I have added the text and a generic online summary below, but generally the issue is that judges are becoming more and more lenient and are unwilling to put their foot down when there are requests that are actual overreach. This is for a variety of reasons, and the law might need to be more clear/strict, but according to the letter and interpretation of the law they need to be specific about what they are looking for and it should minimize intrusion in general. Judges have just stopped caring in many cases, and of course the people carrying them out are trigger happy jackboots.

Edit to add: we have a pretty open legal and recordkeeping system here in the US, so the removal from public record is pretty against that. I don’t know enough about the particulars to state whether I think that would be a wholly good or bad thing. I think a transparent judicial process is important, and things submitted to the court generally have a high degree of specificity and do involve redactions when relevant. I don’t know the benefits necessarily, but if proposed I would not necessarily be against sealing cases where the party was not found guilty.

From Cornell law school: Amdt4.5.4 Particularity Requirement Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

“The requirement that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.” 1 This requirement thus acts to limit the scope of the search, as the executing officers should be limited to looking in places where the described object could be expected to be found.2 The purpose of the particularity requirement extends beyond prevention of general searches; it also assures the person whose property is being searched of the lawful authority of the executing officer and of the limits of his power to search. It follows, therefore, that the warrant itself must describe with particularity the items to be seized, or that such itemization must appear in documents incorporated by reference in the warrant and actually shown to the person whose property is to be searched.3

Footnotes 1 Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196 (1927). See Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965). Of course, police who are lawfully on the premises pursuant to a warrant may seize evidence of crime in “plain view” even if that evidence is not described in the warrant. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 464–71 (1971). back 2 In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 17–19, (1968), the Court wrote: “This Court has held in the past that a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope. Kremen v. United States, 353 U.S. 346 (1957); Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 356–58 (1931); see United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 586–87 (1948). The scope of the search must be ‘strictly tied to and justified by’ the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 310 (1967) (Fortas, J., concurring); see, e.g., Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367–368 (1964); Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30–31 (1925).” See also Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 470–82 (1976), and id. at 484, 492–93 (Brennan, J., dissenting). In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 569 (1969), Justices Potter Stewart, William Brennan, and Byron White would have based the decision on the principle that a valid warrant for gambling paraphernalia did not authorize police upon discovering motion picture films in the course of the search to project the films to learn their contents. back 3 Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004) (a search based on a warrant that did not describe the items to be seized was “plainly invalid” ; particularity contained in supporting documents not cross-referenced by the warrant and not accompanying the warrant is insufficient); United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 97, 99 (2006) (because the language of the Fourth Amendment “specifies only two matters that must be ‘particularly describ[ed]’ in the warrant: ‘the place to be searched’ and ‘the persons or things to be seized[,]’ . . . the Fourth Amendment does not require that the triggering condition for an anticipatory warrant be set forth in the warrant itself.” back

Here’s so generic information about the above: Requirements for a Valid Search Warrant

The police who submit an affidavit supporting a warrant must attach a sworn, detailed statement. The officer must then appear before a neutral judge or magistrate. The judge will check to see if the officer has probable cause to execute the search.

In Carroll v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that probable cause exists when a police officer has facts and circumstances that provide a reasonably trustworthy basis to believe a suspect has committed or is about to commit a crime.

If the police request a search warrant to search a location, the police must provide probable cause that evidence of a crime exists at that location. The officer must also state, with specificity, the items they are looking for.

Reasonableness Requirement

Even if the police have a warrant, their search must still be reasonable. Although the facts of the case dealt with a warrantless seizure, the court in Brinegar v. United States reiterated that the presence of a warrant does not give the police the power to conduct an unreasonable search.

The police officer’s search must be reasonable, or the prosecutor won’t be able to use the evidence they find in court. For example, if the police are looking for a large suitcase that contains drugs, it wouldn’t be reasonable for them to look in your bedroom drawers. A large suitcase or duffel bag could not fit in a nightstand drawer.

I don’t think the concept is inherently flawed, but the execution is obviously terribly flawed. If several people credibly report seeing someone burry a body in their yard, the description of which corresponds to a missing person, I understand how getting a warrant to at least visually inspect their property would be necessary to fully investigate this claim. I don’t think this requires the kind of force we often see, but I don’t see people offering alternatives to warrants in general. I understand that privacy is a fundamental right, but presumably that’s where a judge would come in to decide if there was probable cause to partially suspend that right.

