EU Parliament Told Predictive Policing Software Relies On Dirty Data Generated By Corrupt Cops

from the junk-data,-garbage-outcomes dept

Predictive policing efforts continue to expand around the world. Fortunately, so has the criticism. The data witchcraft that expects a bunch of crap data created by biased policing to coalesce into actionable info continues to be touted by those least likely to be negatively affected by it: namely, law enforcement agencies and the government officials that love them.

The theory that people should be treated like criminals because someone else did some crimes in the area in the past is pretty specious, but as long as it results in temporary drops in criminal activity, fans of unreasonable suspicion will continue to use these tools that still have no long-term proven track record.

It's not just a US problem. It's a problem everywhere. The European Parliament has been asking for feedback on predictive policing efforts, which is more than most agencies in the US are willing to do. The Executive Director of the AI Now Institute, Andrea Nill Sanchez, recently testified during a public hearing on the issue, using the Institute's 2019 report on predictive policing to highlight everything that's wrong with turning law enforcement over to modeling algorithms. (via The Next Web)

The point of Sanchez's testimony [PDF] is this: we can't trust the data being fed to these systems. Therefore, we definitely can't trust the predictions being produced by them. Dirty cops create dirty data.

Despite what the term may suggest, predictive policing is neither magic nor a precise science that allows us to see into the future. Instead, predictive policing refers to fallible systems that use algorithms to analyze available data and aim to produce a forecasted probability of where a crime may occur, who might commit it, or who could be a victim.

Left unchecked, the proliferation of predictive policing risks replicating and amplifying patterns of corrupt, illegal, and unethical conduct linked to legacies of discrimination that plague law enforcement agencies across the globe.

This is drawn from AI Now's report, which pointed out some of the most corrupt police forces in the nation were feeding data from biased policing into systems that were now destined to generate nothing but more of the same corruption.

(1) Chicago, an example of where dirty data was ingested directly into the city’s predictive system; (2) New Orleans, an example where the extensive evidence of dirty policing practices and recent litigation suggests an extremely high risk that dirty data was or could be used in predictive policing; and (3) Maricopa County, where despite extensive evidence of dirty policing practices, a lack of public transparency about the details of various predictive policing systems restricts a proper assessment of the risks.

This is only one of several problems. First, almost every system used by law enforcement agencies is a closed system, unable to be inspected by anyone outside the companies that sell them and the agencies that use them. There's nearly no way for outsiders to vet data or outcomes. They can only judge the systems by the results. And those results are withheld or released pretty much at the sole discretion of the agencies using predictive policing software. If it's not producing decreases in crime rates, citizens will be the last to know.

Second, the data used is both tainted and selective, skewing the output towards the selective enforcement agencies already engage in.

[P]redictive policing primarily relies on inherently subjective police data, which reflects police practices and policies—not actual crime rates. Law enforcement exercises enormous discretion in how it carries out its work and collects data, including the crimes and criminals it overlooks.

Finally, there's no way to cleanse the systems of dirty data. Police departments are unable to recognize that their own biases might taint inputs. And citizens are powerless to challenge the data that's being used to target them for increased law enforcement scrutiny. With pushback effectively neutralized -- both by police practices and the secrecy surrounding proprietary algorithms -- agencies are just going to continue engaging in the same biased policing, only with the justification that the software told them to do it.

Since life and liberty is on the line for citizens put at the mercy of software being fed junk data, Sanchez suggests the following should be instituted (at a bare minimum) before predictive policing software is deployed:

As a first step, agencies considering using predictive policing tools should undertake Algorithmic Impact Assessments that include the following: (1) a self-assessment evaluating the system’s potential impacts on fairness, justice, and bias; (2) a meaningful external review process; (3) public notice and comment; and (4) enhanced due process mechanisms to challenge unfair, biased, or other harmful effects.

But that's just the start. The whole system has failed for years and reform from the ground up is needed before this software can be trusted in the hands of the police. Sanchez calls for the entire criminal justice system to be reformed, since it's the source of institutional racism and the enabler of some of the worst law enforcement behavior.

