An especially egregious fact is that Nintendo uses open source emulators themselves and have re released & sold some older games that are just the emulator bundled with the game, in some cases inheriting emulator-only bugs.
The most recent example I can think of is that the most recent Pikmin release includes dolphin and can therefore be played on a PC with no modification.
That article isnt about Nintendo, only a publisher on Nintendo's store.
The rom thing was only the same rom format. How are you going to tell if it's the same dumps or not? Roms are supposed to match 1:1, otherwise verification hashes projects like redump and no-intro wouldn't work.
--extreme slowness and shittiness of this feature (pages not loading, low rate limits for looking at inventory pages)
-player item trading.
--trading experience sucks it also runs into the rate limit and inventories not loading.
-steam market.
--half-baked, can't sell quickly. If you get 5 items it takes like 2 minutes to list each individual item. This is ALSO affected by the slow pages. Using a bot is against the TOS but is also the only decent experience.
-social hub for each game, maybe this is too opinionated but now every game is also a social media page. Bad/abandoned games even get used as an image hosting service for unrelated profile adornments.
-streaming, intrusive streams in store pages.
-Popularized if not invented loot crates which have now infected everything.
-Popularized cosmetics micro transactions, which turned into far more expensive transactions.
-created new types of FOMO for sales and incentivizing spending money via limited time trinkets (badges, stickers, profile customization), steam points.
Opinions ofc but these range from being somewhat on target to wildly out there and speculative and on top of that many of their projects get quietly dropped and are left without support after initial release like the inventory ui and the market.
The chatbot in that article did have safeguards in place to stop it from listing suicide methods, but he just kept asking until he found a jailbreak. He was looking for someone to give him the answer he wanted all along
Past a certain point is there anything that will stop someone that determined to find something to validate their own self-destructive viewpoint? If not AI then a site or faction or person on Telegram with a pro-suicide opinion could have the same effect, and it would still be just as tragic but no longer be noteworthy. It didn't sound like he had a happy life to begin with with the AI ruining it completely, like it sounds
I had an LLM tell me to that killing myself makes sense when recounting a low point in my life to it and how I'd contemplated suicide. I wasn't looking for any kind of "jailbreak" in prompts, this was following a genius on HN saying it's a "great alternative to a therapist". No, it isn't fit for purpose.
> It didn't sound like he had a happy life to begin with
Which are exactly the kind of people who are going to be using LLMs as a "therapist". See the problem?
Yes, which is the point: if you substitute a human therapist for an LLM, this is what's going to happen because "guard rails" can't account for every scenario. If half a billion dollars doesn't buy a bug-free game, why would it buy a safe LLM?
Does suicide encouraged by a therapist happen with human therapists too? Probably, but likely much less common as a suicide is going to hurt your reputation.
It shows your key strokes on the screen.
I see it (or an alternative) used in blender tutorials because the amount of shortcuts in that program is wild.
He's also known for hinging a lot of what he says on the concept of rapid onset gender dysphoria (the idea that kids are spontaneously turning trans with no previous indicators due to a "social contagion"). The original study for it is a survey of posts from parents who don't want their kids to be trans. It shouldn't surprise anyone that those parents weren't in the best position to catch any hints when their kids might have caught on to the idea that their parents might not like them being trans.
You are way overstating this. Haidt might have been one of the early ones raising alarm bells, but it's well established now that the cohort of people declaring themselves to be trans has shifted dramatically to young girls only very recently [1].
Your article doesn't seem to be quite authoritative: It shows there's actually a lot of debate about this subject. There's even a responses section that shows there's some significant issues with the article and claiming it's not neutral, leaving out significant statistics like a less than 1% regret rate of trans affirming procedures (less than a knee surgery). I think it's still up in the air, frankly.
What is authoritative is the evidence. The cohort WPATH was familiar with before 2010 and for which we have considerable data was older male-to-female transitioners. This cohort has changed significantly per the article, which is why some people are raising concerns about the lack of quality safety data for minors.
Furthermore, only the US has really pushed gender affirming care for minors to this degree. Every other country has backed away from it due to low quality evidence. You know what else those countries have that the US doesn't? Universal healthcare that creates wildly different healthcare priorities. Consider that when when evaluating neutrality.
> leaving out significant statistics like a less than 1% regret rate of trans affirming procedures (less than a knee surgery)
The article and the responses make clear that transitioners are not followed consistently, so this evaluation is based on very spotty data. The fact is we don't know how common regret is.
Even the responses that are pro-gender affirming care acknowledge that the data supporting long-term quality of life improvements is poor.
I'm not sure what you're claiming is up in the air. My first claim was about the changing cohort, so if that's what you're referring to, the statistics are clear. Here's how it breaks down in Canada:
Transgender women were dominant and stable for a long time, as I said (male to female transitioners), and then trans men and non-binary cohort have shot past those levels like a rocket over the past few years.
Some of the increases are doubtless more acceptance of trans people, but it's not clear why that would affect the genders differentially in such a dramatic fashion.
There was a notable absence of opposing views in the article so I looked up "echelon security portland" and found a lot of objectionable actions they've taken. According to this article https://www.opb.org/article/2021/12/02/part-two-police-prose... they've been unaccountable to the public, they've lied about what people do (pretending they've attacked them), they've lied about their use of force, and attacked people in tents to displace them. This is all just from the first quarter of the second part of a report so there is a lot more.