I am open and interested in hearing alternatives, but I do not see them posed. I think what underlies the system would function fine with a less militarized group enforcing it.

Agreed on all counts, and that’s mostly how warrants should work, but that does not address the persons point. They seem to suggest full privacy should exist until found guilty of a crime.

I’m from the US and we have a system in place for search warrants. It’s not a great system if I’m being honest, but I believe something of the sort will likely always be necessary. Do you have an alternative suggestion? I’m legitimately interested in different options.

Thank you for the information!

Just checked out Valetudo. Gotta love the FOSS community. Can I ask if you’ve used it? If so, which vacuum did you set it up on?

That’s why they’re pushing so hard now. They can’t keep it free forever. They need you to become reliant upon it to perform even the simplest of tasks now so when they monetize usage it has already become a must have. That way they can count on your subscription no matter what.

I wonder where that “human accuracy” statistic is coming from. Plenty of people don’t know how to read and interpret data, much less use excel in the first place. There’s a difference between 1/4 of people in the workforce not being able to complete a task, and a specialized AI not being able to complete a task. Additionally, this is how you get into the KPI as a goal rather than a proxy issue. AI will never understand context isn’t directly provided in the workbook. If you introduced a new drink at your restaurant in 2020 AI will tell you that the introduction of the drink caused a 100% decrease in foot traffic since there’s no line item for “global pandemic”. I’m not saying AI will never be there, but people using this version of AI instead of actual analysis don’t care about the facts and just want an answer and for that answer to be cheap.

Pretty sure the issue was that they were rude to OP when they were attempting to get a discount, not that they asked for a discount in the first place.

Yea, I didn’t address that directly but what an insane take. That’s like coming to the US and being upset that tax isn’t integrated into the listed price so refusing to pay it and just stealing, but also worse and grosser because now someone has to clean that up or use it after you. Even if it was the norm over there, which to my understanding it is not, that’s then what you should follow as a guest in a foreign country. I can only imagine/hope these people are not Americans with passports. We get a bad enough reputation as is.

I don’t know what all the hate is about. This is not in every restroom there, but even so, we don’t really have a lot of “public” restrooms in the US. All over Europe there are 1 euro turnstiles or other barriers to go to the restroom in the first place. Ideally we live in luxury gay space communism, but in the interim at least having access to a restroom is nice. I’d love it to be free everywhere, but it’s not always free in Europe either and at least in this example you can access it for free if you bring your own or are able to watch an ad, and in the US you may not realistically have access to one at all. This also ensures that the people accessing the service are the ones paying for it, so it’s not like someone in a small town with less access to government subsidized resources are being taxed so that these people can have free TP. I don’t love the idea, but it’s not novel or any more dystopian than what we have everywhere else.

I originally had planned on doing that, but honestly I’ve not plugged my kobo into my computer since I in earnest set it up. Out of the box I jailbroke it, then I realized I liked it a lot and didn’t want to get confused as to what I was recommending to friends/family vs what was actually jailbreak stuff, so I decided I’d reset it and use it the standard way for a bit to get the hang of it. Once I did that I’ve never had a need to plug it into a computer and figured it wasn’t worth the effort.

I hope I’m not considered impolite for using it as intended, though I totally understand people who would want to do as you suggested. Anything to decrease hold times lol. Also not that I would know from experience, but I imagine others greatly respect and appreciate the people who do that, provide the means to do that, or the end results of that.

Cannot recommend Kobo enough. You can jailbreak it if you like, but I didn’t get much benefit from that personally. I’m partial to the overdrive integration, but if you’re loading epubs you probably aren’t using that. If in the US, I’d recommend at least setting it up, since it’s pretty easy and maybe more immediate for some books, but obviously she won’t get to keep the epub after.

Seconding a Kobo. They have Overdrive (library) integration in the US and their eink and full color options are both great.

I just called my Democratic Congresspeople. I told them that if they’re not willing to stand up against performative fascism, then they’re obviously not willing to stand up to any aspect of fascism. I told them that if the people representing me were going to help enact these policies that they might as well not simultaneously erode the vision of my party. I informed them that I would not be voting for them in the future unless I saw an immediate and significant change. I don’t need a fascist with a D next to their name. I need a democratic representative and if that’s not what they are they do not have my vote. I’ve called previously, but I’ve never felt as though I understood enough of the larger implications and politicking to say “you’ve lost my vote”, just express my disappointment, but this is so performative that I know it didn’t matter. It’s just propaganda and they helped pass it.

https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member

I at no point said that anyone wasn’t worth the time for personal interaction. I said multiple times that my preferred solution would not involve having to resort to AI. That’s such a bad faith interpretation of my position that I can’t imagine this being productive at this point. Best of luck.

