Export thread

Kind of a thread game, kind of a discussion.

Discuss what's above sure, but if you have a new example, prefix your post with the statement "You might live in a Police State if" and then the statement.

I'll start it out with a statement, and a link:

You might live in a Police State if the government wants to "talk" with you (without your lawyer) and you're afraid enough to flee overseas when you have broken no laws.


People in your country are literally (and legitimately) afraid of being disappeared. That's fucking terrifying. The irony here is that she fled to Germany, where 30 years ago, the state of East Germany was one of the most well-known for being an Actual Police State.

...I can't. I've got a good one, but I can't.

jwhouk said:

...I can't. I've got a good one, but I can't.

Click to expand...

You might live in a Police State if you're afraid to say something because of what the government might do to you.

You might live in a police state if you can be jailed indefinitely due to purely circumstantial evidence (no matter how overwhelming).
...and before we get into any debate about his supposed guilt, that's not what I'm highlighting here. I'm highlighting the fact that he is being imprisoned "...until such time that he fully complies" simply because someone ordered that this be done.

--Patrick

In before overflow from the police abuse thread.

You might live in a police state if your country passes ex post facto laws.

Denbrought said:

You might live in a police state if your country passes ex post facto laws.

Click to expand...

Any particular examples?

DarkAudit said:

Any particular examples?

Click to expand...

How about this one from there:

"Israel enacted the 1950 "Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law" for the purpose of punishing acts that occurred during the Second World War, when Israel did not exist as a state. The law was used to punish Adolf Eichmann and others."

Gruebeard said:

How about this one from there:

"Israel enacted the 1950 "Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law" for the purpose of punishing acts that occurred during the Second World War, when Israel did not exist as a state. The law was used to punish Adolf Eichmann and others."

Click to expand...

I was thinking of any more recent examples that Den had in mind, but I guess that'll do.

Belgium made piracy illegal ex post facto, IIRC.

The article essentially says that ex post facto laws are near globally prohibited, even in Iran, as far as criminal law is concerned. Not so much for tax law, where governments like to get their money.

Oh, and not so much for civil law, either, so the piracy thing wouldn't be surprising if it falls into that realm.

Gruebeard said:

The article essentially says that ex post facto laws are near globally prohibited, even in Iran, as far as criminal law is concerned. Not so much for tax law, where governments like to get their money.

Oh, and not so much for civil law, either, so the piracy thing wouldn't be surprising if it falls into that realm.

Click to expand...

At the risk of inciting you-know-who, the whole e-mail controversy reeks of ex post facto. Classifying them now, years after leaving the post, and then running to the nearest camera to raise a stink about it seems awfully manufactured.

It happened 5 or 10 years ago, and I can't find an article about it now, but in my neck of the woods, a bunch of police showed up to a hotel bar here in town and started arresting people because they might drive drunk. Even the ones who had reserved rooms for the night.

If anything actually comes of it, then it does kinda skirt the line I guess, if you're right about the timing. I haven't been following that thing at all.

Den's wiki page does say that the US is kinda skirting the line when it comes to rules about registering sex offenders, but the courts allowing changes applying retroactively because it's not actually a punishment.

GasBandit said:

It happened 5 or 10 years ago, and I can't find an article about it now, but in my neck of the woods, a bunch of police showed up to a hotel bar here in town and started arresting people because they might drive drunk. Even the ones who had reserved rooms for the night.

Click to expand...

I thought they decided to apply public intoxication to bars. If you blow a .80 in a bar, off to jail.

It only lasted a few weeks, before public outcry shut that shit down.[DOUBLEPOST=1463593338,1463593065][/DOUBLEPOST]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/texas-racist-laws-drinking-while-brown

sixpackshaker said:

I thought they decided to apply public intoxication to bars. If you blow a .80 in a bar, off to jail.

It only lasted a few weeks, before public outcry shut that shit down.

Click to expand...

If you blow a .80, how are you still breathing?

sixpackshaker said:

I thought they decided to apply public intoxication to bars. If you blow a .80 in a bar, off to jail.

It only lasted a few weeks, before public outcry shut that shit down.[DOUBLEPOST=1463593338,1463593065][/DOUBLEPOST]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/texas-racist-laws-drinking-while-brown

Click to expand...

Well, lots of the people arrested in the incident I'm talking about were white, so... take that as you will.