>>hey've been unaccountable to the public, they've lied about what people do (pretending they've attacked them), they've lied about their use of force, and attacked people in tents to displace them.
So a normal police force then?
This is a natural reaction when property crime goes unenforced by the government. I know this will be an unpopular take but property crime like shoplifting is not a "victimless" crime against evil "corporations" and when it allowed to occur unchecked it creates an over all unsafe condition for everyone.
There needs to be ALOT of police reforms, not punishing crime should not be in that list of reforms but that seems to be the #1 action taken by "reformers" of late
> I know this will be an unpopular take but property crime like shoplifting is not a "victimless" crime against evil "corporations" and when it allowed to occur unchecked it creates an over all unsafe condition for everyone.
I have trouble taking anyone seriously who claims those are "victimless crimes". There's little common ground I can find because their fundamental facts tend to be so backward. Shoplifting ruins people's livelihoods and corrupts the social contracts of a society over time. It gradually erodes the living standards of people living in an area.
> There needs to be ALOT of police reforms, not punishing crime should not be in that list of reforms but that seems to be the #1 action taken by "reformers" of late
I would say it's not exactly an action taken by "reformers"... it's a lack of action (for one thing) resulting from an interplay between attempted reformers, and police (individually and collectively) basically deciding "fine, if you think we need reform, we'll just stop doing our jobs, that'll show you."
I don't think there are any police reformers (or even police abolitionists) who think their agendas have been successful at all, lest you think the current situation is what anyone was going for. I would not call this... situation to be an action taken by police reformers, exactly, let alone the "#1"
action taken by them.
I do think "punishing crime" is a more complicated concept than you imply, I admit (all "crime" has never been universally and consistently "punished"), but before we even get into that.
By "reformers" I am mainly referring to activist elected DA's that go in publicly declaring entire segments of the criminal code void by saying they will not peruse any cases for violations of those acts. Shoplifting is one such law they often ignore, along with other non-violent theft (like breaking into cars)
"entire segments of the criminal code void by saying they will not peruse any cases for violations of those acts. Shoplifting is one such law they often ignore"
Are you exagerating? I don't think anyone anywhere has completely stopped prosecuting shoplifting. Or if they have somewhere, please cite specifically, either with numbers, or with enough context so we can try to find some.
There are some places where shoplifting prosecutions declined due to decisions by prosecutors, for sure. That is not at all the same thing as "declaring entire segments of the criminal code void".
When we can't talk about what's really going on without exagerating it into the most absolute versions we can imagine while speaking in vague generalities that can't be researched... we can't easily get at what's actually going on instead of our imaginations.
>>I don't think anyone anywhere has completely stopped prosecuting shoplifting.
San Francisco where functionally anything under $900 is not prosecuted. That is the big one
NYC has also had its fair share of this.
>>When we can't talk about what's really going on without exagerating
It is not really exaggerating, I am not talking about individual cases where an Assistant DA looks at a case in their professional review of choose not to prosecute because of some actual legal reason, or because of some deal or something else
I am talking about wide scale refusal at an entire district level to refuse entire classes of cases
San Francisco under Chesa Boudin (who is now gone) presumably?
My first google suggests that shoplifting prosecutions in San Francisco were reduced but not eliminated, and that "organized retail theft" prosecutions (which I see people complaining about on HN a lot) were actually not diminished at all.
I don't understand how you can claim it was not an exageration to say:
"[declare] entire segments of the criminal code void by saying they will not peruse any cases for violations of those acts. Shoplifting is one such law they often ignore"
Was I wrong to read that thinking it meant you were claiming there were zero prosecutions of shoplifting? That's not what those words mean? What "segment of the criminal code" did you mean specifically had been "void", what am I misunderstanding?
No criminal acts have ever been universally prosecuted and punished, ever.
But ok, correcting my reading of your statement, I now understand that your argumentis in fact that the "#1 action" of "reformers" (by which you mean elected district attorney's only, not other kinds of reformers), has been to reduce prosecutions for shoplifting (I'm not sure what a DA can "reform" except what gets prosecuted how!), and that you think that reducing prosecutions for shoplifting will necessarily lead to unaccountable private security.
That's really what you think we should have understood your original statement as? It sounds a lot less apocalyptic or sweeping of a theory this way. But ok, that's what you're saying. OK, cool, interesting theory...
Property theft and wage theft are two very different categories of theft.
The average police department does not get involved in wage theft, which would be something more involving lawyers, maybe ultimately leading to an arrest warrant carried out by a police force.
And of course this is another example of an "AND" decision, not an "OR" one. We can enforce and prosecute property theft crimes, which absolutely needs to happen, while simultaneously pursuing wage theft prosecution.
> Property theft and wage theft are two very different categories of theft.
This kind of reinforces the parent's point. They are both theft (shoplifting and wage theft), and yet so many people are ok ignoring the numerically worse problem (wage theft).
The fact that the police don't get involved and lawyers are required to rectify wage theft just shows how far we as a society don't care to defend those people. Meanwhile private security can get away with abusing shoplifters and homeless.
