The much more interesting thing this points at is the fact that conversations between people should be privileged and not usable in criminal investigations as long as not one party willfully submits it as evidence.
The mere idea of eavesdropping on people and/or using their data for other purposes than it was intended to is horrendous.
Meaning: if I call a friend or even send them a postcard and ask them for 100 kilos of cocaine, this should not be admissible in court. I dont care if organized crime is a problem. Go pose as a buyer and start rolling up the net from the bottom. Do the footwork.
Otherwise its not europol but more like eustasi. (Reference to the stasi, the former east-german „state security“ which was infamous for picking you up ar night if you as much as said you didnt love the government)
We will have to come to grips with the fact that europol (and for the germans reading this, the german state police) are still the fascism enablers they always have been.
Call interception, retro and all methods of investigation relying on télécommunications are, and need to remain, a tool available for police forces when the crimes they are investigating are greatly impacting society.
Having a prosecutor request those within acceptable limits is a net positive.
Not the same as having dragnets spying on everyone in the hope of hitting keywords mind.
But criminality is using more and more complex tools at their disposition and there’s just no way of policing like in medieval times anymore.
Yeah, I dont think so. I have not heard an argument here, just a statement. The “limits” arent real, never have been. This stuff needs to be outlawed as a whole so that “criminal” behavior can be again investigated in a way that is understandable and controllable. We dont need all powerful cops that have the best tools on their hands just to catch someone selling illegal stuff. It has also been proven time and again that the whole terrorism shtick has never been as much of a threat as it was made out to be.
Your examples are clear indication that you know jack shit about actual police work. Admittedly in civilised countries where there are checks and due process.
Cops aren’t getting access freely to comms. A magistrate can depending on circumstances. And there’s plenty of red tape everywhere. Even telco operators will refuse to respond to a request if not absolutely justified. And typically that’s not when timmy sold some shit to his neighbour.
Organised crime, murders, rapts… instances of those with actual victims are not threats, they are shits that happen and needs to be sorted.
The much more interesting thing this points at is the fact that conversations between people should be privileged and not usable in criminal investigations as long as not one party willfully submits it as evidence.
The mere idea of eavesdropping on people and/or using their data for other purposes than it was intended to is horrendous.
Meaning: if I call a friend or even send them a postcard and ask them for 100 kilos of cocaine, this should not be admissible in court. I dont care if organized crime is a problem. Go pose as a buyer and start rolling up the net from the bottom. Do the footwork.
Otherwise its not europol but more like eustasi. (Reference to the stasi, the former east-german „state security“ which was infamous for picking you up ar night if you as much as said you didnt love the government)
We will have to come to grips with the fact that europol (and for the germans reading this, the german state police) are still the fascism enablers they always have been.
Call interception, retro and all methods of investigation relying on télécommunications are, and need to remain, a tool available for police forces when the crimes they are investigating are greatly impacting society. Having a prosecutor request those within acceptable limits is a net positive. Not the same as having dragnets spying on everyone in the hope of hitting keywords mind.
But criminality is using more and more complex tools at their disposition and there’s just no way of policing like in medieval times anymore.
Yeah, I dont think so. I have not heard an argument here, just a statement. The “limits” arent real, never have been. This stuff needs to be outlawed as a whole so that “criminal” behavior can be again investigated in a way that is understandable and controllable. We dont need all powerful cops that have the best tools on their hands just to catch someone selling illegal stuff. It has also been proven time and again that the whole terrorism shtick has never been as much of a threat as it was made out to be.
Your examples are clear indication that you know jack shit about actual police work. Admittedly in civilised countries where there are checks and due process. Cops aren’t getting access freely to comms. A magistrate can depending on circumstances. And there’s plenty of red tape everywhere. Even telco operators will refuse to respond to a request if not absolutely justified. And typically that’s not when timmy sold some shit to his neighbour. Organised crime, murders, rapts… instances of those with actual victims are not threats, they are shits that happen and needs to be sorted.
Yeah. Your tone indicates that it’s a great idea to have meaningful discussions with you. /s good bye
SIGINT isn’t even a good tool for them
I call bullshit on this one.
Don’t hesitate to develop…
Some things are so bad that it’s just not worth your time.
Lemme be the judge of that… grow a bit and put your argument on the table.
I am also interested in their argument.