GasBandit said:

Well, lots of the people arrested in the incident I'm talking about were white, so... take that as you will.

Click to expand...

But when the Texas ABC went into that gay bar, half the agency got shut down.

sixpackshaker said:

But when the Texas ABC went into that gay bar, half the agency got shut down.

Click to expand...

I remember that, that was up in Dallas, wasn't it?

GasBandit said:

I remember that, that was up in Dallas, wasn't it?

Click to expand...

Ft. Worth, but yeah, close enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Lounge_raid[DOUBLEPOST=1463594033,1463593939][/DOUBLEPOST]http://www.wnd.com/2006/03/35378/

You might live in a police state if a teenager can spend five months in jail for making sarcastic comments online. The event is a couple years old, so it's hard to find all the relevant articles about how this case was bungled, but it took two weeks for police to search his parents house, and they didn't find any firearms. This kid was in jail on $500,000 bail, because a judge ruled that he was an imminent threat, despite having no firearms. He was offered plea bargains of 8 - 10 years in jail, all for hyperbole he thought would be understood as so ridiculous as to be unbelievable.

figmentPez said:

You might live in a police state if a teenager can spend five months in jail for making sarcastic comments online. The event is a couple years old, so it's hard to find all the relevant articles about how this case was bungled, but it took two weeks for police to search his parents house, and they didn't find any firearms. This kid was in jail on $500,000 bail, because a judge ruled that he was an imminent threat, despite having no firearms. He was offered plea bargains of 8 - 10 years in jail, all for hyperbole he thought would be understood as so ridiculous as to be unbelievable.

Click to expand...

The third court of Appeals ruled that a jury trial could proceed. This ruling occurred last September. (San Antonio Express News) Since thing, pre-trial hearings have been scheduled, and cancelled multiple times. Because of his bail conditions, Justin is effectively under house arrest. (Free Justin Carter)

GasBandit said:

[torture report whoopsie]

Click to expand...

Dangit, you beat me here to posting it.

--Patrick

Don't worry, Hillary might have a spare copy on her server.

Which means some hacker has it on their server...

Which means the NSA has a copy...

When you get arrested for posting this.

Snooper's Charter, aka the Investigatory Powers Bill, voted into UK law

The controversial Snooper's Charter -- or the Investigatory Powers Bill as it is officially known -- has been voted into law by [an] overwhelming majority of politicians (444 to 69) [despite criticism] by both the public and technology companies.
The Investigatory Powers Bill grants the UK government, security, and intelligence agencies greater powers for monitoring internet usage, as well as permitting bulk data collection and remote hacking of smartphones.

Click to expand...

Uh-oh, that doesn't sound good.
...unless you run a VPN, perhaps.

--Patrick

Where's the "that's terrifying" rating?

stienman said:

Where's the "that's terrifying" rating?

Click to expand...

It ran off and hid.

Maybe we'll* get lucky and the agencies will just spy on each other for a while until they're satisfied they've rooted out all the corruption and waste? Or until they've rooted out all the "non-patriots," which is actually ... worse.

Here, let me help you look for that rating...

--Patrick
*"the public"

Looks like word has already gotten out.
FBI seeks expanded National Security Letter to include browser history and more

two bills currently working their way through Congress. The two pieces of proposed legislation would each significantly expand use of National Security Letters [NSLs] to include "Electronic Communication Transactional Records"—better known as metadata.

Click to expand...

UK: "We want your data."
USA: "Ooo, that looks useful."

--patrick

Something something vote from the rooftops

If the police can require you to notify them of any sexual activity 24 hours in advance, even though you've never been convicted of any sexual crimes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36481127

That's one weird new law. I could see, perhaps, this sort of order being made as part of a probation (ie, you can go to jail, or you can go on probation but your activities must be self reported and monitored and you can't do certain things). In other words its a form of prison without having to report to prison - but you have to have been convicted of a crime that this probation would prevent, and the probation ultimately does end at some point, just as most jail sentences do.

But to be able to do so simply on order of the court without conviction seems very police-state-ish.

stienman said:

If the police can require you to notify them of any sexual activity 24 hours in advance, even though you've never been convicted of any sexual crimes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36481127

That's one weird new law. I could see, perhaps, this sort of order being made as part of a probation (ie, you can go to jail, or you can go on probation but your activities must be self reported and monitored and you can't do certain things). In other words its a form of prison without having to report to prison - but you have to have been convicted of a crime that this probation would prevent, and the probation ultimately does end at some point, just as most jail sentences do.