Like you said, they are both theft, but for some reason we as a society go after one much more aggressively than the other. Something about that doesn't seem fair.
I'm not saying we should ignore wage theft. I am saying it is a scenario where a police force cannot really do much.
You can call your local PD and report shoplifting, or most other kinds of physical theft. It would be a pretty clear accusation, and these days odds are you'd be able to produce some simple evidence in the form of video footage (CCTV, cellphone, etc.).
But how do you report wage theft in a way that the average police force can act on? Are you going to call and say "I'm being forced to work unpaid hours"? If you did I can almost guarantee you they would refer you to some other department or organization. I would not envision the police showing up to arrest your employer, take them in for questioning, etc.
Wage theft is also slightly more complex in that the victims are often complicit in the sense that they continue to work for the employer. To be clear, I am not saying this makes it right, but it makes it hard for the police to do much from an enforcement perspective. You're saying your employer is underpaying you, but you're also continuing to work for them. The employer would tell the police that showed up that you were free to leave, or were agreeing to the term by virtue of showing up. It would take legal action, e.g. a lawyer not a cop, to actually create a claim that was actionable and enforceable by the law enforcement organization.
> But how do you report wage theft in a way that the average police force can act on?
I follow what you are saying, and admit there's not an obvious easy answer. I'd also say that private security guards who roam the public streets (sometimes harassing law abiding people) are not the best answer to shoplifting.
Hmmm, thinking about this it doesn't seem right to leave wage theft as a civil matter - a lot of victims don't have the resources to engage a lawyer. Maybe we could do things so the deck is not so much stacked against them. More of a paper trail, like an employment contract specifying hours and wages and a paper trail of time sheets. Also making it much easier to report, and treating it as a criminal matter. We could if we wanted to, nothing is set in stone. Maybe also more investigators. Perhaps victims could submit audio and/or video evidence to government authorities. Why should law-abiding employers object to being taped, when they are happy to tape the public to catch shoplifters? It would be nice to figure out how to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable people. It's a lot of money to them.
I kind of threw my comment out there because I know that it burns when someone is victimized by theft, whether by a shoplifter or an employer, but there seems to be a lot more people are quick to be offended by shoplifters then when employers are doing the stealing. I didn't mean to mischaracterize your views on this.
I think in practice it would show up as an enforcement organization of the government labor department that would have a set of prosecutors on staff to enforce wage theft laws, much like how most cities have a DA and other government prosecutors to go through with criminal court cases. The work load of the PD would be minimal other than to maybe enforce jail transport orders after a court case finishes, it would mostly be about funding a lawyer group in the government.
It can be a clear accusation. There can be a form of video footage - I can take a screenshot of the amount that is being stolen from my bank account - I'm supposed to get $1000 but only paid $800.
>Are you going to call and say "I'm being forced to work unpaid hours"?
Sure. Makes 100% sense to me. You can look at your phone GPS, see how much time you spent in the job, then match that up against your pay stub. Exact same thing - you can show them both at the same time.
>I would not envision the police showing up to arrest your employer, take them in for questioning, etc.
That's the issue. They should. It would put an nationwide end to wage theft real fast if they brought in the CEO of Apple into jail for theft.
>Wage theft is also slightly more complex in that the victims are often complicit in the sense that they continue to work for the employer.
If you go into a hotel and stay there for a week, and only pay for 2 days, then you will be charged with theft, even though the hotel knew you were there. Randy Quaid is an example of this - arrested for a $10K hotel bill in Santa Barbara. It's "theft of services" and it is no joke. If he can be arrested, why not someone who skips out of paying you wages? Same exact situation.
>you're also continuing to work for them.
The one has nothing to do with the other. The crime is the crime. But then, by your logic, if one quits and doesn't continue to work, then the employer can be arrested?
>The employer would tell the police that showed up that you were free to leave, or were agreeing to the term by virtue of showing up.
This would be like saying that if I shoplifted at a store, then came in again and purchased something from the store later, that the store owner agreed to the terms of you taking stuff without paying before, because they just sold you some more stuff. That is not how it works.
>It would take legal action, e.g. a lawyer not a cop, to actually create a claim that was actionable and enforceable by the law enforcement organization.
Stealing is stealing. The fact that a lawyer has to get involved, does not mean a cop shouldn't arrest those accused of wage theft.
But, it did give me some good ideas. I'm going to start a bunch of companies up, get people to work for me for two weeks, then never pay them and tell them to sue me. And since it is a corportation, they can sue the company but then I can just shut down the corporation. There won't be able to pierce the corporate veil, because I'm not treating it as an alter ego. Of course, I write this just to prove how ridiculous the claim is, when clearly I am stealing from employees, and gain all the benefits for myself.
> yet so many people are ok ignoring the numerically worse problem (wage theft).
I think this is a false argument as I don’t think people are ok ignoring wage theft. Others have pointed out as these aren’t exclusive options but, specifically, I’ve never heard anyone espouse that wage theft is ok.
It seems to me that in a conversation concerning sexual harassment, someone points out that everyone is ok with human trafficking because it is worse, yet HR departments aren’t working to stop human trafficking.