The negatives far outweigh the positives when it comes to predictive policing. The EU is taking the right step by asking for public input. Here in the US, public input is still an afterthought -- something that only happens after enough damage has been done. Turning law enforcement over to tainted data and proprietary algorithms poses a genuine threat to life and liberty. Hopefully, someone in the US will take a cue from the EU Parliament's actions and start asking law enforcement agencies tough questions about their predictive policing programs.

Filed Under: eu, junk data, law enforcement, predictive policing


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 26 Mar 2020 @ 3:46am

    Confirmation bias as law

    Step 1: Police go after one group more than others, potentially for legitimate(at the time) reasons or not so legitimate reasons.

    Step 2: Due to increased attention, that group slowly starts accumulating a larger percentage of arrests/convictions, not necessarily because they are guilty of more crimes but because more attention is being paid to them and the police are just sure that they're doing something wrong because look at the (police's own) numbers!

    Step 3: The increase stats regarding that group are used to justify the ever increasing attention, resulting in a snowball effect of confirmation bias, where yesterday's arrest justifies today's, and today's arrest is used to justify tomorrow's.

    Now, as bad as that is without automation and programs that can be used to justify already questionable/flat out wrong behavior add that system in and things are likely to become massively worse. Fix the underlying problems on both the tech and police ends and then maybe that sort of program can be considered, to roll it out before then is just going to take an already existent problem and make it much worse for the public, even if it would be great for police.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Annonymouse, 26 Mar 2020 @ 4:37am

      Re: Confirmation bias as law

      It's not even a technical issue since nearly each and every aspect that is causing issues is rooted in the police themselves outside of the company secrecy regarding their algorithms because math can be proprietary.
      Sadly that doctor won't cure themselves.
      They very much enjoy their dysfunction.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2020 @ 5:27am

    "but as long as it results in temporary drops in criminal activity, fans of unreasonable suspicion will continue"

    They assume the drop in crime is attributable to their draconian policing. However, it could also be due to other things - like a reluctance to call the cops due to their draconian policing.

    When conclusions are presented without any reference to the underlying data, one becomes suspicious of the intent.

    Also, when only collecting crime data from poor neighborhoods the overall crime results are amazingly skewed. There is plenty of crime occurring in non-poor neighborhoods but they get a free pass because the da likes to selectively enforce the paw.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Mar 2020 @ 7:18am

    The thought police haven't thought this out

    If the effect of predictive policing is that the police cover areas where a crime is 'predicted' to occur then one harm is that the possibility that another area wouldn't be covered as well as it could have been, given limited resources. Another is that people in the covered area could be harassed at inappropriate levels. Neither of those is good.

    But I fear that things will go much further, and at least here in the US with the concept of innocent until proven guilty, that rabbit hole will become huge. What will they charge some 'culprit' with, followed by, how would they prove that beyond a reasonable doubt? The fact is, if someone is arrested for 'they are about to commit a crime' that at that point, no crime has been committed. If we are talking about proving conspiracy to commit a crime, that's another thing, however proving conspiracy isn't as easy as 'we thought they were about to xxx'. And, at what level would conspiracy be worthy of investigation. There are things such as a crime of opportunity where no planning actually takes place.

    Until time travel becomes a reality, where we can go back a day or so and actually prevent something from happening, predictive policing is just a law enforcement fantasy. And since time travel is unlikely to become a reality anytime soon, predictive policing will remain a law enforcement fantasy, except that they are implementing it anyway, forcing us to live in their fantasy existence. But it isn't their world, at least not yet. It's ours.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 26 Mar 2020 @ 8:12am

    Why not use AI here?

    Parallel construction is the euphemism for evidence laundering, and computer algorithms and AI are the euphemism for bias laundering.

    You plug in biased numbers (the results you want to end up with in the first place), computers and AI get to work on them, and you get the unmitigated bias out again. Except now it's scientific and must not be questioned any more. Proprietary trade secrets and so on.

