You mean because my line of work might cause an intersection with perpetrators and victims of child sexual abuse the police might take an interest in my personal affairs?
Probably, if they were fishing for a house to raid. I'd really rather they take an interest in the work, because the reality of what is what is far more complex than Burn the heretic. Kill the mutant. Purge the unclean.
Shocked and terrified administrators are a common thing because most grade schools are large enough that not a day goes by with kids having intercourse in the bathroom. And yet all the way through high-school we treat our kids like their sudden interest in sex is their problem that they should just ignore. And then we wonder why teenage pregnancy skyrockets in regions that allow only abstinence only education.
Kids are going to fool around. Your kids. Unless you choose to not have them, or unless you choose to beat them hard enough to keep them in the hospital (which is considered child abuse). We can either keep doing what we're doing and stay shocked (shocked!) that sexual activity is going on among our adolescents
Or we can reform society so that it accommodates and guides what is biologically normal behavior (and has been for hundreds of thousands of years) so that our kids transform into functional socially well-adjusted adults.
Regarding that, I'm desperate for the police or the department of justice or some judges to take an interest in my work.
Also, if I'm an official and like your wife, or your business is innovatively competing with my business, then I can find something and ruin you.
In the Harlequin romance novel version, I use prison to hold you hostage to keep your wife receptive. She treats me well, you stay in the light wing and keep your access to the library and better food and stuff.
She turns cold, and you get transferred to the hard wing and become Bubba's bitch.
I think encryption is a sweet thing we should be doing because it might slow down intelligence agencies from spying on everyone, and because it prevents our fourth-amendment rights from being encroached.
I think end-to-end encryption will prove necessary to keep governments and corporations out of our private lives, and out of the non-public records of our businesses.
US officials have been pushing for more surveillance and for hobbling encryption for the sake of intercepting terrorists.
Terrorists, that it appears, weren't using encryption at all.
So that excuse is lame. And encryption is still very useful for the rest of us.
And for a 17 or 18 year old to possess nudes of a 12 year old is definitely in the very wrong department.
Says you. To a 17 year old, that's only a five year difference, and the only thing we tell them regarding sex is just say no, without acknowledging at all that it's the primary drive that's kept our species alive for the last one hundred thousand years.
If they were in a hunter-gatherer society, a 12-year-old fooling around with a 18-year-old would be well within the realm of normal.
It's your society that has sexual hang-ups. It's your society that has no empathy for teens. It's even your society that has pushed to keep kids ignorant.
Japan's society also wants to keep sex restricted by license controlled by elder authorities, and they're going through a massive depopulation, where men are just disinterested in bothering with the responsibility shit because it's overwhelming, so they jack off every night to idealized anime girls.
If that's the society you want, keep blaming the kids.
You know what we still do in the US? We still pretend that puberty doesn't happen. We still pretend that if high-school kids can't think past their pants, or suddenly have sexual curiosity that dominates their train of thought that it's their problem.
We're removing critical thinking from high-school curricula because our administrators and officials are afraid of children that might be able to think for themselves, and you expect them to know better? They're exactly the idiots we ordered from the catalog.
Incidentally stupid, lazy and crazy are our primary lame justifications for fuck those guys.
Look up the pizza connection in which the Sicilian Mafia channeled drugs through (otherwise legitimate) pizza delivery joints. It took the FBI years to work out the code with thousands of hours of recorded phone tap.
"Taken in context, it's normal, legal, and perfectly reasonable."
Only if you are certain that he did it.
And you cannot be without a trial.
The whole point of the trial is to determine whether the crime was done by the accused.
Once you decide that the trial is to determine whether or not you can pin the crime on the accused, then you're no longer seeking justice. You're seeking to get a guy you've already decided is guilty.
You seize anything before the trial, that's presumption of guilt.
It's legal according to federal law, but so is extrajudicial detention and interrogation. So are drone strikes against civilians. So we've a chain of evidence here that sometimes what's legal in the US isn't necessarily what is right or good or just.
I think the the fact that the SCOTUS justices cannot see how this is violation of fundamental Constitutional principles highlights exactly how immersed we can get in our own point of view.
This is probably how the FISC rubber stamps so many warrants to look at civilian dick-pics, and how the hobby-lobby case went as it did.
It's probably also how we became an extrajudicial torture state. People are so far removed from perspectives that will be impacted by their decisions that they can't see the other side. They can't consider how the same provision could be used against themselves.
I'm sure that's what the police say in court. I'm sure that's what the bartender is claiming. I'm sure that the bag full of purple money was right where they planted it.
But that's still not to say he's dead-to-rights guilty, because there's always more to it.
And to start acting as if he was guilty of a crime before he is convicted is to presume guilt before due process, which is a violation of a man's rights.
If you don't care about preserving rights, go ahead and bind him up and shoot him in a field. From here it seems that's what you want to do.
In a justice system that worked, his ability to mount a righteous defense wouldn't count on his assets. Also the Justice System wouldn't fear a robust defense warchest, which is essentially what the whole asset seizure set of laws implies: that a fancy enough lawyer can beat the system.
In that case, the system's broken, and it is the responsibility of the government and the people to fix it. And not by sticking band-aid devices such as legalizing asset forfeiture to prevent them from buying a sweet defense.
So no. And not a simple yes or no no, because things don't work like that in real life. The movies, maybe.
Maybe the quality of lawyer you can hire shouldn't depend on your bankroll. Why, if I am poorer does my case deserve a less-qualified lawyer?
It is not the intention of our people our our government for our society's laws to be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
When we can no longer require our law enforcement to know the laws they enforce, how can we require it of our people?
To say that my representation should be limited by what I can afford is to say that I am unequal to those wealthier than I. If that is not the case, then let us stop pretending and then let us teach America's inequality to our first graders.
Where did we get this idea that a hidden opinion can be binding?
The paper trail is supposed to cover people's asses when the opinion is that a terrible action (e.g. a covert drone strike) must be done.
If we were a nation of laws and that drone strike turned out to, instead, kill a bunch of civilians and journalists, butts would be busted, and the line of command would go up to the guy who placed this order based on that intel based on this legal standing.
And if any of those things are missing, he loses his job, is disgraced and maybe even goes to jail for murder.
But the paper trail doesn't serve that function anymore, does it? If grandmothers and children get blown up accidentally we don't have a court martial. We don't have a commission. We just say eh, whatcha gonna do?. So the paper trail, and the public access to it isn't necessary.
So we are not a nation of laws. We're a nation of kings.
Be sure to bow to your officials and address them as My Lord