and were waiting outside the courtroom to arrest him. The judge confronted them and was visibly upset. She directed the agents elsewhere and then immediately told Ruiz and his counsel to exit via a private hallway. The attorney prosecuting the case against Ruiz and his (alleged) victims were present in the court and confused when his case was never called, even though everyone was present in the court.
It doesn't seem like it matters here. Per 18 USC §1071:
Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned.
Unless you're arguing that the facts are misrepresented, or that the law is somehow unconstitutional, this seems pretty slam-dunk, no? The judge seems to have deliberately escorted the defendant to the jury room for the purpose of letting them hide/escape arrest. That's all there seems to be to it.
Not sure that applies to arbitrary documents that the bearer claims is a warrant, rather than a judge-signed warrant.
Either way, it wasn't illegal to send them to where they needed to go, and it wasn't illegal to let this dude use another door, so the illegality seems to depend on whether the executive can concoct their own warrants without any oversight and gain arbitrary access for arbitrary reasons.
> The judge seems to have deliberately escorted the defendant to the jury room for the purpose of letting them hide/escape arrest.
Was the judge, beforehand, served with a judge-signed warrant indicating that they intended to, and were authorized to, arrest this person? If not, then it wasn't letting them escape arrest, it was letting them escape from 2 random dudes who may or may not even be law enforcement, much less law enforcement judicially authorized to arrest the dude.
It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process. And "I don't even know if you're actually law enforcement" is not an excuse for ignoring law enforcement; what you do is ask for credentials and verify them. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, but this seems pretty cut and dried to me. We'll see how it plays out in court.
> It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process.
Lol: by that logic, Steve who lives in a van down by the river can scribble himself a napkin that says "warrant" on it. After all, "It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process", and Steve who lives in a van down by the river has a process and a warrant.
> I don't even know if you're actually law enforcement" is not an excuse for ignoring law enforcement
Maybe, maybe not. "You never presented me with a valid warrant" is, though, and a judge would know better than cops what a valid warrant is.
> Lol: by that logic, Steve who lives in a van down by the river can scribble himself a napkin that says "warrant" on it. After all, "It doesn't say it had to be a judicial warrant, it says warrant or process", and Steve who lives in a van down by the river has a process and a warrant.
What? Did you not read it says a process that "has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States"?
The laws of the United States say that Steve can scribble "warrant" on a napkin. Has this judge ruled that this ICE "administrative warrant" is any more valid than Steve's for the purposes of this case? Obviously judges, not the executive branch, are the deciders here.
The constitution (which is supreme to laws), along with common law, put restrictions on which pieces of paper that say "warrant" actually get to function as warrants, and judges, like this one, have the last word on interpreting the constitution and laws.
"when ICE officials left to talk with the chief judge on the same floor, Dugan took the pair to a side door in the courtroom, directed them down a private hallway and into the public area on the 6th floor"
This is a private act and involved a private hallway
What's being alleged is that she escorted the person out a rear entrance that is only used by juries and defendants who are in custody, not defense attorneys or free defendants. It is alleged that she interrupted the defendant on their way out the regular customary door and guided them through the rear door instead.
If those allegations are true (which is a big if at this stage), it's not hard to see how that could be construed to be a private act taken outside the course of her normal duties to deliberately help the defendant evade arrest.
That doesn't make what she did morally wrong, of course, but there is a world of difference between the kind of abuse of power that many people here are assuming and someone getting arrested for civil disobedience—intentionally breaking a law because they felt it was the right choice.
Major trends which place western democracy at risk: 1) increasing localisation of power in the security and intelligence services; 2) increasing power of centres of private wealth; 3) a failure to maintain and develop checks-and-balances in the system; 4) centralising of power in the executive / legislatures giving up a significant role in government.
We can see all of these at their most extreme in the federal US gov, but to some degree have been growing since the late 90s/00s.