I guess the comparison was made, and caught my attention, because we are allowing business owners to hire undertrained armed private security guards to roam the public streets and sometimes harass law abiding citizens, to the point that local prosecutors complained about a lack of accountability, to stop shoplifting, but we're not doing anything more to stop wage theft, and it appeared that some people didn't see any problem with that.
Where does this lead? Isn't the government supposed to have a monopoly on violence in a modern state? Or are we allowing anyone with money to hire armed enforcers in public places? Would victims of wage theft be justified taking the law into their own hands also, since they are dealing with a bigger problem than shoplifiting?
I'm exploring this issue, more than opinionated, but think it's worth talking about.
Just like any other theft. If an employer is shown to commit wage theft, then they are arrested. I can pull up my GPS on my phone and show them exactly where I was during the prior week, how many hours, and if the hours don't match the paycheck, the owner gets arrested, brought to jail, booked for theft, has to hire an attorney, may get convicted and if it is a regular habitual offender type of thing, maybe get life in prison.
A 33-year-old black man named Curtis Wilkerson was waiting for his girlfriend at a mall. He went into a department store and put a pair of socks in his shopping bag, and walked out. A $2.50 pair of ordinary tube socks. He was put in jail for 25 to life because he had 2 prior convictions - being a "lookout" in a robbery. But parole is denied 80% of the time, and governors override the parole boards decision to parole them at 50% of the time, he wouldn't get out in 25 years most likely. He also got fined $2,500 for the pair of $2.50 pair of socks. Should a wage theft of $2,000 fine the manager or company $2,000,000 which is the same ratio? Sounds good to me, it would put a stop to wage theft fast. In prison, he earns $20/month, and the state takes $11 every month to pay that $2,500 fine. They take over half his earnings - do that to a business. He won't be able to pay the $2,500 fine off until he is 90 years old.
Another guy got life for stealing a slice of pizza. A guy who went away forever for lifting a pair of baby shoes. One got 50 to life for helping himself to five children’s videotapes from Kmart. One guy got life for possessing 0.14 grams of meth?
Why not life in prison for wage theft? How is it any different than anything else? Saying they "didn't know" or "was a mistake" is like a shoplifter saying the exact same thing, but the shoplifter is prosecuted anyways if they say that.
Maybe the same as when someone writes a bad check? It's my understanding that people get arrested for that, it's not left just to lawyers and civil contract courts (which not everyone can afford).
Maybe also make wage theft easier to prove, with a required paper trail like an employment contract and signed time sheets, more investigators, etc.
I'd be curious how other countries might handle this better, there's often places that have already done a good job of figuring stuff like this out. The cynic in me worries that dollars count more than votes, and that the system is not as interested in protecting employees as it is protecting employers.
>>Maybe the same as when someone writes a bad check?
That does not happen, not at the level of say shoplifting or something
At most you can make a complaint, which will go to a prosecutor which will then decide if they want to file criminal charges, at which point the police would arrest someone. Which rarely happens for a single bad check. It is almost always CIVIL unless there is some other crime involved like identity theft, even then it would have to be wide scale
You know what, that is the same process for Wage Theft. You file a complaint with the dept of labor, the dept of labor will investigate and if the problem is wide scale they will issue fines or even criminal indictment if they view it as malicious
>Maybe also make wage theft easier to prove, with a required paper trail like an employment contract and signed time sheets, more investigators, etc.
The problem here is wage theft is not often as cut and dry as you make it out to be, most often is not an employer refusing to pay wages or writting a bad check for wages. It manifests as forcing an employee to work during their lunch or break, refusing to pay earned vacation time/PTO when someone quits, paying strait time instead of OT rates for Overtime, misidentifying an employee as exempt denying them OT, etc.
These are all things that are harder to prove and in some cases can be honest mistakes.
I don't flat out argue with anything you are saying. It would be difficult to do a better job of catching wage theft.
But if we're not going to put more effort into catching those criminals, why are we ok with putting more effort into catching shoplifters? Why are we allowing poorly trained armed security to roam public streets and sometimes harass, beat up, or shoot law abiding citizens, to the point that local prosecutors are frustrated with what is going on?
How come we allow stuff like this, pulling out the stops for shoplifters, but not wage-theives? How come people argue in favor of the one but not the other?
You have created a Strawman in your head and now debating agaist that strawman and not anything anyone has said here or anywhere that I am aware of
This whataboutism around wage theft has no bearing on this converation nor is anyone in either government, or here in this discussion ever talked about not taking wage theft seriously
When wage theft is reported it gets investigated, and as the studies people have posted here show often gets recovered.
The problem here and why you are seeing private security is because unlike with wage theft when someone reports shoplifting or other property crime it is often completely ignored, with out even a response at all from the government.
You have this world view that is the exact opposite of reality, where by you believe wage theft is completely ignored by everyone but entire armies are fighting shoplifting
how about instead of engaging with whataboutism, strawmans and redherrings we talk about the actual issues of criminality
I agree that wage-theft specifically is a tangent here. But I do believe there is more to talk about, this isn't something to dismiss so easily.
Why are we allowing the victims of shoplifting to hire armed guards with not enough training or accountability to selectively enforce laws in public spaces as they see fit, sometimes abusing law abiding citizens, as mentioned [0] earlier in this thread? Is that ok? Isn't the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence?
