The police look for drugs and find.............

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Wow(and not the game either)!

This thread was meant to be light hearted but not any more as it has become SERIOUS!!

[aidanjt]

The police don't have a right to boot your door down without a warrant - they require a search warrant. As for RF (or EM) nooping - it s little different from TV detector vans, government agencies monitoring the RF spectrum or internet traffic.

So they need a search warrent to search through your home, but they don't need a search warrent to search through your home? You don't see the contradiction? And if they start x-raying homes, that's ok too, right? It's just harmless EM after all (not really, but that isn't stopping the government from shoving people through them at airports anyway).

Telephone tapping is slightly different (for ome arcane reason) - monitoring the content requires a warrant, although monitoring routing information (numbers called etc) does not.

The question though is admissability of evidence. A hot spot (or overheard conversation) may not be sufficient evidence in itself, but it may be an indicator for further investigation.

If you have no expectation of privacy, and they grant you none. Why do you think they'll stop at phones, rifling through computers, and the contents of your home without your knowledge or consent? If you allow the fascist monster to grow, it will grow.

One of the statory duties of the police is crime detection and prevention, not just investigation. Using an IR camera to for general surveillance would seem to fall within the crime detection role.

Detection and prevention? What are they doing to prevent burglary? What are they doing to prevent bar brawls? Or stabbings? You can't prevent crime, the very concept is absurd, and wasting resources on attempting to do so is folly, leaves criminals at large, and just leads to abuse of the people. As for detection, that's the responsibility of the citizenry, to report incidents, that's what 999 is for. No, it is the government's job to prevent crime by passing legislation which alters the law or changes the social conditions which causes crime. It is not the job of the state to treat every citizen as a potential criminal.

We don't need 'pro-active' polic oppression. We need competent coppers investigating and actually catching actual criminals, not sending out speeding fines, or scaring the bejesus out of rodents.

[peterb]

So they need a search warrent to search through your home, but they don't need a search warrent to search through your home? You don't see the contradiction?

Only in that sentence.

And if they start x-raying homes, that's ok too, right? It's just harmless EM after all (not really, but that isn't stopping the government from shoving people through them at airports anyway).

Somewat impracticle to X-ray a house (and the results wouldn't be very meaningfull anyway.)

X-ray at airports is a lot less invasive than a hand search of luggage, or strip search of passengers. Personally I'd rather do that than run the (small) risk of having some suicidal nutcase on the plane with me - and those measures in themselves may act as a deterrent to the suicidal nutcase.



As for the warrants...


A search warrant is issued by a magistrate after seeing evidence that it may be justifiable - they aren't granted on a whim. It is part of the separation of power from the judiciary, legislature, and executive.

And I certainly don't regard being over flown by a helicopter carrying an IR camera as an invasion of my privacy.

And if there is evidence that someone is preparing some criminal activity, seizing and searching a computer is again justifiable to prevent a possible crime - but again with a warrant issued by an independent judicial system.

[aidanjt]

Only in that sentence.

Searching through your home with EM, is still searching through your home. It's no more different than standing in the middle of the house and rifling through your stuff. You're still observing the same objects. Hell, with modern sensor technology, you're liable to gain more information from EM sweeps than you are by picking things up and prodding it.

Somewat impracticle to X-ray a house (and the results wouldn't be very meaningfull anyway.)

Nope, it's very easy. Backscatter X-ray scanning works just as well with buildings and vehicles as it does with people. And the imaging shows up very detailed contents, just as with people. All they have to do is park up with a van and start scanning houses.

X-ray at airports is a lot less invasive than a hand search of luggage, or strip search of passengers. Personally I'd rather do that than run the (small) risk of having some suicidal nutcase on the plane with me - and those measures in themselves may act as a deterrent to the suicidal nutcase.

Ah yes, so you massively increase the very real risk of fatal disease as a result of your body being blasted by ionising radiation, in order to combat the slight, and very imagined threat of a wouldbe plane bomber. This is precisely why pro-active policing is idiotic, wasteful, and dangerous.

As for the warrants...

A search warrant is issued by a magistrate after seeing evidence that it may be justifiable - they aren't granted on a whim. It is part of the separation of power from the judiciary, legislature, and executive.

Hypothetically, but in reality more of that barrier between the three is being eroded by bill after bill of arbitrary powers being granted to the system.

And I certainly don't regard being over flown by a helicopter carrying an IR camera as an invasion of my privacy.

That's because you obviously have no expectation of privacy. You've fully embraced big brother looming over your shoulder. Whatever equipment you're powering is your own business, none of the governments.

And if there is evidence that someone is preparing some criminal activity, seizing and searching a computer is again justifiable to prevent a possible crime - but again with a warrant issued by an independent judicial system.

And if that evidence merely hinting that there *may* be some criminal activity going on, was obtained unethically, it's still dandy, right? The ends justifies the means, etc?

Thought crime, here we come! Oh wait, that's already here. Never mind.

[scaryjim]

... What you're saying is, the police of the right to boot your door in and dig through your stuff without warrant or cause. ...

... they're busting down doors to find Guinea Pigs..

I went home and there were two policemen who came in the house with me

Doesn't sound like busting down doors to me. Sounds like they visited the house to discuss the matter with the occupants to rule them out of any investigation. Further, it sounds like they waited for the occupant to come home before taking any action, and they were invited into the property. I see nothing to suggest they dug through anyone's stuff. Based on the details reported by the BBC, they performed a routine surveillance (potentially based on intelligence that someone in the area was growing cannabis) and investigated a potentially suspicious location, acting well within their powers.

[peterb]

Searching through your home with EM, is still searching through your home. It's no more different than standing in the middle of the house and rifling through your stuff. You're still observing the same objects. Hell, with modern sensor technology, you're liable to gain more information from EM sweeps than you are by picking things up and prodding it.


Nope, it's very easy. Backscatter X-ray scanning works just as well with buildings and vehicles as it does with people. And the imaging shows up very detailed contents, just as with people. All they have to do is park up with a van and start scanning houses.

Just a hint of paranoia there?

Ah yes, so you massively increase the very real risk of fatal disease as a result of your body being blasted by ionising radiation, in order to combat the slight, and very imagined threat of a wouldbe plane bomber. This is precisely why pro-active policing is idiotic, wasteful, and dangerous.

Well no. it isn't a massive increase in the risk. Having had a lethal dose of radiation for therapeutic reasons, it has doubled my risk of cntracting a secondary cancer from 1 in a very large number to one in still a very large number, so the probability of death from repeated very low dose X-ray scans (much lower than a chest X-ray) is much less than the certainty of death if someone blows the plane out of the sky. Perhaps your paranoia sould be amed at those who have made such measures necessary.

And if you are that concerned about the X-ray risk, perhaps you shouldn't be flying at all, as you will be exposed to greater backgrund radiation at altitude anyway. Or you could opt for a manual search.

Hypothetically, but in reality more of that barrier between the three is being eroded by bill after bill of arbitrary powers being granted to the system.

If anything, the establishment of a Ministry of Justice as a separate entity from the Home Office has increased the separation of owers. (Although I expect you consider 'Ministry of Justice' to be Orwellian 'newspeak'.)

That's because you obviously have no expectation of privacy. You've fully embraced big brother looming over your shoulder. Whatever equipment you're powering is your own business, none of the governments.

Unless that equipment is being used in the perpetration of criminal activity.

And if that evidence merely hinting that there *may* be some criminal activity going on, was obtained unethically, it's still dandy, right? The ends justifies the means, etc?

Thought crime, here we come! Oh wait, that's already here. Never mind.

Ethics is an emotive term, but if that evidence is obtained unlawfully, then it is inadmissible in court.

Intelligence gathering is another matter ad has been a legitimate part of policing for a long time. You could argue that paying n informant for information is unethical. Where do you draw the line?

But the police are between a rock and a hard place. If they act to prevent a crime that may result in a loss of ife, they are accused of being athoritarian. If they fail to act and life is lost, they are , incompetent. While I value civil iberty, I am prepared to surrender some for that for additional security, but my anger is reserved for those that have exploited our civil liberty for their own ends, and made the erosions necessary.

[aidanjt]

Just a hint of paranoia there?

Nope.

Well no. it isn't a massive increase in the risk. Having had a lethal dose of radiation for therapeutic reasons, it has doubled my risk of cntracting a secondary cancer from 1 in a very large number to one in still a very large number, so the probability of death from repeated very low dose X-ray scans (much lower than a chest X-ray) is much less than the certainty of death if someone blows the plane out of the sky. Perhaps your paranoia sould be amed at those who have made such measures necessary.

