Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Law enforcement don't have free hands to decide what laws they enforce. There are a good half dozen layers above them kicking downwards screaming "Shut down TPB", until it ends up in the lap of some poor slob who then has to actually go out and physically perform a pointless raid or lose his job. I'm sure that guy (and even his boss, and probably also his boss's boss) don't want to waste their time and resources with these raids, and would much rather go after real crimes. If you want to fix the problem focus on the political and ministerial layer, not the law enforcement layer.


> Law enforcement don't have free hands > to decide what laws they enforce.

Law enforcement doesn't have enough free hands to go after every crime, therefore which crimes are pursued is always a choice. Resources are finite, therefore the decision to commit law enforcement agents to copyright infringement is also, at the same time, a decision to NOT commit law enforcement agents to pursuing trading violations on Wall Street, or income tax evasion among the rich.

In other words, with resources being finite, every decision about what to pursue is at least partially a political calculation. Ideally, that calculation may be based on social utility (in Jeremy Bentham's formulation "the greatest good for the greatest number") or, that calculation may be based on some corrupt influence of various political factions.

People like myself, who question the usefulness of these raids, are trying to raise the question "Is this the best use of our taxpayer dollars?" Given that trading on Wall Street recently contributed to the onset of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, I would say the case for stronger enforcement of trading regulations would prove more useful than further attempts to surpress copyright infringement.


> Law enforcement doesn't have enough free hands to go after every crime, therefore which crimes are pursued is always a choice.

Misses the point. It's somebody's choice, but it's not always the law enforcement agency's choice. If the FBI director's boss tells him to raid TPB, his choices are "do the raid" or "get fired."

I would guess it's more satisfying to go after real criminals, but they have to follow their orders.


The FBI?? You realize this is taking place in Sweden right?

Fucking hell, talk about America world police :(


Do you really think Swedish law enforcement works so completely differently that the comparison is invalid?


Law enforcement don't have free hands to decide what laws they enforce

Sure they do.

In some countries (e.g. UK) the prosecution service (e.g. Crown Prosecution Service) only bring a crime to court if it's "in the public interest" (cf. http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutor... ). Ireland has similar laws ( http://www.dppireland.ie/brief-guide-to-the-criminal-justice... )

Although this applied to the actuall criminal prosecution, not the police enforcement.


> In some countries (e.g. UK) the prosecution service

Which is several layers above the poor bobby actually carrying out the raid. It's more of an illustration to dagw's post than a counterargument.


That's just standard separation of concerns, expecting individual police officers to make judgments about each case would make law enforcement very inconsistent.

People who are skilled at making arrests and beating down doors are not necessarily also skilled in analyzing data and crime statistics in order to decide which cases to persue.


Prosecution seems to be politicised, and pursue cases according to who controls the executive branch rather than according to the interests of the general public. I'd like to know which countries have taken steps to make prosecution more independent, and how they did it.


Indeed law enforcement does not have free hands to decide what laws to enforce. They are being puppeted by big business and government pressure. This issue is less about the law, and more about big business pressuring everyone and their momma to protect their business interests.

I have always thought about The Pirate Bay like a gun shop in the US. Gun shops sell guns and ammo...they help facilitate killing human beings...but we never hold the gun shop responsibile (so long as they comply with licensing laws etc). Why dont we look at The Pirate Bay in the same way? They supply a tool that can be used for wrong doing. It can also be used legitimately (as in the case of guns).

How is this arguement so different?


If countless millions of people were buying guns at one gun shop and killing people continuously, of course cops would ignore the actual killers and go after the gun shop.


The gun shop analogy is totally flawed. It's more like a newsletter about how to get away with murder. Except instead of a newsletter it's a website. And instead of murder it's copying things and giving them away for free.


If that were true, then surely the UK would have been shut down years ago.


Law enforcement does have a choice, because their resources are finite. The cynic in me would say that, when choosing between having to deal with dangerous criminals or raiding a bunch of white-collar nerds, it's easy to see which one is the most appealing. Servers don't shoot back.


In normal policing they do, it is a daily part of their job and is known as 'police discretion'.

http://rynardlaw.com/Article6.aspx




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: