Portland - No more gang designations, because minorities.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Yes, Portland's rough crowd of people who haven't been arrested or convicted of a crime are a lot like ISIS members. Thinking otherwise is just soft-headed PC nonsense.

Who can't we compare to ISIS to make a point about how we need more security databases these days?

[DBTrek]

Yes, Portland's rough crowd of people who haven't been arrested or convicted of a crime are a lot like ISIS members. Thinking otherwise is just soft-headed PC nonsense.

Who can't we compare to ISIS to make a point about how we need more security databases these days?

I'm sorry, did I miss the part where you explained the irreparable damage caused to society by having admitted gang affiliations noted in private police databases? What with all the goal post moving it's possible I missed the part where you highlighted the ill that is being cured here.

Explain, again, what onerous social burden we've alleviated by forbidding police to mention gang affiliations in their internal database(s).

... or, you know, just type another random, non sequitir, in the name of fighting the good fight, for which you can't actually name the good.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

My bad, if it can't be shown to do 'irreparable damage to society,' we should let the police do it. Limiting our auxiliaries ability to collect information about citizens who haven't been arrested or convicted of any crime isn't a rational position at all.

Especially when some of those citizens are hanging around with neighborhood toughs.

[de officiis]

A reasonable compromise would be to maintain the data for a set period of time (choose a reasonable number) and then delete it unless the person is convicted of a crime, in which case the data would be retained for another period of time.

[DBTrek]

My bad, if it can't be shown to do 'irreparable damage to society,' we should let the police do it. Limiting our auxiliaries ability to collect information about citizens who haven't been arrested or convicted of any crime isn't a rational position at all.

Especially when some of those citizens are hanging around with neighborhood toughs.

I'm sorry . . . the onerous social ill being cured by prohibiting police to note gang affiliations in their private databases is what again?

Goal posts are really loud when you drag them around at that speed.



(Does vehicle make and model count as "collect(ing) information about citizens who haven't been arrested or convicted of any crime" too? Maybe we should stop that form of oppression next, eh?)

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

My bad, if it can't be shown to do 'irreparable damage to society,' we should let the police do it. Limiting our auxiliaries ability to collect information about citizens who haven't been arrested or convicted of any crime isn't a rational position at all.

Especially when some of those citizens are hanging around with neighborhood toughs.

I'm sorry . . . the onerous social ill being cured by prohibiting police to note gang affiliations in their private databases is what again?

Goal posts are really loud when you drag them around at that speed.



(Does vehicle make and model count as "collect(ing) information about citizens who haven't been arrested or convicted of any crime" too? Maybe we should stop that form of oppression next, eh?)

You keep asking me to prove a point that I never tried to make, and now that I haven't I am 'moving goal posts.'

Somehow, if I argue that we don't need this database, I have argued that we should have no databases at all.

Somehow, if I argue that the authority of the police over citizens should be limited, I have to make a case that a particular use of authority is society ending, or I have argued that police should have no authority at all.

If you think that 'onerous social ill' is the only bar for limiting what the police can do, cool beans, but that ain't my goal post, never was.

What is that thing people do, where they construct a crap argument and then put it in the mouth of the person they are arguing with, again?

[DBTrek]

So when pressed for specific answers on what exactly you're opposing here, you have nothing.
You're just mad because police could annotate gang affiliations in a completely private database, yet prohibiting them from doing so by screaming RACISM hasn't actually solved anything for anyone.
Yeah, I know.
Good of you to finally get around to admitting it.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I specifically oppose collecting information and building databases for authorities to use against people who have neither been arrested or convicted of a crime.

You are the only one here talking about racism hoss.

[DBTrek]

I specifically oppose collecting information and building databases for authorities to use against people who have neither been arrested or convicted of a crime.

You are the only one here talking about racism hoss.

1. The article upon which this thread was founded cites racism as the reason for prohibiting gang affiliations to be noted in private police databases.
2. You've done nothing to explain how this information is "use(d) against people who have neither been arrested or convicted of a crime". It's just information, dude.

So on point one you're wrong, and on point 2 you're making completely unsupported claims.
Not to mention extremely abstract claims - like opposing the "collecting of information" for private databases.
That's a pretty broad and unrealistic view to take in 2017.

"Hey guys, I just ran this license plate through our computer"
"OMG! YOU MEAN YOU QUERIED OUR DATABASE OF COLLECTED INFORMATION ON A MAN WHO COMMITTED NO CRIME?!?!"

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Starting with your second point,

You cited this:

The Oregonian/OregonLive review of the controversial gang affiliation database showed that police labeled someone a "criminal gang affiliate'' more than 100 times each year, without a conviction, without an arrest. Police were able to add someone to the list if the person self-identified as a member of a gang, participated in a gang initiation ritual, committed a gang-related crime or displayed two or more observable signs of gang membership.

Those labels would pop up as a red flag when officers ran someone's name on their mobile computer database. Nicknames, employers, schools, vehicles and associates were included in the gang designation reports.

Do you typically post quotes without reading them very carefully?

As for the first point, I understand, from the article you posted, that people in Portland are concerned about racism in their system. I was arguing that, in spite of that, I think there is something positive about this change.

So other than your posts, nobody else is saying anything here about racism.