Even though it is easier to go after shoplifters than some other criminals, does that make these private police forces in public spaces ok? Wouldn't it be better if the store owners lobbied for more police and/or reforms (to make additional police more palatable to the public), or maybe move their businesses or close? That's what other crime victims have to do. Lots of crime victims are ignored by the government. There's nothing special about the victims of shoplifting, there are many other crimes that impact more people, as the parent poster mentioned with wage theft.
Or do we want a society where those with the resources can hire their own enforcers, armed guards for hire with 40 hours of training roaming the streets, and let everyone else fend for themselves? That might be a bad feedback loop, where those with money have their own police, and those without live more in danger. There are a number of other countries that have devolved to this.
Hopefully I did a better job describing what I was thinking, above. I don't see the justification for this one set of victims to be able to hire armed guards roaming the streets and harassing law abiding citizens, opting out of normal police protection, leaving other more numerous victims to fend for themselves. I trust abuses such as described in the original parent comment's linked article are the exception, but there is a history of problems (like Pinkerton) related to such things.
I game for feedback or your thoughts on the above, if you have any.
>>Why are we allowing the victims of shoplifting to hire armed guards
you have flipped the proposition from where it should be ethically. Everyone has the clear and natural right to defend themselves and their property from aggression including theft, We create governments in order to protect our rights, persons and property when government fails in its only job it reverts back to the individual to secure themselves and their property.
We do not "allow" people to defend themselves, it is inherent in their existence as humans we sometimes contract that protection out to government but never for a second believe we give up or surrender the right to do it ourselves.
>>sometimes abusing law abiding citizens?
I have no proof of this, and if they do they are no longer defending property and have become criminals themselves whom should be prosecuted as such
>>Isn't the state supposed to have a monopoly on violence?
The state has the self declared monopoly on the INITIATION of violence. Meaning the state has declared that is has the authority to attack you in any circumstance with or with out needing to justify their actions under the umbrella of self defense.
>>does that make these private police forces in public spaces ok
This is a problem with wording here, are they in "public" spaces or are they on private property that is open to the public? Do you think there is a difference between the 2? Based on the story linked to it appears these companies are paid to patrol shopping centers, malls etc. not "the streets" though they to talk about community outreach they do which seems to be different from their security patrols
Security services have been a business for all of time, do you also object to private armored car services banks use? or Security Guards at event venues?
I find nothing objectionable with their harsh enforcement of property crimes but I have a feeling our worldview on this topic will greatly differ as I am very very very much for very very harsh punishment for property theft. I cant stand thieves, and fully support self defense laws like the ones in Texas which allow people to defend their property with lethal force.
>>Or do we want a society where those with the resources can hire their own enforcers
I think a mix of both is the correct model. I certainly do not want my tax dollars to go to paying some cop to stand around the local walmart waiting for someone to steal something, Walmart should pay someone to protect their property. However private enforcement should be limited to stopping an act in progress and notifying law enforcement who then come in a reasonable time and actually investigate, and prosecute the crime.
>>opting out of normal police protection, leaving other more numerous victims to fend for themselves
This is a mischaracterization of what they are doing, the government is refusing to provide police protection, if the government refuses to provide it what should they do? just be victimized? Just take it? If the politicians say they will not punish people for theft, you believe people should just accept the theft? No that will never happen.
>>but there is a history of problems (like Pinkerton) related to such things.
yes there was, why? Because government did not have or refused to provide the resources to protect people and property, so like with anything the market found a solution. If you want to curb the possibility for abuses like this we need to support aggressive enforcement and protection of property. Failure to do so will ensure people and companies take the protection into their own hands which may not be good for anyone.
If you have a local DA that wants to stop prosecuting "misdemeanor" property crimes out of some altruistic or other reason I strongly encourage you to vote them out.
> The state has the self declared monopoly on the INITIATION of violence. Meaning the state has declared that is has the authority to attack you in any circumstance with or with out needing to justify their actions under the umbrella of self defense.
I wasn't sure what distinction you are making with word "initiation", above. I'm reading that the idea is the state has a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force [0]. They have the final say, for instance on how you allowed to defend yourself, ordinarily allowing the use proportional force to protect yourself from bodily harm.
Also mentioned was idea of a natural right to defend oneself, like you talked about, which is an idea that goes back to the enlightenment, but that this is in conflict with the idea of a state monopoly on violence. Seems like in practicality if the state wants to lock you up in a cage for shooting someone, your natural rights weren't really a thing.
I brought up the state monopoly on violence because people and the government will need to decide if they want to allow private armed security guards to operate on the streets [1].
> I cant stand thieves, and fully support self defense laws like the ones in Texas which allow people to defend their property with lethal force.
Texas seems to be an outlier in this regard, "Texas being the only state to allow the use of deadly force to regain possession of land or property" [2]. Other U.S. states and other Western countries do not allow the use of lethal force to defend property like Texas does. I don't think modern societies and governments are going to embrace your position above any time soon.
In the context of the article we are talking about, I assume that the people of Portland will not want to allow these armed security guards to roam the streets breaking laws and hurting people [1].
I do agree with your position that people are going to want to defend themselves if the government won't do so, or does so inconsistently. That's probably why we have gangs in the inner cities, places where the government doesn't enforce laws for one reason or another. The government looses legitimacy in the eyes of the affected when this happens. Allowing shopkeepers to put armed security guards in the streets is not going to help this bigger problem, and comes with a set of new problems.