But to be able to do so simply on order of the court without conviction seems very police-state-ish.

Click to expand...

That is one of the most deplorable things I've ever seen.

stienman said:

If the police can require you to notify them of any sexual activity 24 hours in advance, even though you've never been convicted of any sexual crimes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36481127

That's one weird new law. I could see, perhaps, this sort of order being made as part of a probation (ie, you can go to jail, or you can go on probation but your activities must be self reported and monitored and you can't do certain things). In other words its a form of prison without having to report to prison - but you have to have been convicted of a crime that this probation would prevent, and the probation ultimately does end at some point, just as most jail sentences do.

But to be able to do so simply on order of the court without conviction seems very police-state-ish.

Click to expand...

Nope, I don't think that's a "seems" or an "-ish". That's full on police state.

And why do the police need "the details of any female including her name, address and date of birth... at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place". What are they planning on doing with the sexual histories of these women?

That is some creepy shit.

Sara_2814 said:

Nope, I don't think that's a "seems" or an "-ish". That's full on police state.

And why do the police need "the details of any female including her name, address and date of birth... at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place". What are they planning on doing with the sexual histories of these women?

That is some creepy shit.

Click to expand...

I assume they want that to contact them and harass them, so he can't have sex. I didn't even consider gathering the info on them. Ugh.

They want (note that I'm not defending it!) their info to follow up and help them if things go south. Y'know, in the "huh, 15 women have disappeared in this region in the past 5 years, we may have a serial killer" kind of way, or the "huh, this woman filed rape charges against this guy, but how are we ever going to find his previous girlfriends/sexual partners to build a history". If things go bad and he turns out to be a genuine risk, it's very good and useful information to have.

I've told jokes about requiring people to submit applications for breeding permits, but come on!

So what I'm essentially seeing is that, because this guy would not provide the code to unlock his phone, the authorities retaliated by making it significantly more difficult to have sex.

--Patrick

And if he has sex without giving the police 24 hours notice he goes to jail for 5 years. Without being convicted of a crime!

And during his trial jurors were told that he visited a fetish club with an ex-partner. Which was relevant how exactly? Sexual shaming much?

You know about civil asset forfeiture, right? So if the police think you might have property on you that was earned from a crime, they don't have to arrest or prosecute you, they simply take the property, and then you have to go to court to prove that it's actually legal.

Used to be they only used it for vehicles and cash in the vehicles.

Now Oklahoma has decided that if you are carrying debit cards, then that is property you have on you, and thus they can take it as well. So they've paid a company to make a device they installed in their cruisers, and they simply swipe all your cards. If any of them are debit cards they empty the card - whether it's a prepaid card or tied to your personal bank account (from some reports).

The company makes 7.7% of the total, and if you go to court you can't recover that fee. The police get the other 92.3%, unless you go to court (which you can't easily do because you have no liquid cash to hire a lawyer).

I'm not sure how much of this is being exaggerated, if any, but if there's any truth to any part of this then it's much worse than plain civil forfeiture, which is a bad enough indication of a police state.[DOUBLEPOST=1465519893,1465519572][/DOUBLEPOST]Linky: http://5newsonline.com/2016/06/08/ohp-uses-new-device-to-seize-money-from-bank-accounts/[DOUBLEPOST=1465519927][/DOUBLEPOST]Or search google for "oklahoma erad"

Just posted about this is the politics thread. Amazing. I know a state I won't ever visit again, even if I have to go hours out of my way to avoid it.

Dave said:

Just posted about this is the politics thread. Amazing. I know a state I won't ever visit again, even if I have to go hours out of my way to avoid it.

Click to expand...

Here's a handy guide, you might wish to stay out of states with a score of 4 or less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#States

Denbrought said:

Here's a handy guide, you might wish to stay out of states with a score of 4 or less: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#States

Click to expand...

Just FYI in case there's any confusion, on this scale lower numbers are worse.