    I don't see why this cannot be perfectly applied to "Predictive Policing".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2020 @ 8:54am

      Re: Why not use AI here?

      I think that has already been in place given the use of Garden Size (UK sense) as a parameter in sentencing algoeithims. There is no reason to include that except for classism essentially. If they thought gardens were somehow rehabilitative then they would provide their own to the convicted instead of lengthening or shortening sentencing based upon it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 27 Mar 2020 @ 2:24pm

        Re: Re: Why not use AI here?

        given the use of Garden Size (UK sense) as a parameter in sentencing algoeithims.

        Do you have a reference for that? I couldn't find anything.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      ROGS, 30 Mar 2020 @ 8:57am

      Re: Why not use AI here?

      Parallel construction often follows parallel investigations too, at a disturbingly increasing rate:

      https://www.haynesboone.com/experience/practices/litigation/government%20enforcement%20and%20l itigation/internal%20investigations%20and%20crisis%20management

      These investigations today are heinous, hidden behind the terrorists are everywhere schemas, and use international agencies, and hide the ball schemes as to what evidence came from who, and where.

      SO, beyond evidence laundering, they are actually engaging in investigation laundering too, by not reporting the sources of their data, who are frequently multi-national intelligence agencies, and the world police.

      And that, hidden behind the "Anonymous tipster" scam.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Upstream (profile), 26 Mar 2020 @ 9:34am

    Words Matter

    We really need to stop using the term 'justice system.' It is a legal system, and any result resembling 'justice' is merely an occasional side effect. Using the term 'justice system' only serves to further unfortunate misconceptions.

    It should probably also be noted that 'justice' is often considered impossible to properly define, and, by extension, impossible to properly achieve.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2020 @ 11:00am

      Re: Words Matter

      Because one person's justice is another's injustice.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2020 @ 2:04pm

        Re: Re: Words Matter

        Not so. Justice is justice. It is truth in action and truth is truth no matter the speaker or listener. Another person might not like the result but justice is still justice.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 26 Mar 2020 @ 12:45pm

    lets ask if..

    we can add to the program.
    Corporate corruption.
    Political Falsehoods.
    Bank illegalities..

    Lets install a economic program to put us on a course that works, and arrest the idiots Stopping it..??

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 26 Mar 2020 @ 5:32pm

      Re: lets ask if..

      Those are already considered as mitigating factors. After all, they make friends in high places more likely and those correlate to reduced prosecuted crime rates.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Mar 2020 @ 8:39pm

    Artificial intelligence won't solve any problems I am aware of.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      ROGueS, 28 Mar 2020 @ 10:57am

      Re: fee speech?

      AI is already solving the problem of people figuring out who it is EXACTLY that is trying to control the "worlds mind."

      Have a look at how the Anti Defamation League (ADL) uses AI to target, and assault individuals, and groups who disagree with their tribal, religious, racist ideology, which is enacted via law, and cultural prohibitions on speech:

      https://www.adl.org/blog/redirect-method-yields-valuable-insights-for-countering-online-extr emism

      The other religions and their occulted internet operations are also doing it, but these asses actually brag about it, as if we are all on the same religious page derived from superstition, magic, and common human stupidity and gullibility towards religious bias and stupidity, which we are not.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 28 Mar 2020 @ 11:31am

        Re: Re: fee speech?

        "The program used advertising to divert individuals who searched Google for violent extremist material toward videos and other content that exposes the falsehoods of extremist narratives and suggests non-violent content."

        This is what you're so vehemently opposed to? Are you one of the people looking for the violent extremist material?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          ROGueS, 28 Mar 2020 @ 12:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: fee speech?

          re: Are you one of the people looking for the violent extremist material?

          Please define that nebulous and amorphous (ritual slander based) term, bitch.

          Do you mean "does not easily conform to Israeli facism and racistmm based supremacist definitions of humanity"?

          Alright shitbag, please define "violent extremist material" so that we can have a sane conversation about how agencies seed the internet with word traps.

