However, forcing a private company to assist in the execution of that warrant is questionable. But private companies cooperate with authorities all the time in solving crimes (turning over security video, etc). Where do you draw the line?
Key concepts there are "force" and "cooperation". Asking a company to provide you with the tools you don't have, and forcing them to do it by holding a gun to their head, are two different things.
This is one of those pieces of disinformation promulgated by those who advocate the abolition of all torture. They want you to believe that torture is ineffective, so you won't want to support it.
Sure, if you torture one person for information about which you know nothing, and accept the results at face value, you're probably not going to get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But torture 10 people about multiple things, some of which you know for certain, and eventually the stories will all match up to a greater degree than random chance provides.
Proper torture techniques are strategic, just as are combat, chess and sports.
No no, I have been convinced....
We can stop training our elite forces to withstand torture then..... the training is not to prevent someone from breaking, but to make sure they don't break too quickly -- so the information is not timely. Self-preservation is a very powerful primal instinct and torture relies on those primal instincts for self-preservation.
Torture in isolation does not work, but then intelligence in isolation does not work either. You need corroborating information to determine if the information being given is valid/actionable. It takes more effort to make up lies / stories..... so once you reach someones breaking point they will tell you what they know, but if they don't know they will tell you something. It is no different then some unknown person coming forward with information about some terrorist attack - you need to be able to verify / corroborate before you can judge the quality of the information.
Was there this much moral outrage in the past when police, with warrants, broke into safe deposit boxes, private safes, homes, cars, etc, to solve crimes? Absolutely not.
However, forcing a private company to assist in the execution of that warrant is questionable. But private companies cooperate with authorities all the time in solving crimes (turning over security video, etc). Where do you draw the line?
A warrant is granted by the courts (due process) for a search warrant. To get a search warrant the police / DA has to show probable cause. They have to identify where they are searching, what they are searching for, and when the search will take place. If the police use fraud to show probable cause, or do not properly execute the search warrant any evidence collected becomes inadmissable.
American version: 4th Amendment
Quote:
[t]he 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.
So the same constitution that protects your privacy rights, balances it with the ability of law enforcement to pursue justice.
The constitution has no laws in it that gives the government the right to enslave anyone. In other words, the police have the right to search the premises if they follow the constitution but they cannot coerce individuals into government servitude.
Private companies tend to be more co-operative in that they will help with the execution of a search warrant because the alternative is for the police to hall away the servers and have the forensics team image the server in question -- and then once that is complete then eventually return the host to you. Since that would be an inconvenience to other customers - it becomes a balancing act.
Comments
However, forcing a private company to assist in the execution of that warrant is questionable. But private companies cooperate with authorities all the time in solving crimes (turning over security video, etc). Where do you draw the line?
Key concepts there are "force" and "cooperation". Asking a company to provide you with the tools you don't have, and forcing them to do it by holding a gun to their head, are two different things.
I draw the line at coercion.
This is one of those pieces of disinformation promulgated by those who advocate the abolition of all torture. They want you to believe that torture is ineffective, so you won't want to support it.
Sure, if you torture one person for information about which you know nothing, and accept the results at face value, you're probably not going to get the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But torture 10 people about multiple things, some of which you know for certain, and eventually the stories will all match up to a greater degree than random chance provides.
Proper torture techniques are strategic, just as are combat, chess and sports.
No no, I have been convinced....
We can stop training our elite forces to withstand torture then..... the training is not to prevent someone from breaking, but to make sure they don't break too quickly -- so the information is not timely. Self-preservation is a very powerful primal instinct and torture relies on those primal instincts for self-preservation.
Torture in isolation does not work, but then intelligence in isolation does not work either. You need corroborating information to determine if the information being given is valid/actionable. It takes more effort to make up lies / stories..... so once you reach someones breaking point they will tell you what they know, but if they don't know they will tell you something. It is no different then some unknown person coming forward with information about some terrorist attack - you need to be able to verify / corroborate before you can judge the quality of the information.
Was there this much moral outrage in the past when police, with warrants, broke into safe deposit boxes, private safes, homes, cars, etc, to solve crimes? Absolutely not.
However, forcing a private company to assist in the execution of that warrant is questionable. But private companies cooperate with authorities all the time in solving crimes (turning over security video, etc). Where do you draw the line?
A warrant is granted by the courts (due process) for a search warrant. To get a search warrant the police / DA has to show probable cause. They have to identify where they are searching, what they are searching for, and when the search will take place. If the police use fraud to show probable cause, or do not properly execute the search warrant any evidence collected becomes inadmissable.
American version: 4th Amendment
So the same constitution that protects your privacy rights, balances it with the ability of law enforcement to pursue justice.
The constitution has no laws in it that gives the government the right to enslave anyone. In other words, the police have the right to search the premises if they follow the constitution but they cannot coerce individuals into government servitude.
Private companies tend to be more co-operative in that they will help with the execution of a search warrant because the alternative is for the police to hall away the servers and have the forensics team image the server in question -- and then once that is complete then eventually return the host to you. Since that would be an inconvenience to other customers - it becomes a balancing act.