And if you are that concerned about the X-ray risk, perhaps you shouldn't be flying at all, as you will be exposed to greater backgrund radiation at altitude anyway. Or you could opt for a manual search.

Backscatter isn't medical radiography or CBR. It's focused radiation. As you might have garnered from your radiotherapy, the target of ionising radiation is damaged by that energy. With backscatter X-ray, you are the target. Or more specifically with body scanners, your skin is the target.

If anything, the establishment of a Ministry of Justice as a separate entity from the Home Office has increased the separation of owers. (Although I expect you consider 'Ministry of Justice' to be Orwellian 'newspeak'.)

Just another department under the executive.

Unless that equipment is being used in the perpetration of criminal activity.

Which they're well entitled to seize, if they're caught committing a crime.

Ethics is an emotive term, but if that evidence is obtained unlawfully, then it is inadmissible in court.

Laws are even more emotive and arbitrary. What is law, doesn't equate to what is right. In ethics, you can't say it is ethical to stab someone to death because they look at you funny. You can, however, write that in law, and it will be so.

Intelligence gathering is another matter ad has been a legitimate part of policing for a long time. You could argue that paying n informant for information is unethical. Where do you draw the line?

Who would argue that a paid informant is unethical? A community informant renders a service, and is compensated as a result. And providing the information pertains to the actual commissioning of a crime, then that's more than fair. If the police is using an informant to keep track of the day to day activities of 1-9 foobar street, that would be a different matter entirely.

But the police are between a rock and a hard place. If they act to prevent a crime that may result in a loss of ife, they are accused of being athoritarian. If they fail to act and life is lost, they are , incompetent. While I value civil iberty, I am prepared to surrender some for that for additional security, but my anger is reserved for those that have exploited our civil liberty for their own ends, and made the erosions necessary.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

In fact, you will receive neither safety, nor liberty, when you allow the government to start stripping away civil liberties.

[Alex]

Do you think that an Al-Qaeda terrorist should be arrested before a bombing occurs? What if he hasn't made the bomb yet, but knows how to make it and has made plans for when and where?

[aidanjt]

Do you think that an Al-Qaeda terrorist should be arrested before a bombing occurs? What if he hasn't made the bomb yet, but knows how to make it and has made plans for when and where?

Politicians will always be able to find a boogieman to scare you with, and to use as a justification for grabbing more power. Partially because in doing so, they create the boogiemen.

[Alex]

You didn't really answer the question...

[aidanjt]

You didn't really answer the question...

I did. I'm not going to be spooked by boogieman after boogieman. I'm not going to change my way of life, and surrender my rights in the face of a minuscule threat. If I do that, I'll only embolden and encourage the threat to be more aggressive, and create new threats in turn.

[Alex]

So is the answer that if you know someone is capable of a terrorist act, and plans to do it, and this can be proved, that we should not attempt to arrest them?

After all, if we simply watch them, they could always slip away and carry on with their plans.

My point isn't that you're wrong - I'm very anti-'big brother' government using anti-terror laws to take away out civil liberties. My point is more that laws to target specific crimes should be enforced and regulated so that they have a minimal effect on those not guilty of said law.

It is impossible to have a 100% true positive and a 0% false positive in police investigative work. You have to accept that looking harder will increase the true positive investigation rate but also will increase the false positives. In order to never arrest an innocent person, or never even knowck on the door of an innocent person you'd have to never investigate anyone, because at the end of the days we're all human and all get things wrong every now and again.

The question is, as has been said before, is the investigation, it's methods and it's processes proportional to the suspected crime?

I would suggest that in this case, the woman has suffered no real problems, and drug dealing is a significant enough of a problem that it warrants the minor infringement of privacy that scanning large areas of houses with a heat scanner looking for unusual heat sources is entirely proportionate. It's not like they're watching you undress through your window with a telescope.

Laws restricting personal freedoms are necessary to protect other freedoms, what we need to watch for is disproportionate and inappropriate laws, not say that any law affecting personal freedom is wrong.