--Patrick

Stealing from Gas's main thread: In Support Of A Total Ban on Civilians Owning Firearms

This is not an abstract or hypothetical point. We live in a country in which arbitrary power is routinely abused, usually to the detriment of the least powerful and the most abused among us. We live in a country in which we have been panicked into giving the government more and more power to protect us from harm, and that power is most often not used for the things we were told, but to solidify and expand previously existing government power. We live in a country where the government uses the power we've already given it as a rationale for giving it more: "how can we not ban x when we've already banned y?" We live in a country where vague laws are used arbitrarily and capriciously. We live in a country that is about to nominate Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for President of the United States: a man who wants to limit free speech, ban people based on religion, and generally jackboot around. We live in a country where his opponent is a long-time advocate of the security state who got famous helping label young black men "superpredators."

Click to expand...

I thought the examples there were pretty good for this thread.

...if this becomes the norm:


Not a joke.

Here comes the whole 2nd amendment argument alllllll over again.

--Patrick

OK, this one doesn't really work easily with my thread prefix, but this thread seemed most appropriate: Apple Is Pulling Apps By Iranian Developers From The App Store To Comply With US Sanctions

Apple is pulling apps created by Iranian developers that are specifically designed for people in Iran from its App Stores to comply with US sanctions, The New York Times reports.

Apple does not sell its products in Iran and an Iranian version of the Apple App Store doesn’t exist, but smuggled iPhones are popular among wealthy Iranians. Iranian developers have created thousands of apps for these users and offer them on App Stores in other countries including the US App Store. For the last few weeks, Apple has been removing Iranian food delivery and shopping apps, and on Thursday, it removed Snapp, an Uber-like ride hailing app that is popular in Iran.

According to the Times, Apple sent this message to Iranian developers whose apps they removed: “Under the U.S. sanctions regulations, the App Store cannot host, distribute or do business with apps or developers connected to certain U.S. embargoed countries.”

Click to expand...

Here's the original NYT article.

This whole thing is odd, and involves intergovernmental weirdness. Apple dictates what you can HAVE on your device (Android is not quite the same, as you can install ANYTHING if you download it yourself, you just USUALLY get it from Google Play or the Amazon store), but is controlled on what's in its App Stores per-country. So I can't "fault" them for complying with US law when they don't have an "Iranian" App Store, or subsidiary in that country.

So... thoughts?

Eriol said:

OK, this one doesn't really work easily with my thread prefix, but this thread seemed most appropriate: Apple Is Pulling Apps By Iranian Developers From The App Store To Comply With US Sanctions

Here's the original NYT article.

This whole thing is odd, and involves intergovernmental weirdness. Apple dictates what you can HAVE on your device (Android is not quite the same, as you can install ANYTHING if you download it yourself, you just USUALLY get it from Google Play or the Amazon store), but is controlled on what's in its App Stores per-country. So I can't "fault" them for complying with US law when they don't have an "Iranian" App Store, or subsidiary in that country.

So... thoughts?

Click to expand...

The last paragraph is fairly useful to quote as well:

In July, Apple removed apps that allowed people in China to evade censorship to comply with Chinese regulations, sparking criticism that it was bowing to Beijing's stringent censorship.

Click to expand...

They're following whatever laws they're beholden to, specially those they don't think they could challenge in court. That seems reasonable and sane, given that they're a public corporation. Not sure what else there is to discuss, unless/until Apple becomes something else.

I don't see how it's weird. You're not allowed to export apples to Iran, why would you be allowed to sell them apps?

I'm not saying it strikes me as good for the freedom of the net, or a bunch of other stuff ,but in itself, it only seems logical.

Bubble181 said:

I don't see how it's weird. You're not allowed to export apples to Iran, why would you be allowed to sell them apps?

I'm not saying it strikes me as good for the freedom of the net, or a bunch of other stuff ,but in itself, it only seems logical.

Click to expand...

I agree it's a logical move, it's just odd in terms of how much power they have over what people can install, and how that's wielded by governments, that's all.

Eriol said:

I agree it's a logical move, it's just odd in terms of how much power they have over what people can install, and how that's wielded by governments, that's all.

Click to expand...

True enough. That should be coming to a head eventually, what with courts and lawmakers testing the waters in places like Canada, Australia, and Spain (with shit like "the right to be forgotten", or worldwide internet injunctions).

And until there's an alternative to the Internet, that's how it's going to be.

Even if there ultimately ends up being some sort of ad hoc mesh network alternative (and I fully believe someday there will be), it's still going to have trouble reaching across the wide bodies of water that separate countries.

