While I’m super opposed to this, people from the West and especially Americans shouldn’t forget that the NYPD has for years used programs like Stop and Frisk [0] and subway bag searches [1] that were seen as valid crime/terrorism fighting policies. The idea that the state shouldn’t randomly stop people to search them has been and still is strongly supported by a decent chunk of the population.
You cannot compare these two levels of violence. Or if you compare them you should add a [fractal] distance between them.
There are a lot of issues in USA (and many other countries around the world!) But here you can see that the world doesn't know how to respond to one country attacking a neighbour in another continent in XXI. Which is very concerning taking into account we are in a world with very advanced (and expensive) weaponry and bureaucrats who just warm their seats.
It is obviously not enough to tweet or TikTok... all the respect to HN where we learn, and have great and deep discussions oriented to action, even if they are oriented mainly to startups. Startups are just an example of confronting and transforming realities.
> You cannot compare these two levels of violence. Or if you compare them you should add a [fractal] distance between them.
> There are a lot of issues in USA
Why can't you compare? A number of people in minority communities are concerned that US stop-and-frisk stops are used to incarcerate them, kill them, or rob from them. What is the difference?
> You cannot compare these two levels of violence.
The comparison is between two things, the police forcing you to give them access your phone for no explicit reason, or the police forcing you to allow them to physically and invasively search your whole body for no explicit reason. You are conflating that comparison with a bunch of other things happening external to the specific actions the police are allowed to do.
The reasons why both are happening doesn't mean you can't objectively compare whether what the police are doing is acceptable outside of the larger situation that is causing them to do it. The question is if one seems unacceptable, shouldn't the other be too? If you want to talk about levels of violence between these two, stop and frisk certainly seems to be something closer to approaching physical violence, or at least the greater potential for it, then searching your phone.
Your argument is completely valid except there is a missing [postmodern?] point at a meta level: you are changing the focus of a terrible event that should be solved at a global scale to an event that could be handled at a local scale, AND in US it should be much simpler than in Russia.
In US you have a lot of ways you can do that and I am always amazed that the US democracy is failing at a basic level when I compare with righteous US people who achieved amazing stuff in the US past. If you don't show your mobile founds you can protect you by the law.
In Russia there are much fewer options and civilians are risking their life at an amazing level. Law does not exist.
So how can the people who are targeted - mostly minorities - use “Democracy” when the majority either doesn’t care about the mistreatment of minorities or even cheerlead it? Not to mention that politicians are afraid of blowback from police unions and the majority who support them since people don’t get stopped for “driving while White”.
I don't have the answer but I think there are enough creative people in US to find it and advance the state of the art in politics. Event if it is not in US it can happen anywhere.
I also think that the statement "software is eating the world" have not touch politics enough but will happen. Not talking about FB and social media in general.
You can legally refuse a subway bag search, leave and enter the subway through another entrance. I've done so a few times, and the officers just roll their eyes and act like you're being unreasonable.
Stop and Frisk was a TERRIBLE rights violation though and we should never bring it back.
I'm not acting like anything. Stop and Frisk as a policy of NYC was ended by the last mayor. I believe I describe it as "a TERRIBLE rights violation". Why would you think I'm minimizing anything similar?
I'm pretty familiar with those numbers, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
In so far as that arrest disparity is above and beyond the difference in 911 call volume, it needs serious scrutiny. We absolutely need to keep reforming the way we do policing here. We have a serious problem of simultaneously over and under policing some neighborhoods. I don't have much faith in Adams on this, but I think public sentiment has shifted a lot in the last 3 years, so hopefully some progress can be made.
They have though. The NYT article points out that stops and arrests are WAY down, and we’ve done away with cash bail for a lot of offenses. Those are. If material differences, real progress.
What does the reason the police are doing it for matter? Isn't either action an egregious violation of privacy? Sometimes society has allowed these things for emergency reasons, but stop and frisk was a program that was instituted for many many years. I can't understand how you can view the forced cell phone search as a clear violation of rights but defend stop and frisk, other than one is happening in evil Russia and the other happened in the US.
People talk about stop and frisk in such an abstract sense, because it happened in poor minority neighborhoods, so most people talking about didn't have to go through. Imagine strangers being able to legally frisk your whole body for no apparent reason. It is such a huge violation of personal space and privacy and it's so demeaning, especially when you know it's being specifically targeted at your community.
Stop and frisking for guns is not getting into a thought crime type situation where what you say, are writing matters.
Asking to reviews your phone is.
One is a much more serious invasion of privacy in my view.
This is clear generally. We ALREADY walk through metal detectors at airports. We walk through body scanners. We do NOT expect to have to turn over our phones (unless going through a country border perhaps and if I expected it I'd just have a blank phone for that).
So we have already made the distinction here and it's not unreasonable (even if you don't agree that removing an assault weapon from a felon with a restraining order is different from going through someone's phone messages).
Are you claiming that when the Russian cop asks if he can see your phone, he says "Excuse me, this is to reduce dissent over an invasion of a foreign country?"
The difference I see is that for the US case you accept the stated purpose ('reduce gun crime') and ignore the outcome as felt by the person on the receiving end, and for Russia, you reverse these.
These are different levels of privacy invasion, at least in the US.
Going through a phone to check what you are thinking / saying is seen as more intrusive. So even in a stop and frisk, going through someone's phone would not generally be justified.
The rules here are very clear. In particular, even in a terry stop police generally are not authorized to seize / search your cell phone. But they can pat down your outer clothing for weapons.
That's how it works with most things. If you ride somewhere with a tank and shoot at something, it makes a difference if you're "defending your country" vs "invading".
If you shoot at someone, it makes a difference if your goal is to stop him from shooting you, or if you're trying to kill him to steal his car.
Ends justify means. Though ends need to be justified, too.
Stop and frisk was so controversial it was ended by popular demand. One upside of America is that privacy invading policies have a way of correcting themselves if the electorate is sufficiently outraged. The proposed changes to Section 230 being shut down are another example of the powers that be not ruling absolutely.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_C...
[1] https://www.nyclu.org/en/cases/sultan-v-kelly-et-al-challeng...