Something seems to have happened to "living democracy" perhaps after 9/11. The state became more totalitarian, reaching into all life on behalf of the "ideological threat" of "dangerous beliefs". Legislatures handed more-and-more emergency powers over in response; and overly broad non-emergency powers (eg., consider they handed carte blanch war-declaring powers to the president across the entire middle east, which have never been revoked). A series of crises, coupled with centralisation of power in the internet, created a totalised media and economic environment which reaches into all aspects of civil and corporate life. And new ultra wealthy tech monopolists have arisen to own this landscape. Civil life is totalised by social media, public life is totalised by the executive -- and these are now increasingly "of one space").
All these threads were, at each stage, profoundly opposed by classically-minded liberals; but very were popular in their time.
Unless a movement for "democratic renewal" begins soon, and can somehow reverse these major forces, at least the hardest hit countries may move into autocracy. Its very hard now for anyone to defend these conditions (those on the right who want a statism of order; or those on the left who want one of justice) -- they have all now clearly combined into a moment where balance-of-power liberal democracy has failed.
Can you provide an example of a single case where the UK has imprisoned people for political expression on social media?
As far as I can tell this is just far-right propaganda to disguise what actually happened -- which is the UK imprisoning people for conspiracies to burn down hotels with immigrants in them; or participating in on-going violent riots by calling for various buildings to be attacked or people to be murdered.
This speech isnt covered by free expression, and is a crime in all countries, including the US.
There are a couple of cases like this, including one about some racist remarks in liverpool -- both were overturned on appeal.
> Chambers appealed against the Crown Court decision to the High Court, which would ultimately quash the conviction.
These are absolutely trivial cases to assume that somehow the UK has suspended the free expression rights of its citizens. These amount to over-reach by the lowest courts (staffed by volunteer judges, fyi) which were corrected. That's about as good as justice is in practice.
(It's also an unaddressed issue on exactly what social media is -- people tend to assume its some private conversation, but its at least as plausible to treat it as a acts of publishing to a public environment. When those actions constitue attacks on people, the UK/Europe have typically regarded public attacks as having fewer free expression protections).
Neverthless, these cases are used by the far right online to disguise what has been action taken by the UK gov against far right quasi-terrorist groups engaged in mass violence. The UK gov is not persecuting people for free expression, they have taken action against people using social media to organise murder.
One should be careful to note where this perception of UK speech laws is coming from. It's not free speech classical liberals.
Is your argument really that as long as the conviction is eventually overturned, no harm no foul it's just a "trivial case" so everyone should just pretend it never happened? Really?
It's trivial with respect to the question of whether political free expression in the UK is somehow under threat, yes. A handful of weird cases of extremely mild police overreach, corrected by a court -- hardly add up to anything. Every legal system in the world has such cases, in almost every other, they are much more extreme. In the UK, no one is paying for legal cases they win, unlike in the US where "free speech" is obtainable only if you can pay for your defence.
I mean in the UK we aren't used to using the court system to obtain our rights, but this is basically the american system. It's extraordinary to hear americans express concern that a handful of people in the UK had to use the standard court procedure to have their rights enforced, which they did.
Would the UK be better if these cases did not happen? Sure. But there's no legal system, almost by definition, that isnt going to have these cases. That's what courts exist to do -- to prevent executive overreach.
The question is why are a handful of people, whose rights were enforced by the courts, being used as political agitprop against the UK? The answer is pretty obvious. It's a deliberate project of the far right to create popular resentement towards democractic governments in the west, at the time these governemnts are arresting rioters for attempting to murder immigrants.
This isnt hard to see. These stories are spread by a very narrow range of extremely famous propagandists with a very obvious agenda.
None of them mention that these cases were all thrown out on appeal. Nor that there's a tiny number of them. Nor that all the ones that result in conviction are basically domestic terrorism
Can you see how even the fact that police will knock on your door for a social media post will by definition have a chilling effect on free expression? Will low wage hourly workers in the UK feel secure in voicing their dissatisfaction with their child's school knowing that, while they might be convicted of a crime for doing so, it will probably get overturned on appeal even though they'll lose their job in the interim; or, will they just shut up and go along with whatever they're unhappy about?