          Otherwise, you just look like another Israeli Squad 8200 terrorist, pig fucker, terrorist manufacturer scumbag.

          Not that you are that smart, or that you are effectively absolved here, due to your flip-flopping about how Israeli firms gang stalk people in the USA and elsewhere. Or, that yourchosen peoples deceptive and disingenuously terroristic methods are effective, per se.

          But your rhetoric mirrors theirs.

          Why is THAT?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            nasch (profile), 28 Mar 2020 @ 12:47pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: fee speech?

            violent: using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

            extremist (noun): a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.

            extremist (adjective): belonging or pertaining to extremists.

            material: facts, information, or ideas for use in creating a book or other work.

            Violent extremist material: Facts, information or ideas pertaining to extreme or fanatical political or religious views that advocates physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

            This is not that hard dude.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              ROGueS, 29 Mar 2020 @ 7:57am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fee speech?

              nasch, first, understand that the internet has been gameified by hidden internet operatives who work at all levels of CVE programming.

              And its at the point where words online are more like game pieces to many/any who get caught in these word traps that pass for "hate speech/terrorist speech/extremist content," etc.

              Then, have you ever read the texts that your culture refers to and derives from?

              Each and every reader of Bible/Torah/Talmud/Book of Mormon/Quran is by your definitions above, a violent extremist due to the content of those books,and terrorists by the very nature of that material, but we we tolerate the vast majority of them, because they hide their extremism behind police activity (which TD regularly covers in a most excellent way).

              Then, the even more extreme versions of that fanaticism, i.e. fanatical zionism (both Jewish and christian zionists) are responsible for heinous terrorist activity in the FVEYs and beyond. So the question for me is why don't we simply police them and their hidden activity?

              And the answer as we know, is that that the militarization of police is driven by those narratives and activities; and that those exact cockroaches work at ALL levels of high policing.

              Remember, if they have nothing to hide, etc. But they have A LOT to hide, because what they are doing isn't simply redirection.

              In fact, I can and have demonstrated that what they are doing is much more than that, which is roughly called "third party punishment*," and all of the absurdity that you can imagine goes into that.

              Because it is they who are behind nearly every mass shooting in the US, and more, as we see time and time again that close quartering by surveillance role players, working with local police, NGOs, and "community policing" under the ATAP "parallel colliding investigations" model of state sponsored harassment.

              And, they are illegally, and literally obliterating the civil rights of those who they target after speech policing, and bizarre harassment online and off.

              And all of that starts with speech policing the gameified internet, where words are like game pieces on a board, rather than actual "threats" of any kind.

              Is it that hard for you to understand this? Its gameified speech that is being policed.

              And, what is really happening is forced conformity to Jewish-christian zionist ideology and narrative, which is the absolute opposite of simple redirection.

              Its become so prolific that both the left and right are targeting people in this way now.

              There are proven links between the absurdities of CVE "othering" by hidden internet operatives, and mass shootings under the "manufactured terrorism" initiatives, and the rabid extremists who are DVIC and CVE beneficiaries.

              As they like to say "It is bullying on steroids," but what I like to say is "It's bullying on acid," because it attacks a person in the privacy of their Twitter, Facebook, etc., and it is in fact an "influence" operation.

              It is an unasked for attempt to control the way people think-how they process information in their mind via unasked for meddling and middle man attacks on their speech.

              And that redirection by religious and political speech police is different than a mere advertisement by exponentials; and it should be illegal; and what they are doing offline is illegal.

              SO, I developed ROGS Analysis, and the ROGS Bingo card towards that purpose.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                nasch (profile), 29 Mar 2020 @ 11:41am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fee speech?

                Is it that hard for you to understand this?

                Yes, quite difficult. But it's OK, don't try to explain again.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  ROGueS, 30 Mar 2020 @ 2:20am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fee speech?

                  Well, at least you are honest that you don't understand it.

                  I miss the good old days, when we agreed with each other that the national security state does indeed gang stalk people exactly like what happened to Jeffrey Kantor.