--Patrick

relevant excerpts said:

[M]oving from the minimum to the maximum expenditure values, on average, increases civilian deaths by roughly 129%. As seen in Figure 3, counties that received no military equipment can expect to kill 0.068 fewer civilians, relative to the previous year, whereas those that received the maximum amount can expect to kill 0.188 more, holding all else constant.

(..) [W]hile no research method offers full certainty of a causal effect, we attempt to increase the plausibility of the claim that 1033 transfers lead to more police violence. We do so by measuring the transfers in the previous year, as well as by leveraging three different dependent variables. While the first dependent variable – civilian killings – represents the most direct measure to test the claim, using the next two dependent variables – change in civilian killings and dog killings – helped bypass endogeneity concerns to an extent

Click to expand...

Arming your police like an occupying force may have some deleterious effects, it seems.

While I don't doubt the finding at all - it's a confirmation of several previous studies - I do wonder how much is caused by an inverse causation: the departments receiving higher grade weaponry because they're in an area/region considered more dangerous/deteriorating. An area can become more dangerous over time, and it would seem to me to make sense to more heavily arm the police in the neighbourhood where the police has been meeting increased aggression in the last years, which would translate into more shootings and thus killings, whereas you'd leave the police unarmed (or less armed, in the US) in safer areas.

I must be reading those numbers wrong, but a less than one person a year difference per department?

Covar said:

I must be reading those numbers wrong, but a less than one person a year difference per department?

Click to expand...

...You expect every county kill at least one person per year?

Bubble181 said:

...You expect every county kill at least one person per year?

Click to expand...

Rather, I expected that militarized equipment would mean a difference of more than one person killed per year.

You guys either assume a lot more death, or really big counties.

In the UK, one civilian dies due to police bullets per 27 million citizens per year. I know the USA has waaaaayyyyy higher numbers, mostly because guns are so much more prevalent, but still.

I spent a bit of time looking for Belgian numbers, and, assuming people killed in anti-terrorist raids weren't innocent, the last two people to die because of the police were both assaulted and kicked/beaten to death. Last innocent shot by cop I could find is from 4 years ago.

Bubble181 said:

In the UK, one civilian dies due to police bullets per 27 million citizens per year.

Click to expand...

That's because they don't give bobbies guns, just truncheons

GasBandit said:

Rather, I expected that militarized equipment would mean a difference of more than one person killed per year.

Click to expand...

Not even 1 person. 1/3 of a person. It seems to small to be a meaningful measurement.

Covar said:

Not even 1 person. 1/3 of a person. It seems to small to be a meaningful measurement.

Click to expand...

It means it went up from, say, one person every 5 years to one person every 2 years.

Not to sound like a fascist, but I'd also point out that there's no way to quantify the numbers of additional lives saved by police departments with this kind of equipment vs. those who don't. It could be anything from zero to 100 per month, and we wouldn't know.

Tress said:

Not to sound like a fascist, but I'd also point out that there's no way to quantify the numbers of additional lives saved by police departments with this kind of equipment vs. those who don't. It could be anything from zero to 100 per month, and we wouldn't know.

Click to expand...

I'm having trouble with my imagination, how does military equipment enhance your police force's day-to-day life-saving abilities? I can only come up with weird hypotheticals that would end up making national news.

Denbrought said:

I'm having trouble with my imagination, how does military equipment enhance your police force's day-to-day life-saving abilities? I can only come up with weird hypotheticals that would end up making national news.

Click to expand...

The equipment is paraded as the answer to the increasingly militarized criminals that lurk just under the RADAR, (no doubt because they have implemented contraband jamming technology...).

--Patrick

Denbrought said:

I'm having trouble with my imagination, how does military equipment enhance your police force's day-to-day life-saving abilities? I can only come up with weird hypotheticals that would end up making national news.

Click to expand...

This. What do towns like Stockbridge, MA, with "three stop signs, two police officers, and one police car" suddenly need with APCs and minesweepers?

DarkAudit said:

This. What do towns like Stockbridge, MA, with "three stop signs, two police officers, and one police car" suddenly need with APCs and minesweepers?

Click to expand...

Vulcan approves.

