privacy and 4A protections in a post-9/11 world

[MDS]

[thread split from the Garland PD shooting thread in the LE forum]

This is sort of a philosophical question for the LEOs on here. I started thinking about this because of the Garland incident and the current debate around reauthorizing the PATRIOT act.

The case for privacy and 4A protections is obvious, so I won't restate it. But it's often hard to see the case for the surveillance state, so here's my take. It seems to me that the Garland incident was an amateur endeavor. I take nothing away from the excellent GPD response when I say that those bad guys could have caused a lot more damage if they knew better what they were doing. But I don't think that's due to luck, either. Consider: one of the bad guys at Garland was prevented from going to Somalia to train - would he have been able to cause more damage if he had been able to get out there and return with training and resources? But the really dangerous terrorist organizations are having a hard time "projecting force" into the US, in very large part because of the intelligence we're able to collect, given where we are along the 4A/surveillance spectrum.

Now, there's a lot of bemoaning the erosion of 4A protections these days, based on increased surveillance and similar powers in this post-9/11 world. A lot of those same folks are now complaining that the authorities should have stopped this attack before it began. The cognitive dissonance is a little ironic, given the rude way these folks deride those with whom they disagree. But it's interesting because it speaks to the impossible balancing act that LE and IC are asked to perform.

On the one hand you want to stop terrorists, which really requires robust and unfettered intelligence operations - including gathering, analyzing, and monitoring communications and etc. On the other hand, you want to protect the 4A, which precludes or severely restricts these exact activities. So you have to choose, and the choice isn't as simple as intel vs 4A - it's a spectrum between full-bore surveillance state and full-bore 4A. Where on that spectrum should we draw the "line in the sand?" What contexts and variables should we use to tell us where on that spectrum we should be at any time? And once we move, for whatever reasons, along the spectrum towards full-bore surveillance state, is it possible to move back, when those reasons no longer apply?

I'd love to hear the "rubber meets the road" perspective from you guys.

[LSP972]

And once we move, for whatever reasons, along the spectrum towards full-bore surveillance state, is it possible to move back, when those reasons no longer apply?

I'm retired. But for too long, I was close enough to the tip of the spear to know how cops think; and feds, which is who we're really talking about here.

Basically, a "power" or authority, once granted, is not willingly relinquished. And I am increasingly disturbed by what I see as a growing number of LE/fed types who do not think like I do... IOW, they have nanny-state mindsets, they think they know what is good/better for the rest of us, and have zero qualms about abrogating the Constitution if it means 'getting the job done.'

That, frankly, scares the shit out of me. YMMV.

.

[41magfan]

I could elaborate I suppose, but I find long-winded commentary not worth the effort;

History has repeatedly shown us that MUCH security will require us to give up MUCH in the way of freedom and privacy. I don't personally like the trade-off. I think the best solution is to be proactive and deliberate in our plans to respond to violence instead of abrogating our security to the government in the hope they can protect us through intervention. But, human-nature being what it is we know which direction these things tend to go.

Personally, I'd like to see the government acting with more vigor on the stuff they know about instead of worrying so much about the things they don't. Instead of sifting through the haystack in search of a needle, deal with the threatening sabers being openly rattled in our faces.

In this environment, at this stage in the game, our best defense against the current threat is an armed and prepared populace.

[TGS]

and feds, which is who we're really talking about here.

If that's what makes you sleep at night, ok....but it's incorrect. The vast majority of surveillance-state program are being pushed at the local/state level.

Feds didn't turn Camden into the first big brother police-state with cameras.

Feds aren't installing ALPRs on the roads and local/state patrol cars.

Feds aren't the ones keeping illegal databases against their own state laws....

And so on....

[41magfan]

If that's what makes you sleep at night, ok....but it's incorrect. The vast majority of surveillance-state program are being pushed at the local/state level.

Feds didn't turn Camden into the first big brother police-state with cameras.

Feds aren't installing ALPRs on the roads and local/state patrol cars.

Feds aren't the ones keeping illegal databases against their own state laws....

And so on....

I can't speak for LSP972, but those passive measures are done in public view for all to see which makes them an irrelevant comparison to the active and targeted surveillance measures I think he may be making reference.

[TGS]

I can't speak for LSP972, but those passive measures are done in public view for all to see which makes them an irrelevant comparison to the active and targeted surveillance measures I think he may be making reference.

Gotcha, thanks.

[LSP972]

I can't speak for LSP972, but those passive measures are done in public view for all to see which makes them an irrelevant comparison to the active and targeted surveillance measures I think he may be making reference.

You just did (speak for me). You are correct. I guess I should know better than to even enter a discussion like this; for every Alex Jones tin-foil-hatter out there, there is somebody waiting to brand you a conspiracy theorist whacko for evincing even the slightest concern.

.

[TGS]

You just did (speak for me). You are correct. I guess I should know better than to even enter a discussion like this; for every Alex Jones tin-foil-hatter out there, there is somebody waiting to brand you a conspiracy theorist whacko for evincing even the slightest concern.

.

I'm guessing you're referring to me as I'm the only one who responded to your post.....

I never, ever branded you a conspiracy theorist whacko or even made any remark even slightly resembling such.

[gtmtnbiker98]

...but I could see them being more successful in city's whose PDs have low standards for hiring and training. In the current environment those PDs will not be enhancing their firearms training because they won't even notice this incident.

You had me until the statement "those PDs will not be enhancing their firearms training because they won't even notice the incident." How can they not notice this incident? Really, is your opinion of small town America law enforcement that poor?

[TAZ]

You had me until the statement "those PDs will not be enhancing their firearms training because they won't even notice the incident." How can they not notice this incident? Really, is your opinion of small town America law enforcement that poor?

In my totally inexperienced opinion, small town America isn't the big problem. The few interactions I've have with small town LEO they seem to be more on the ball than HUGE metro areas. These small town LEO know that there is NO SWAT team backing them up and they have to take care of business. Obviously it's a sample of a dozen so it's NOT indicative of the whole country. The places where big body counts can be amassed by nut jobs of any persuasion are those big metro areas with large population densities. It is not unheard of to have the training doctrine in these areas dominated by political ideology and CYA lawyerism than valuable skill development. How many hours are spent on PC topics vs rubber meets the road skill mastery? Mass casualty events like Columbine, Sandy Hook didn't wake folks up to hey maybe we should train our officers to shoot better, profile better... It's these areas that won't notice Garland or any other mass event until it's more regular.

WRT the local vs Fed level intrusions into Constitutional protections. They are both guilty; but in different ways. Once we give up some freedom for the illusion of safety it is very rare and very hard to gain back. The next statement is not an indictment against idividual officers but rather the political machinery behind them. It's a poor carpenter that blames his tools. There are plenty of tools available to LEO to get the job done today. The politically motivated pandering is what disrupts the justice cycle not a lack of tools. When a large % of violent is perpetrated by repeat offenders it's not a lack of tools problem but a lack skill or desire in the use of those tools problem. It's like the guy who has no concept of sight alignment and trigger control that keeps bitching about how Glock, Sig... all suck cause he can't hit water from a boat. It's not a tool problem.