Slashdot Mirror
Site Claims to Reveal 'Tattle-tales'
Dekortage writes "Have you ever ratted somebody out? If it was a legal case, you might end up on Who's A Rat, an online database of police informants and undercover agents, identified through various publicly-available documents such as court briefings. The data-mined information is now available online at a price. As reported in the New York Times, 'The site says it has identified 4,300 informers and 400 undercover agents, many of them from documents obtained from court files available on the Internet.' Understandably, U.S. judges and law enforcement agents are upset, although defense lawyers seem to like the idea. Where do you draw the line between legal transparency and secrecy?"
If judges and prosecutors are going to use people's MySpace, Facebook, and Google search results against them and claim, "Hey, it's a public record!" then they shouldn't be surprised or outraged by this. The whole trend of using publicly available online data to snoop on people is a two way street.
Just b/c a person does not support Bush and his administration, does not mean that person is a Democrat. Maybe he is a Republican that doesn't like Bush? There are lots of reasons to disapprove of the Bush administration that fall outside of traditional political cheer-leading.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Selling marijuana to consenting adults is the very definition of a victimless crime. It's the government's own fault for not legalizing it & collecting taxes.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Yes, when parents don't feed their children because they need drug money, its a victimless crime, no one other than the parent is hurt!
No, it's child abuse, just the same as if they spent the children's money on a trip to Vegas. That doesn't mean that staying in a luxury hotel or selling someone an airline ticket is or should be a crime.
When people cant think properly because they've taken too many drugs
No, it's criminal negligence, just the same as if they put on a blindfold and got into their car. That doesn't mean that owning opaque pieces of cloth should be a crime.
People dealing drugs to others, even when the others haven't been shown how dangerous the drugs are, is a victimless crime. The people who recieved the drugs certainly weren't hurt!
If you choose to consent to something, you aren't a victim of it. Now, there might be a small minority that were addicted by someone else, in which case they are victims, but most people who use drugs choose to do so.
(And so on for the other examples)
Honestly, I could care less about the people who know the risks, and still use the drugs to the point of harming themselves. It's those that use them and harm others in the process, that bother me.
The vast majority of drug users don't harm others. For the minority that do, harming others is already a crime, so punish them for that.
What would Lemmy do?