... the Police have a backdoor into any and all electronics. Germany Preparing Law for Backdoors in Any Type of Modern Device

I'm guessing their younger generations don't remember the Stasi. Shame.

Also, I'll just leave this one here:

To those unwilling to click: "No matter how much we might wish it, there's no way to build a digital lock that only Angels can open and Demons cannot. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant of the mathematics, or less of an Angel than they appear."

Eriol said:

I'm guessing their younger generations don't remember the Stasi. Shame.

Click to expand...

You know the old saw about bad times and good, strong men and weak.

Also this, same topic:

This is one of those things I just don’t get. Inanimate things are incapable of value judgements, and yet certain people absolutely insist on pretending that they can somehow be coaxed to do so.

@Eriol We’ve discussed that exact pair of videos before. I had hoped people would’ve learned by now.
But no.

—Patrick

PatrThom said:

This is one of those things I just don’t get. Inanimate things are incapable of value judgements, and yet certain people absolutely insist on pretending that they can somehow be coaxed to do so.

@Eriol We’ve discussed that exact pair of videos before. I had hoped people would’ve learned by now.
But no.

—Patrick

Click to expand...

Oh ya, these aren't the first time they've been linked, they just have more importance right now given the "debate" in Germany.

House votes to extend ability for USA to spy on its citizens/within its borders another 6 years.
At least two members of the Senate have vowed to filibuster it, but we will see what happens.

Oh and the FBI is still mad at Apple (and presumably also any other mobile manufacturer) for using encryption that has no back door to allow for FBI surveillance.

FBI forensic expert Stephen Flatley lashed out at Apple, calling the company “jerks,” and “evil geniuses” for making his and his colleagues' investigative work harder. [...] "At what point is it just trying to one up things and at what point is it to thwart law enforcement?" he added. "Apple is pretty good at evil genius stuff. [...However] If you have another evil genius, Cellebrite,then maybe we can get into that front," he said, facetiously coughing as he said “Cellebrite.”

Click to expand...

Time to post those videos again, I guess.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Time to post those videos again, I guess.

Click to expand...

As with many things though, they also have to be seen by the "right" people.

So I guess I'm going to cross-post this from the Canada thread:

Police In Canada Tracking People's 'Negative' Behavior In a 'Risk' Database

--Patrick

Directly from the blog of the ACLU:
We Got U.S. Border Officials to Testify Under Oath. Here’s What We Found Out.

Basically, that you can be searched/siezed/detained without having to demonstrate probable cause, without limiting scope, and that it can be for any type of crime. Criminal, civil, foreign, domestic, HIPAA, attorney-client privilege, NDAs, self-incrimination, none of it matters, now hand over your phone.

--Patrick

Blackstone private equity firm purchases Ancestry.com (and their database) for $4.7 billion.

We look forward to investing behind further data, functionality, and product development across Ancestry’s market leading platform to continue to provide a differentiated service. [...]we will continue to leverage our unique content, powerhouse consumer brand and technology platform to expand our global Family History business while bringing to life our long-term vision of personalized preventive health.

Click to expand...

Another spokesman said:

To be crystal clear, Blackstone will not have access to user data and we are deeply committed to ensuring strong consumer privacy protections at the company. We will not be sharing user DNA and family tree records with our portfolio companies.

Click to expand...

Still, the fact that its workings are even less transparent now is not reassuring.

EDIT: Forgot to include the link. Fixed.
—Patrick

PatrThom said:

Blackstone private equity firm purchases Ancestry.com (and their database) for $4.7 billion.


Still, the fact that its workings are even less transparent now is not reassuring.

—Patrick

Click to expand...

"We will not be sharing user DNA and family tree records with our portfolio companies. "

For now.

your government can tell you what video games you can play?

DarkAudit said:

Click to expand...

Let me guess. The number one pre-indicator of crime is the amount of melanin in one's skin?

You might live in a Police State if:

You could face 5 years in federal prison for allegedly throwing a bike helmet at a federal officer.
You could be charged with civil disorder for speaking about black lives on a sidewalk.
You could be arrested and sent to federal prison for being in the area of a protest.
You could be arrested and sent to federal prison for riding a bike near a protest site.
You could be arrested and sent to federal prison for being a medic.
You could be arrested and sent to federal prison for singing at the cops.

As a bonus, every person held in lockup until at least Nov 4th also means one less vote!

—Patrick