You may feel that this law is disproportionate, in which case you should write to your MP and say so. Others may disagree, and we can't have a referendum on every law, and therefore the government has to make a judgement call on each law. If you disagree with the way the government makes these decisions then vote for a more liberal party. If we as a whole country don't like the way things are done, then it is our fault for voting for a party we don't like making decisions, or more commonly our fault for not voting at all.

[aidanjt]

My opinion is that people shouldn't be harassed unless they are attempting to commit a crime, or have committed a crime. If you can prove there's a conspiracy, then maybe. But that is getting closer and closer into thought crime territory. And that would be one step too far.

[Alex]

Yes, but maybe shouldn't be "harassed" unless suspected of committing a crime, or having committed a crime, would be a better way of phrasing it. As I said, you simply can't avoid arresting some innocent people by accident unless you arrest no-one.

I believe that conspiring to commit an act of terrorism is a crime - which would I suppose technically be a thought crime. I'd imagine the majority of us would still like it to remain a crime.

[Rave]

Late to this thread, intoxicated as usual (on booze imported entirely legally from within the EU, I hasten to add). So I'm following my usual approach of multiquoting everything I have an issue with and working from there.

They didn't go snooping around private property. They will have registered the heat source from some considerable distance away with no snooping required.

Erm....then you and I have a differing opinion on the definition of snooping. It'd take a sharp police operator to be following, say, a joyrider down a major road, and then notice a 'glowing' house and remark on it when the job in hand is to catch a vehicle thief.

As I said earlier, a quick sweep of an entire housing estate with an IR camera looking for unusual heat sources which may indicate a number of crimes strikes me as most definitely being proportionate to the ends sought, and therefore dead easy to authorise under RIPA.

True, but I still call it snooping.

It's just harmless EM after all (not really, but that isn't stopping the government from shoving people through them at airports anyway).

I've just come back from a 'city break' in Barcelona. As a quite obviously white Englishman I very rarely get hassle from the security services at airports, and thus it proved this time. However...I think this is the first time I've been in danger of being asked to take a full body scan....or maybe not, because I had a good look around, and didn't see any x-ray scanners at Gatwick. But I would have taken the strip search had it come to that- my Maternal grandmother died of cancer, my mum survived cancer (25+ years in remission thankfully), and I'm a smoker and a boozer and hence at substantially increased risk. I'm never going to get myself irradiated if there's an option not to.

Detection and prevention? What are they doing to prevent burglary?

Putting increased police presences in burglary blackspots?

What are they doing to prevent bar brawls? Or stabbings?

When did you last have a 'night out' in a typical British town centre? Because I can't remember the last time I did and didn't see a police presence. That might not prevent every bar brawl, but I daresay it's prevented many. Or at the very least, it has meant that the perpetrators were quickly arrested.

You can't prevent crime, the very concept is absurd,

While I have considerable sympathy for your worldview, I have to profoundly disagree with you there. If every second citizen were a policeman, then a great deal of crime would be prevented simply because it'd be bloody difficult to commit a crime without it being witnessed by a policeman, and hence it would be foolhardy to break the law. I don't want to live in a police state, but equally crimes like muggings go on because it's eminently possible to accost someone on the street without a police officer being present.

and wasting resources on attempting to do so is folly, leaves criminals at large, and just leads to abuse of the people.

I will admit to being a self-righteous ****, and I really don't like the police to bother me while I'm going about my life. This whole discussion has arisen from a story about the police misguidedly attempting, possibly in a heavy handed way, to catch someone growing cannabis- which IMO should not be a crime anyway.

But it is a crime, and sadly, many, probably a majority, of our fellow citizens, being Sun and Daily Mail reading morons, would like it to remain that way. So, on the basis that I think that the law is bollocks, I'd argue that aerially scanning houses to spot potential cannabis factories is slightly preferable to the police trying to locate them by bribing cannabis smokers on the street to grass up their dealer.

As for detection, that's the responsibility of the citizenry, to report incidents, that's what 999 is for. No, it is the government's job to prevent crime by passing legislation which alters the law or changes the social conditions which causes crime.

In which case, legslise mugging and burglary, and we could save a packet by not having a police force at all! Seriously....wut? If the state is going to make stuff illegal, then a state body, in this case he police, must have the power to arrest people who commit acts which are contrary to the government of the day's idea of what is for the common good.

It is not the job of the state to treat every citizen as a potential criminal.