Thanks for your lengthy reply! I assume we had different initial reactions to these articles, and are coming at this from different directions, but don't necessarily disagree on everything. The fact that these guards were operating in public, on the streets, and there had already been abuses, bothered me the most. I thought it went too far.
I also thought that the comparison to other crimes had some merit, but understand that's not the most productive way to approach this.
> Everyone has the clear and natural right to defend themselves and their property from aggression including theft
I agree, for the most part, outside of edge cases I guess. Some states let you kill someone trespassing in your house (I'm thinking castle doctrine), others only if you are threatened. I'm fine living in a world that goes either way. I'd hate to see the right to defend oneself abused, like when a cop told me "shoot (the garage thief) next time, be sure to kill him, just put a knife in their hand". That could be a neighbor's 14 year old kid playing chase in the dark with their friends. Not ideal...
I wonder if a shopkeeper in Texas can legally shoot a shoplifter? I'm curious how you would feel about a victim of wage theft shooting their employer? Monetary loss is a monetary loss, right?
> This is a problem with wording here, are they in "public" spaces or are they on private property that is open to the public? Do you think there is a difference between the 2?
The article I linked to talked about the actions these guards were taking out on the streets. Portland allows tents on sidewalks, and these guards broke laws by physically removing people, amongst other things (including beatings, and a shooting). The prosecutors there were frustrated trying to hold them accountable. This is the kind of stuff I have a big problem with. I'm not saying that having homeless camped on the streets is a good thing, but the answer is to address the problem or change the laws, not extra-legal activities.
I've got a buddy who is an armed security guard. They send these guys out with 40 hours of training, and they don't know the law. Many better-trained police officers don't know the law. He makes a couple extra bucks an hour being armed, and it's not much. He really needs the money.
Ultimately these security companies are kind of taking advantage of the people doing these jobs. They have to get their own insurance. They don't have qualified immunity. They are really sticking their necks out. The security companies hiring these people don't care, the guards are easily replaceable.
> Security services have been a business for all of time, do you also object to private armored car services banks use? or Security Guards at event venues?
I do not object to these things.
> I find nothing objectionable with their harsh enforcement of property crimes but I have a feeling our worldview on this topic will greatly differ as I am very very very much for very very harsh punishment for property theft. I cant stand thieves, and fully support self defense laws like the ones in Texas which allow people to defend their property with lethal force.
I grew up in a bad neighborhood and got used to being careful. I don't know that we greatly differ, but yeah I assume we do to some extant. The world needs all kinds, right? My thinking on things like this has changed over the years, as I've moved in various circles of haves and have-nots, as I've gotten more perspective travelling and reading about other cultures and how they organize their societies, what they value, etc. I've ended up wondering more about root causes, social and community dynamics, the difference between low-trust and high-trust societies, etc.
But to be honest I've paid more attention lately to how the rich/system take advantage of the poor, then the reverse. Just questioning assumptions, mostly. A lot around politics, how the rules are rigged sometimes. Health care is an example - unknowable billing, $5k+ deductible if you get sick, insurance companies get the subsidized premiums, etc. A lot of things revolving around campaign finance reform - rich people donating to politicians they aren't eligible to vote for, corporate/union/trade-association lobbying, politicians who care more about money than voters, etc. Housing as an investment, restricted supply, increasing homelessness. Also places like amazon warehouses that just chew through people, treating them like garbage, doing their stock buybacks, or walmart telling their employees to get food stamps, swaths of the country inaccessible without a car which many can't afford, etc. We could do so much better. But I don't mean to side track us!
> I certainly do not want my tax dollars to go to paying some cop to stand around the local walmart waiting for someone to steal something, Walmart should pay someone to protect their property. However private enforcement should be limited to stopping an act in progress and notifying law enforcement who then come in a reasonable time and actually investigate, and prosecute the crime.
Agreed. That still leaves some grey area, like how far to go detaining people, but is a great starting point. Ideally we could make the rules of engagement for people doing these jobs easier and more effective. Ideally they wouldn't need to be armed - they are not that well screened, trained, or paid. Police in other countries like the U.K. are not armed. Catching criminals can be the priority, as opposed to preventing crimes at the moment they happen.
The private security guards in the article, the article talking about their abuses, were operating outside the stores, doing things like clearing people off the streets at night. Maybe we'd agree this isn't a good idea? I certainly don't want to have to deal with someone like that.
> if the government refuses to provide it what should they do? just be victimized? Just take it?
That's what a lot of crime victims have to do, all the time. It sucks when it happens. Some people in this thread had a "too bad" attitude about wage theft, and others others have a "too bad" attitude about shoplifters. A lot of people feel like big corporations are squeezing people for profits too much, politicians bought and paid for, and they don't care if people steal form them. No love lost. Personally I'd rather fix things as opposed to double down.
> Because government did not have or refused to provide the resources to protect people and property, so like with anything the market found a solution. If you want to curb the possibility for abuses like this we need to support aggressive enforcement and protection of property. Failure to do so will ensure people and companies take the protection into their own hands which may not be good for anyone.