                  Ahhh, nostalgia.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    nasch (profile), 30 Mar 2020 @ 8:41am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fee speech?

                    I miss the good old days, when we agreed with each other that the national security state does indeed gang stalk people exactly like what happened to Jeffrey Kantor.

                    Please stop. I already explained that I never agreed with you about that.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      ROGS, 30 Mar 2020 @ 9:32am

                      fair enough

                      I wasn't trying to be disingenuous, so, yeah, you are correct, You did not agree per se.

                      You said that its "not impossible" in our modern and total surveillance era that nefarious bullying and harassment by private contractors and covert agents and agencies.

                      But as you know, I am all about demonstrative speech, and my point in stating that we agreed was that generally, I think that you also make disingenuous statements about me, or my viewpoints.

                      That said, in all fairness to any who might Google this obscurity, what you actually said is this:

                      "nasch (profile), 27 May 2015 @ 12:14pm
                      Re: proof its schizophrenia
                      proof its schizophrenia

                      Not so long ago I would have said exactly that. Now it doesn't seem entirely far-fetched. Not that I would take that story at face value, but it doesn't sound totally impossible anymore."

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        nasch (profile), 30 Mar 2020 @ 10:10am

                        Re: fair enough

                        Yes, that is what I said, and "not totally impossible" is a far cry from "yes, it definitely happens a lot".

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          ROGS, 5 Apr 2020 @ 12:38pm

                          Re: Re: fair enough

                          I missed this, and I am not trying to be a jerk, or inveigle you to look a bit deeper now, since your first response several years ago.

                          Keep in mind, that I never implied that YOU said they happen " a lot," and even I maintain that these mass shooters are EXTREME outliers on a Bell curve.

                          So, neither of us has claimed these things happen a lot.

                          Is that a fair statement about your position in the matter then?

                          Because we see increasing frequency, African Americans, and left wing shooters are being "radicalized" now.

                          And, that in many/most instances, ROGS Analysis of mass shootings is batting nearly 1000%, starting with the EXACT language and circumstances that Jeffrey Kantor used to describe what was happening to him then.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            nasch (profile), 5 Apr 2020 @ 12:57pm

                            Re: Re: Re: fair enough

                            Well now I'm not sure what we're talking about any more. Mass shooters, or gang stalking? Mass shooters don't happen a lot. It looks to me like gang stalking, if it happens at all, is rare. Hopefully that answers your question.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • identicon
                              ROGS, 5 Apr 2020 @ 3:02pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: fair enough

                              Ok.
                              Its OK to be not OK.

                              The recent Molson Coors shooter was racially harassed in his workplace. Maybe it was the ADL and its NGO spawn. But unlikely that it was the KKK, in any way.

                              I do not deny American white, racial supremacy; but I clearly indict Israelification of narratives and manipulation of that dialectic space.

                              https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/us/molson-coors-shooter-noose/index.html

                              And,re: Mass shooters, or gang stalking?

                              nasch, mass shooters are quite frequently the bi-product of gang stalking, aka "parallel occluded investigations" by corporate, and government security industry shitbags.

                              And mass shooters are their statistical proofs. While the shooters are statistical outliers, despite the media focu, they are also where we see this security industry collusion..

                              And so, in Milwaukee, we see a black man who was clearly gang stalked, by definition, and then, we have to guess "who was gang stalking him?"

                              That guy had the ADL on one side, and a Ukrainian Jew, and a Navy veteran skilled in "psyops" on the other; white people who were likely racist, or non-cognizant of racial dialoguges; but who clearly and unambiguously utilized symbolic narratives: the Ace of Spades card; the noose.

                              The problem here is that the ADL and its satellite NGOs creates so many noose/swastika hoaxes that the facts become obscured.

                              SO, yeah, mass shooters are outliers on the Bell curve, but consume media space, whereas "radicalization" consumes zero dialectic space.

                              And thats the real, and important "American" dialogue right now.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              • icon
                                nasch (profile), 6 Apr 2020 @ 7:43am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: fair enough

                                I do not deny American white, racial supremacy;

                                Is that really what you meant to write? You agree with the racial supremacy of American whites?

