| ▲ | shermantanktop 2 hours ago |
| Looks like a nothingburger? It's unfunded. An email describes a protest without giving a framing that the site would prefer. Then it turns out that nobody knows what it does, but it might do something bad. I'm all for transparency and accountability but my assumption is that the bad things being done by LEO and intelligence are far worse than this. |
|
| ▲ | Shalomboy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| My take away from the article was that this likely isn't the only public-private intelligence network propped up by local PDs; that was pretty alarming to me. |
| |
| ▲ | kube-system 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Most large businesses do this for hundreds if not thousands of years. Large open source projects do it too. Basically any organization that does any attempt to analyze threats of any sort will have a need to collaborate with law enforcement. Walmart does it for theft rings. Canonical does it for hacking threats targeting Ubuntu. Your bank does it for people trying to steal money. | |
| ▲ | lacewing an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Would it shock your conscience to learn that Microsoft security operations probably have contacts with the Redmond PD and that they occasionally discuss concerns? The existence of a mailing list or something of that sort isn't particularly worrying. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a firewall between police departments and local businesses any more that it would be reasonable to expect one between PDs and local residents. I would be alarmed if it turned out that Amazon was giving the Seattle PD direct, warrantless access to data about their consumers, or something like that. But there's no evidence presented here of anything particularly sketchy going on. | |
| ▲ | whimsicalism an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, large businesses have contacts with local PD in the area. This is what BIDs basically are as well | |
| ▲ | erxam 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think this is a good point: this is what they're letting us on. | |
| ▲ | nikhilpareek13 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | LoganDark 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you mean unfounded? |
| |
|
| ▲ | acidhousemcnab 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| There were a lot of articles describing Snowdon / Manning and Wikileaks releases as exactly "nothing burgers", in those journals of note that people read to tell them what to think about matters - but I'm not sure what a "nothing burger" means - pulverised cattle flesh flattened into an oval, that doesn't exist? |
| |
| ▲ | pc86 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Is there a term for this weird autistic pseudo-nerd-sniping where someone pretends not to understand a very common expression and takes it absurdly literally to try to prove a point? | |
| ▲ | shermantanktop an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The validity of the term should be separate from the pernicious use by people who would like you to stop paying attention to things that matter. I think there’s lots of stuff in this space that is worth paying attention to, including for example just how complete a profile companies like Experian have assembled on US citizens, or Flock and LPR generally. This just seems a lot of fluff with nothing substantial, hence a nothingburger. |
|