(You said the above when I mentioned the Pinkerton problems)
I think it would help a lot of we reformed some things about policing in this country. A lot of people don't trust the police, and that is a problem. There was a huge outcry with the BLM movement, and nothing changed. Personally I think that reforming internal affairs needs to happen, it is a big problem that local police investigate themselves, along with local prosecutors. If those with money and influence don't care, then I agree we'll end up living in quite a different country down the road.
Aggressive enforcement and protection of property is not the only job of the government, people's constitutional rights are of paramount importance also, and the authorities fucked up, too many people don't trust them. It's not good when 20, 30 or 40 percent of people feel stepped on. The outcome from that can degrade things for everyone.
>If you have a local DA that wants to stop prosecuting "misdemeanor" property crimes out of some altruistic or other reason I strongly encourage you to vote them out.
I assume money is a big issue around this. The police are a limited resource, and can't be everywhere at once. I also assume this gets more press when it's not happening just in bad neighborhoods.
-
After all this perhaps we agree that the rules of engagement for private security need to be closely looked at when they are operating in public, both inside the public spaces of stores and in the streets? That would go most of the way towards assuaging my concerns, although I still think police reforms earning back the public's trust would be a better long term solution to the specific problems in Portland.
Ultimately I respect the right of the people in Portland to democratically figure this out, and wish them the best.
I don't think that the parent understood where I was coming from when he called my position a what-about strawman. I'm sure that was in good part because I didn't do a good job of communicating what I was thinking. I attempted to fix that with additional information. Understanding what others are thinking and why is often helpful, especially in a democracy.
Wage theft is a serious problem but it's an 'orderly' theft- it targets people at the bottom and the people at the top are either uneffected or benefit and life goes on as usual. Property crime is a crime against the order of things. The powerful are impacted as well as the powerless. Crime isn't the problem to be solved,necessarily, it's just a wrench in the social order where the few dominate the many. That order is what must be preserved at all costs, which explains why we prosecute some crimes but not others.
Very few of the things we do as a society are about what we say they are about.
If any of this were relevant then we would expect that employers (the powerful) could steal physical items from the person/vehicle/abode of employees (the people at the bottom) and get away with it.
At least here in NC, I can say that every clear case I've heard of an employer trying to steal the property of an employee (directly off their person, out of their vehicle, out of their abode, or even attempting to steal their vehicle) ended either with the police escorting the employee to retrieve their property, or with the police escorting away the employer[1].
Besides, just take that recent oddball case of that Dept. of Energy person who was apparently stealing luggage from randos at the airport. Do a search and tell me how that has affected Sam's power over the people at the bottom.
Edit:
1: Just to keep things apples to apples, I'm talking about situations that are equivalent to shoplifting: a) person enters a space that belongs to the victim without permission, b) person takes property of that victim, and c) person leaves that property with the stolen goods in hand.
Wage theft doesn't typically involved a gun or a knife. Property crimes, when interrupted intentionally or accidentally by the victim can easily become violent crime.
GP was pointing out that things like wage theft is a much bigger priority over petty shoplifting.
The combined value of all robberies (shoplifting, mugging, etc) in 2012 was $341 million while wage theft alone accounts for $933 million yet we spend far more trying to prevent the former and hardly do anything to prevent the latter which primarily affects minimum wage workers
First off it appears that wage theft is being enforced, as the $933 million is the amount RECOVERED for victims of wage theft, I would like the highlight that victims of property theft are almost never made completely whole, even with insurance.
Wage theft, when reported and backed up with evidence is often aggressively pursued and most states have Treble damages statues for damages which is often why it is easy to get cogency litigation started for wage theft. Based on that is likely the amount of wages stolen by employers is on par with the total value of property stolen since the recovered amount would be 3x what amount stolen in the case of wages
Futher their slight of hand in only adding the market value of the property taken instead of the economic loss suffered by the victim gives me red flags they are attempting to be dishonest in their evaluation. For example if a person has their work truck stolen they are out far more than just the value of the truck but are also out wages, income, time, etc. All of which have a value outside that of the market value for the actual property taken
Wage theft is a serious matter and should be taken seriously. Luckily in most states the Dept of Labor does take is VERY seriously and most states have enacted laws to enable victims of wage theft to not only recover their wages but 3x their wages making it very enticing for lawyers to help victims without alot of upfront costs
The whataboutism trying to derail the top of property crime enforcement has not teeth if you really look into.
>What this report finds: This report assesses the prevalence and magnitude of one form of wage theft—minimum wage violations (workers being paid at an effective hourly rate below the binding minimum wage)—in the 10 most populous U.S. states. We find that, in these states, 2.4 million workers lose $8 billion annually (an average of $3,300 per year for year-round workers) to minimum wage violations—nearly a quarter of their earned wages. This form of wage theft affects 17 percent of low-wage workers, with workers in all demographic categories being cheated out of pay.
I personally know a lot of houseless folks who've just had their wallets and personal belongings taken from them making it nearly impossible to get other forms of help.