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                • identicon
                                  ROGS, 6 Apr 2020 @ 11:01am

                                  not fair: cherry picking out of context

                                  No, I didn't say that, and you know I didn't say that, ever, anywhere. You might as well cherry pick the Talmud, or Mayan tomb art, which are equally open to cherry picking.

                                  nasch, that's a laughably disingenuous statement to cherry pick what I actually said, and you knew that when you wrote it.

                                  Only TDs regular in-house race bait trolls would even say that about ROGS. Any legitimate reader would not get that out of what I wrote.

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  • icon
                                    nasch (profile), 6 Apr 2020 @ 11:20am

                                    Re: not fair: cherry picking out of context

                                    Here's what you wrote: "I do not deny American white, racial supremacy;" I assumed it was an error, which is why I asked if you wanted to correct yourself. "Deny" is the opposite of "accept". So if you do not deny something, then you accept it. So you wrote that you accept American white racial supremacy. I assume that you meant something else by that phrase, but that is what you wrote. I don't know if you meant that you accept the existence of white supremacists, or what. Feel free to clarify. Or just sling more accusations, whatever you want to do.

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    • identicon
                                      ROGS, 7 Apr 2020 @ 9:55am

                                      Language is not merely a binary excercise

                                      OK, sometimes I forget that TDs community is peopled by techish, binary I/O thinkers, whereas I approach language as a multi-tool, with non-binary, and relative, situational meanings and statements.

                                      So, in human language, the term in that statement functions differently than in computer code( or racist speech):

                                      deny
                                      [dəˈnī]
                                      VERB

                                      *state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of*.

                                      In this context, my phrase simply did not rule it out; and has has a deeper and more colloquial meaning, cued by para-linguistic cues, whereas your interpretation of that statement is binary, and non-human to some extent.

                                      As in either/or statements:

                                      A disjunction is a set of two statements joined by the word “or”, so that both statements could be true, or only one statement could be true.

                                      That said, So if you do not deny something, then you accept it is stated as a binary, whereas what I actually said has colloquial context cues, and I used disjunctively to a minor extent, because it was a minor point. SO, either/or, if, and, etc.

                                      In linguistics, a disjunct is a type of adverbial adjunct that expresses information that is not considered essential to the sentence it appears in, but which is considered to be the speaker's or writer's attitude towards, or descriptive statement of, the propositional content of the sentence

                                      So,mine does not express a mere binary option, but rather my acknowledgement of the existence of white supremacy as a concept, and feature of American law, culture and politics; and of Russian law, European law, and I might even throw in that Maximilianos in Tlaquepaque, MX probably get better service at upscale restaurants too.

                                      Even your implied version of white supremacy is open to interpretation beyond binaries, unless the goal of the binary speaker is to divide the I from the 0, in which case, even binary conversation cannot occur.

                                      SO we see a problem emerge in the argument here: it's possible that we are speaking entirely different languages.

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ROGueS, 28 Mar 2020 @ 9:52am

    words matter, Upstream?

    Yes, you are correct: their is no justice in the US DVIC oriented court system.

    But if words matter so God Damned much, maybe have a word with the Anti Defamation League and its Octopus of NGOs and their pet christian zionists, which is nearly single- handedly militarizing our police forces/police chiefs to police speech and then stalk, and hunt speech transgressors("the other") who refuse to ketou (kowtow) to their version of the tribal narrative.

    In THAT version, "lashon hara" is the term to describe bad words.

    Start there, and work your way inwards to the Octopuses beak, then tear it off.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Mar 2020 @ 10:54am

    The EEC search fot the perfect Soviet

    As politics, it goes after whatever can be accepted.
    It goes after every tool that is fashionable.

    We see the results, even world wide.
    ... It's a dance within the main tune.

    Check: https://m.facebook.com/notes/dutra-de-lacerda/the-mindset-problem/3102039753173348/

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.