Agreed. But in this particular instance I think we'd be better off criticising the government for presuming to know what intoxitants are best for the people to be allowed to take, rather than criticising the police for attempting to do a job that they're legally obliged to do.

Well no. it isn't a massive increase in the risk. Having had a lethal dose of radiation for therapeutic reasons, it has doubled my risk of cntracting a secondary cancer from 1 in a very large number to one in still a very large number, so the probability of death from repeated very low dose X-ray scans (much lower than a chest X-ray) is much less than the certainty of death if someone blows the plane out of the sky. Perhaps your paranoia sould be amed at those who have made such measures necessary.

Yes, if someone blows your plane up you're quite likely to die. But I only know of one plane that got blown up by terrorists, that being Pan Am 103, 22 years ago.

None since, unless of course I'm wrong? Which is of course entirely possible. But if I'm not, they've managed to keep us all safe from bombs without subjecting us all to ionising radiation in the meantime.

I don't mean to sound callous or flippant here Peter, but the fact that ionising radiation apparently cured your cancer, and has not yet caused you a secondary, unrelated one, does not mean that it's fine for the rest of us to be casually subjected to it. I'm not ill, and if I'm going to get ill, I'd rather it was as a result of something I've done to myself, like boozing or smoking. Then at least I've got nobody else to blame. And TBH, even if radiotherapy had saved my life, I wouldn't be so presumptious as to think that next time it wouln't kill me.

And if you are that concerned about the X-ray risk, perhaps you shouldn't be flying at all, as you will be exposed to greater backgrund radiation at altitude anyway. Or you could opt for a manual search.

Anyone with any sense should opt for a manual search, IMO.

Intelligence gathering is another matter ad has been a legitimate part of policing for a long time. You could argue that paying n informant for information is unethical. Where do you draw the line?

Actually......I draw the line at paying informants. I guess, correct me if I'm wrong, that you're referring to paying the first line of minor criminals/drug addicts to carry on with their own criminality while informing on on people higher up the criminal conspiracy.

I'm sure that's quite an effective way of nicking senior drug dealers, but it's also a de-facto admission that the problem will never be solved under our current laws. So why in the HELL are we carrying on with it? Why do we persist in criminalising something that our own police force, PAID to solve this apparent problem, by their own actions are admitting will never go away, because they're prepared to ignore minor criminals, indeed pay them?!?!

I think that's utter, contemptible stupidity.

While I value civil iberty, I am prepared to surrender some for that for additional security,

Ben Franklin thinks you deserve neither, and so do I.

but my anger is reserved for those that have exploited our civil liberty for their own ends, and made the erosions necessary.

Erosions of civil liberty are only necessary if you're a coward, IMO. I would happily step on a plane knowing that I, and everyone else on it, had been waved on with no security checks save a metal detector check for 2"+ blades. If I'm ever on a plane where someone rushes the cabin, I'll take them myself, and if I end up burning in a field I'll have died instantly, which is probably a less painful death than I can expect if I grow old.

Who would argue that a paid informant is unethical?

Me.

A community informant renders a service, and is compensated as a result.

Hang on. You've just argued at length that spying is wrong- even to the extent that it's wrong to observe people's IR emissions, something that I could do with a hot air balloon and a £90 Lidl night vision scope. It's perfectly legal for me to walk up to you in the street and shove a camera in your face- you're emitting at the very least reflected electromagnetic waves every time you step out of your house in daylight.

So how the hell is a 'community informant' different? As far as I can see, their very existence prves an official tolerance of at least some low level crime.

In fact, you will receive neither safety, nor liberty, when you allow the government to start stripping away civil liberties.

Agreed on that one, at least.

[peterb]

Late to this thread, intoxicated as usual (on booze imported entirely legally from within the EU, I hasten to add). So I'm following my usual approach of multiquoting everything I have an issue with and working from there.



Erm....then you and I have a differing opinion on the definition of snooping. It'd take a sharp police operator to be following, say, a joyrider down a major road, and then notice a 'glowing' house and remark on it when the job in hand is to catch a vehicle thief.



True, but I still call it snooping.