By getting better, I mean it will be improving on itself. I never meant to indicate that it will be better than a trained professional.

I agree that showing ND people empathy is the best path forward, but realistically being able to socially signal empathy is a life skill and lacking that skill really only damages their own prospects. It’d be great if it didn’t make people less likely to be employable or less able to build a robust support network, but unfortunately that’s the case. Yes, ASD differences are often a reflection of how society treats people, but a demonstration of empathy is not a platitude. It’s an important way NT and lots of ND connect. If you think that the expression of empathy is difficult for people with ASD because they are more honest, then I think you might be equating lack of empathy with difficulty expressing it. There’s nothing dishonest about saying “I’m sorry that happened to you” unless you are not sorry it happened. It might not be something you would normally verbally express, but if hearing about a bad thing happening to someone doesn’t make you feel for them, then the difficulty isn’t expressing empathy, it’s lacking it. Society certainly does a lot of things for bad or nonsensical reasons, but expressing empathy generally isn’t one of them.

I don’t personally find the framing offensive, but I’m not on the spectrum so I can’t speak to it from that perspective. My comment was less about the article and more about not offloading that work onto unsuspecting and unprepared people.

That being said, I’m not as anti-ai as maybe some other people might be when it comes to these kinds of tools. The study itself highlights the fact that not everyone has the resources to get the kind of high quality care they need and this might be an option. I agree that sacrificing quality for efficiency is bad, in my post history you can see I made that argument about ai myself, but realistically so many people can potentially benefit from this that would have no alternatives. Additionally, AI will only be getting better, and hopefully you’ve never had a bad experience with a professional, but I can speak from personal experience that quality varies drastically between individuals in the healthcare industry. If this is something that can be offered by public libraries or school systems, so that anyone with the need can take advantage, I think that would be a positive because we’re nowhere near universal physical healthcare, much less universal mental healthcare or actual social development training. I know people who cannot afford healthcare even though they have insurance, so if they were able to go to a specialized ai for an issue I would think it’s a net positive even if it’s not a real doctor. I know that ai is not there yet, and there’s a lot of political and social baggage there, but the reality is people need help and they need it now and they are not getting it. I don’t know how good this ai is, but if the alternative is telling people that are struggling and have no other options that they have to tough it out, I’m willing to at least entertain the idea. For what it’s worth, if I could snap my fingers and give everyone all the help and support they need and it excluded ai, I would choose that option, I just don’t have it. I also don’t know that LLMs really can do this successfully on a large scale, so I would need evidence of that before really supporting it, I just think it shouldn’t be written off completely if it’s showing promise.

The issue is you often don’t have to manipulate someone into doing something that is harmful for them, especially if they do not have the life experience to know what harmful looks like. I’m not saying they should be barred from doing things, but it’s natural to question a relationship where there is a power imbalance, and generally age gap relationships exhibit that imbalance. An imbalance does not mean manipulation occurs, just that there is an opportunity there. Saying young people don’t generally have as much life experience is not infantilizing, it’s generally factual. That is easy to exploit even if you are not intending to. When people make these arguments, I’m always curious as to how many young people they actually know and interact with in a non work environment. The difference between speaking to an 18 year old and a 20 year old is often gargantuan. I wonder if they are not willing to give an 18 year old with their first job more leeway for mistakes than an older person who’s now had several jobs. I think it’s good to give people who are just learning more grace, and to expect more of people who have been around longer. I don’t think that’s infantilizing, I think that’s recognizing the situation people are in and meeting them where they are at. I don’t see how that does not obviously translate to interpersonal relationships.

I will add that I generally see women (the ones more likely to be on the younger end of this equation) advocating against age gaps. Often, women who speak from personal experience note that it was not a positive experience for them. I’m sure some say it’s positive, but the stats seem to indicate that they are on the whole not good either short term or long term. So I generally err on the side of lived experience and statistics, especially when they corroborate each other. I don’t think people are advocating for laws against them, but it makes sense for society to warn of the issues, like we should do with all other things that can cause harm when people would not otherwise be aware of it.