Do you think it would be better to have people sue those who insult them on social media, in order to bankrupt them -- as in so-called Free Speech america? Where on earth do you imagine free speech is so protected that your worry is a (2 or 3) in 70 million-short that you'd have to talk to a police officier?
The idea that we have police investigating social media posts (and the like) is largely just made up. Its a handful of cases.
Do you understand that you cannot have 100% perfect decision making (of police, or anyone else) in a society -- and that the people who want you to demand this 100% are the ones organsising murders on these platforms? The ones kidnapping people and enslaving them in foreign prisons?
You're just playing a useful idiot. The idea that people in the UK are, at large, even aware of these cases is nonesense, let alone are worried about a police visit for a social media post. Just open twitter: are any of the millions of UK profiles in any sense "reserved" or chilled by these police visits?
The people who are spouting this nonesense are worried because they use these platforms to incite race riots whose aim is to kill people. Have a little perspective.
Apart from the fact that you have private prosecution in the UK, there's definitely a difference between private action for compensation and state action that might come with a criminal record.
The UK is the home of Cautions and ASBO's where you find out you have a criminal record just like that.
A place where you'd rather call the police than intervene to stop an ongoing crime because you might end up with a criminal record.
This subject is always framed by people like yourself as being all about the far-right racists and somewhat recent riots, when it has been going on a lot longer than that.
You are defending these these awful laws. There a plenty of cases that I've forgotten about because quite frankly there are so many.
> One should be careful to note where this perception of UK speech laws is coming from. It's not free speech classical liberals.
This is disingenuous. Firstly, it doesn't matter who the criticism is coming from if it is valid (which it is). Secondly you can see there are plenty of well know public figures that aren't far right that have criticised the current laws in the link to the selected cases, these include MPs, Comedians and Well known authors.
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?
> 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.
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:
>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.
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.
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.
The far right have just recently put ~130 unknowns into black vans, on to plans, to be sold into slavery in an elsavadorian prison. Of the two we have information on, both are legal residents of their own country. Of the rest, all we know is that they are innocent before the law, since theyve had no trial.
The oligarch who presently threatens the legislature of the largest democracy in the world with being having their opponents funded at the primary stage -- is also the same person who has had 100,000s of legal employees of the government fired and who has prompted these stories about the UK on the world's most imporatnt political media platform, that he owns. He did so after riots took place in the UK whose aim was to murder immigrants who had been falsely accused of crimes, these accusations also spread by the very same oligarch.
There's a line from the person trying to burn down a hotel with immigrants inside, in the UK, to social media, to the enslavement of unknown persons in the US. That line we call "the far right" and it's a pretty small group, at the top.
I cannot really grasp how a person would be confused by who the far right are and at the same time have at their fingertips news stories about girls in liverpool. One has to imagine you aren't really being serious.
This is exhausting. Now you are bringing up US politics. We are talking about the UK and the UK law.
I have linked you the communications act of 2003, I have linked you examples of cases where people have be prosecuted for speech and you are going on about the current Administration in the United States which is on the other-side of an ocean.
I am asking you when have you met someone in real life that is "far right"? You are unlikely to have done so because there is maybe a few thousand at most in a country of 80 million people.
I have seen the leaked membership details of the BNP. Do you know how many people were in the BNP? IIRC it was less than 500 people for the entire UK.
You are talking as if there are Brown Shirts marching up every UK high street.
The boogeymans are going to get control of the government! To stop them we better give the government all the tools needed to monitor everything at all times!
Boogeymans win an election. And gain all the tools needed.
Surprised picachu face as the kids say, I believe.
Yep. It is honestly tiresome. It is the same bad arguments are repeated ad-nauseam. The UK government and various public entities have been repeatedly shown to abuse the powers given to them.