Unfortunately, this primarily affects houseless folks. And like most houseless people issues there's very little attention and resources aimed at this. I've put up houseless folks in Motel 6's before only to have the manager lock them out and keep their stuff, knowing full-well the police wouldn't help. I'd definitely encourage people to get involved locally in local mutual aid groups focused on houselessness. If for no other reason than to see it with their own ideas. Even people that grew up in poverty or lower class are often shocked to see the extent of human rights abuses happening under their own noses. After seeing it first-hand the will to tell all your friends and neighbors about it will find you
Legislatively, the usual suspects do have related campaigns (i.e. ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project) but even those only work on this issue as a related tangent. Local prison abolition groups often have more local campaigns but the effectiveness of that strategy is really up in the air.
Some states have passed legislation against some of the worst abuses,[0] but I can tell you first hand that legislative victories rarely translate to on the ground changes in police behavior when it comes to houseless folks
Well, wage theft is technically a crime in some jurisdictions, but almost never prosecuted even where it is, leaving only civil compensatory remedies. Treating far more minor (both in absolute value and relative to the wealth of the victim) cases of tangible personal property theft in the form of shoplifting, which has basically mirror-image class dynamics, the same way way doesn’t seem unfair.
The author works at The Federalist Society. A conservative online magazine.
Honestly, why is this article even on HN? It's copaganda but with an even worst twist of being a pro-private military force.
The militarization of the police has been an on going issue since the 90s and now we're jumping to having corporations hiring random goons as a private police force for the wealthy and their corporations.
I dislike the binary of "completely pristine" and the current state of police. One of the professions more likely to be a victim of violent criminals are delivery drivers. Still, if heavily armed delivery drivers started killing innocent people one would be allowed to critique that without being labeled "anti-pizza". That statistic is one of a number of things that are disallowed in conversations before being offered my "effing pick" between accepting no accountability for the actions of the state or no laws ever.
Maybe because some moron on Twitter can have people calling for the head of cops who shoot people trying to stab other people. And maybe they need to pay police more because no cop wants to make life and death decisions and have uninformed people asking why they couldn't shoot the knife out of their hands. Couple this with DAs unwilling to prosecute crimes and reclassifing crimes to hide how bad things are, also having no cash bail, why would a cop stick around for what used to be a decent salary?
The average cop in the San Jose PD makes $131k and has great benefits compared to other jobs you can get without a degree
IMO less cops is a good thing. We put too much on them. They shouldn't be the ones responding to mental health crises, cats stuck in trees, and suicide attempts, muggings, car accidents, etc all at once.
Many cities are already experimenting with mental health first responders and similar things. This definitely seems like the right direction and will also alleviate concerns about less people wanting to become cops. It'll also mean people with more expertise can focus on specific needs of a specific situation.
Police already have some of the most powerful unions and are able to use taxpayer money to fund their own lobbying (to be funneled more taxpayer money, sigh). Many departments already have tanks, drones, and other military equipment that they only got because some "defense" contractor managed to convince a politician to subsidize them. Departments like NYPD also include fines and ticket fees into their budget expectations creating a strong incentive to be overly punitive. All of these are signs of an institution that's grown far too strong and desperately needs to be broken apart
You're putting in a lot of words in my mouth and it's a bit weird how aggressive you're coming off here.
There's nothing I'm proposing here at all. I'm only critical of the obvious pro-private militarized police force, which every American should be. And this article is blatant propaganda for that agenda. The author herself works at The Federalist Society, a far-right conservative magazine.
I didn't see much particularly pro- about it, other than the fact that they seem more focused on treating people like people and not like case numbers. Was that part not true?
I think they were referring to how the article seemed to be one-sided. It didn't mention any of the controversy around their activities, like the article link [0] provided by the (currently) top rated comment in this discussion, which talked about how poorly trained these security people are, how they have broken the law, beat up and shot people, how the local prosecutors are not happy with some of this stuff, etc.
It would have been a more fair article if they mentioned this other stuff, but they didn't, it only painted these private security people in the best light possible. Call that a lie of omission. Some people feel this is manipulative.
You’re right - whether being oppressed by people with the veneer of accountability or by a private military force without any, we should just shut up and accept it all as-is because there can’t possibly be any other way to have security.
I'm not sure what you mean. This suggests that the per capita rate of police killing people is much higher than in the rest of the developed democratic world.
A few bad police apples create a mass left-wing media outrage which results in the withdrawing of a public good (police protection), which results in people needing to hire private security, which results in even more objectionable actions taken by this less-accountable private security, than there were previously by the taxpaid police force?
You don't say.
I guess the only relative improvement here is that some of these security firms aren't armed with anything more than billy clubs.
Saying that people pushing for police reform results in withdrawing police protection appears to be an unexamined logical jump in your reasoning. That's only the case because the police often choose to withhold police protection in response to police reform.
> the police often choose to withhold police protection in response to police reform
I am not sure this is accurate, and it’s similarly unclear to me what exactly you are referring to.
I don’t know what, specifically, you mean by “withhold police protection.” Would you provide some examples? And what evidence do you have that such action happen “often” as a response to police reform?
The Portland city government cut the PPB budget by less than 10%. Yes that's a relatively large cut, but it is not the main driver of officers leaving the bureau. The underlying reason is politics.
I wish the focus would have been on improving the situation with internal affairs, where the police are investigating themselves if an officer does something illegal. This doesn't seem right - the rest of our government is built on checks and balances.
To me it is bizarre that this hasn't been a bigger part of the narrative around these issues.