I've just come back from a 'city break' in Barcelona. As a quite obviously white Englishman I very rarely get hassle from the security services at airports, and thus it proved this time. However...I think this is the first time I've been in danger of being asked to take a full body scan....or maybe not, because I had a good look around, and didn't see any x-ray scanners at Gatwick. But I would have taken the strip search had it come to that- my Maternal grandmother died of cancer, my mum survived cancer (25+ years in remission thankfully), and I'm a smoker and a boozer and hence at substantially increased risk. I'm never going to get myself irradiated if there's an option not to.

But you chose to fly, which icreased your exposure to gamma radiation of much shorter wavelength than those employed by body scanners

Putting increased police presences in burglary blackspots?

When did you last have a 'night out' in a typical British town centre? Because I can't remember the last time I did and didn't see a police presence. That might not prevent every bar brawl, but I daresay it's prevented many. Or at the very least, it has meant that the perpetrators were quickly arrested.

While I have considerable sympathy for your worldview, I have to profoundly disagree with you there. If every second citizen were a policeman, then a great deal of crime would be prevented simply because it'd be bloody difficult to commit a crime without it being witnessed by a policeman, and hence it would be foolhardy to break the law. I don't want to live in a police state, but equally crimes like muggings go on because it's eminently possible to accost someone on the street without a police officer being present.



I will admit to being a self-righteous ****, and I really don't like the police to bother me while I'm going about my life. This whole discussion has arisen from a story about the police misguidedly attempting, possibly in a heavy handed way, to catch someone growing cannabis- which IMO should not be a crime anyway.

But it is a crime, and sadly, many, probably a majority, of our fellow citizens, being Sun and Daily Mail reading morons, would like it to remain that way. So, on the basis that I think that the law is bollocks, I'd argue that aerially scanning houses to spot potential cannabis factories is slightly preferable to the police trying to locate them by bribing cannabis smokers on the street to grass up their dealer.




In which case, legslise mugging and burglary, and we could save a packet by not having a police force at all! Seriously....wut? If the state is going to make stuff illegal, then a state body, in this case he police, must have the power to arrest people who commit acts which are contrary to the government of the day's idea of what is for the common good.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that, although that does contradict the Benjamin Franklin quote in that we have handed over a prportion of our responsibility for our own safety and law enforcement to the state, and at the price is a curtailmemnt of ur civil liberties. The question is how much, and what is an acceptae amount?

Yes, if someone blows your plane up you're quite likely to die. But I only know of one plane that got blown up by terrorists, that being Pan Am 103, 22 years ago.

None since, unless of course I'm wrong? Which is of course entirely possible. But if I'm not, they've managed to keep us all safe from bombs without subjecting us all to ionising radiation in the meantime.

No, but perhas hat is the deterrant effect of the security measures - and as the would be perpetrators become more sophisticated, so do the countermeasures. There are aso far more people flying, and so scanning speed is also an issue.

I don't mean to sound callous or flippant here Peter,

Not at all

but the fact that ionising radiation apparently cured your cancer, and has not yet caused you a secondary, unrelated one, does not mean that it's fine for the rest of us to be casually subjected to it. I'm not ill, and if I'm going to get ill, I'd rather it was as a result of something I've done to myself, like boozing or smoking. Then at least I've got nobody else to blame. And TBH, even if radiotherapy had saved my life, I wouldn't be so presumptious as to think that next time it wouln't kill me.

True, but the point was to counter the Daily Mailesque comment that body scannig "massively" increases the risk. It doesn't. Not even the dose I received 'massively' increses the risk.

[QUOTE=Rave;2032652]

Anyone with any sense should opt for a manual search, IMO.

{/QUOTE]

Well that is a personal PoV, but if everyone requested a manual search, you might be turning up to fly 6 hours ahead of the flight instead of 2, or else the increased costs of anual scannig woukd push up flight costs.

Ben Franklin thinks you deserve neither, and so do I.

Erosions of civil liberty are only necessary if you're a coward, IMO. I would happily step on a plane knowing that I, and everyone else on it, had been waved on with no security checks save a metal detector check for 2"+ blades. If I'm ever on a plane where someone rushes the cabin, I'll take them myself, and if I end up burning in a field I'll have died instantly, which is probably a less painful death than I can expect if I grow old.

So would you abolish all controls that affect civil liberties? That would result in anarchy.

(I know not all the points were addressed to me - unfortunately the forum doesn't quote quotes)