It doesn't matter if you show all the times it was abused, or someone life has been ruined for because they drunkely said something stupid on facebook, it is just ignored or if it later gets overturned that it is no big deal even though they had to spent months or years dealing with the legal system.
I have spoken to a lot of young people (typically men) in their 20s that just want to leave the country because they can see where this is all going.
Anyway my top comment has been made dead. I hate this site.
> Are you really going to defend the conviction of a teenage girl quoting Snoop Dogg lyrics on facebook?
Can you link me to the evidence you have for this person having been convicted? Because she wasnt, the case was immediately over turned on appeal and the lower court volunteer judge basically reprimanded.
Do you have any evidence for any of these things you believe? Have you looked into any of them? Who told you about them? How do you know about a teenager in liverpool that upset a police officer? Why is that something you know about? Do you not find that odd? Isn't it strange that you "know" she was "convicted" but have no actual idea what happened?
Just reflect a moment on what the major actions of the UK gov. involving social media have been over the last year, and which of those have resulted in actual convinctions. HINT: ones involving plots to murder people by the far right.
Hmm... who exactly has been talking about all these "free speech" cases? Coincidence?
> Can you link me to the evidence you have for this person having been convicted? Because she wasnt, the case was immediately over turned on appeal and the lower court volunteer judge basically reprimanded.
I am aware of this and I deliberately used this as bait, quite predictably you defended what took place.
You must have missed the bit where the police literally go looking for offensive words on social media. They literally have software that flags up speech.
It matters not that later on it was "corrected". The reason it was "corrected" I suspect was because of the amount of pressure put on politicians after it was featured in the media.
* There should not be entire police departments dedicated to prosecuting things said on social media.
* There should not be software that flags up the fact that you said naughty words.
* This should not have never even got to court in the first place.
> Just reflect a moment on what the major actions of the UK gov. involving social media have been over the last year, and which of those have resulted in actual convinctions. HINT: ones involving plots to murder people by the far right.
Argh yes the terrifying "far right".
The fact is that the government point at scary people like the Islamic Extremists (I am old enough to remember that), the neo-nazis, homo-phobes and other generally nasty people to sell these awful laws and then they are (mis)used against normal people.
> Hmm... who exactly has been talking about all these "free speech" cases? Coincidence?
Why does it matter? If Adolf Hitler/Francisco Franco/Mussolini/Stalin/<insert despot> rose from the dead tomorrow and was making valid criticisms of the various laws in the UK that stifle speech that doesn't mean that they are incorrect about those facts. It would make them hypocrites, but not incorrect.
>Can't imagine why this person got jail time for that given that it was just idiocy, but still
Lots of "idiocy" is explicitly illegal. Being dumb isn't an excuse to commit a crime. Literal children in the US get in trouble (legally, as in, sent to juvie) for bomb threats all the time.
Making a bad judgement call, like "surely everyone will understand I'm just joking about my threat to literally murder people" often has legal ramifications.
Sure, I agree, but why take this person out of society for something like this when you can fine them or make them so community service? Certainly that's a deterrent?
Your "be independent" is what I was hinting at with my "replace". The GP suggests that social networks either need to have oversight or be the oversight. You assert that they should be the oversight, but how is that not the same totalitarianism?
To keep this on topic: the GP is suggesting that Meta/X put checks on what the Thai government is able to do on their platforms. This feels like a thin appeal to some higher authority that hopefully GP agrees with more, and definitely doesn't feel like a less totalitarian approach.
Those of us who want democracy want governments to regulate companies since a government at least has the potential of becoming democratic (companies don’t).
There are many others who want them to just “enable” society—perhaps because of their own financial incentives.
To program a system is to engage with how the real devices of a computer work, and very little of their operation is exposed via Rust or even can be exposed. The space of all possible valid/safe Rust programs is tiny compare to the space of all useful machine behaviours.
The world of "safe Rust" is a very distorted image of the real machine.
reply