Post #3,139
7/30/01 9:36:40 PM
|
I think that your position is
it doesnt bother you as much as it bothers us suspicious of government folks. A camera is equal to a wiretap on everyones phones and a piece of software to syphon out the criminal elements. I know that is illegal as Echelon of Euro fame cannot be used b y law in the US.
Radio waves travel in public for cellphone use just like the light waves the camera is using yet it is illegal to listen in on cell calls. Camera=public wiretap.
Dirty little secret. It is illegal for the NSA to listen into US conversations. If you need that kind of intel we ask the British (who share the facilities and the take as well as Canada) to do it for us and in return we do the same as it is illegal to be done by their own governments.
You dont see the connection that radio waves are as public as light waves, ergo illegal to use without a warrant.
a note on a point you made earlier, the above is different between a cop (human) looking at a receiver from a publicly owned surveilance camera.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #3,159
7/30/01 11:39:49 PM
|
You really haven't read me in my posts.
I don't think *ANYBODY* here mistrusts the government (as a group) LESS than I do.
But I try and trust individual people, because they usually behave in a certain fashion.
I certainly don't *TRUST* the government with data. But on the other hand, neither can I reasonably *DENY* them data that isn't exactly private.
A camera is equal to a wiretap on everyones phones
No, Bill, its *not*. I keep trying to show that it is, and all you're doing is saying "don't bother me with the facts".
A camera in *public* is not tantamount to a wiretap. Not even close.
And either give *something* to back it up, or stop *saying that*.
Because its bullshit, Bill. Utter bullshit.
Radio waves travel in public for cellphone use just like the light waves the camera is using yet it is illegal to listen in on cell calls. Camera=public wiretap.
Illegal because of? (people have a reasonable expecation of privacy on the phone) (And how many people were actually prosecuted, BTW? It wasn't until it was obvious that people were scanning cell phones that laws were passed (Notice! *LAW*! Golly!) - and *even then* can you cite me prosecutions?
Nope - cellphones started encrypting their transmissions.
But the laws were *based* on the fact that you had a *presumption of privacy*. If someone were sitting next to you - they could testify to what you said. If you sad on the bus next to a cop, and talked about a drug buy......
You dont see the connection that radio waves are as public as light waves, ergo illegal to use without a warrant.
No.
Not even close. If I put a *camera* in your house, that's illegal. If I invade your privacy, that's illegal. If I listen to you in a resturant, that's not illegal.
Its illegal for someone to *invade your privacy*. Which you *do not have on a city street*.
the above is different between a cop (human) looking at a receiver from a publicly owned surveilance camera.
You've said it. You've not told me what the difference is.
And until *I* can come up with something logical, I really can't complain about "government invasion of (non-existant) privacy".
Mischaracterizing my point(s), and assigning me to beliefs that (if you read anything I've ever written) are laughable (for me) doens't help.
What's the difference, Bill?
Between a cop on the street, and one watching a TV screen? IF cops on stakeout see another crime, are they "allowed" to stop it, and bear witness?
But please stop that utter bullshit that that's "what *I* think".
Addison
|
Post #3,177
7/31/01 8:14:07 AM
|
dont bother with the facts
cell transmissions go thru the air outside which is public. light travels thru the air outside where it is public. You cannot tap cell phones without a warrant. You can use recognition software on light waves without a warrant. Light wave in public radio wave in public, is the same thing. That is a fact that you seem oblivious to.
Proof that cell phone onterception is illegal? The tape of Newt Gingrich talking over a cell about how to weasel out of his punishment was obtained by a scanner. The 2 people that made the tape were charged with an illegal wiretap.(although I dont know what the end result was)
Using a camera with software that scans everybody and picks out the bad guys is the same as scanning all cell calls using software to pick up illegal conversations.
Now anything you dont agree with is not a fact and you insist that everything you opine is a fact so ther is not much to do about that except say bon chance, we arnt going to even agree on the argument here.
over and out.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #3,200
7/31/01 9:54:07 AM
|
You're still missing Addison's point Bill.
cell transmissions go thru the air outside which is public. light travels thru the air outside where it is public. You cannot tap cell phones without a warrant. You can use recognition software on light waves without a warrant. Light wave in public radio wave in public, is the same thing. That is a fact that you seem oblivious to.
IANAL, but it's not whether something happens outside or inside which makes someting private or public. It's whether the law regards the participants as having an "expectation of privacy". This is what Addison's been trying to point out.
Your home is private because the law says you have a reasonable expectation of privacy there. Your garbage on the curb is not, according to the law. The courts have ruled that telephone conversations have that expectation of privacy so they're protected as being private conversations and require a warrant for a tap. Conversations in a park are not. Cell phone conversations involve transmission of photons through public airspace. That doesn't mean that cell phone conversations are public. They're not because they have the "expectation of privacy" protection in the law.
All Addison's been trying to do is to get you folks who are arguing with him to give a basis other than "I don't like it" for opposing the laws under discussion. What laws would you change and on what basis would you change them?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #3,220
7/31/01 11:17:09 AM
|
I understand the point just disagreeing with it
RICO would be the first to go.
Cleanup the firearms list, if you are not a felon or have a history of pychological problems you should be able to buy any gun, rifle, shotgun, semi auto around if you pass the instant check you get yer weapon. A little deeper check to buy full auto with get rid of the local cop provision.
Extend the expectation of privacy to being in the open air where you hope that all the cameras, infrared detectors parabolic antenaes may only be directed in your direction after a Judge has decreed there is probable cause that a crime has been commited.
Conspiracy laws need to be overhauled.
Forfeiture of property without a court hearing would disappear.
Laws banning certain breeds of dogs.
That is just a short list. Actually every law on the books should have a sunset claus so it can be examined in case of changes needed or thrown off the books.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #3,230
7/31/01 11:44:25 AM
|
No, you don't.
RICO would be the first to go
I won't bother with the history behind that - and the reason it was passed. (I don't like how its misused by prosecutors, but that's a refinement that's needed). (You' just ignore all the cases of murderers and other organized crime members who were able to manipulate the system with conspiracies).
Extend the expectation of privacy to being in the open air where you hope that all the cameras, infrared detectors parabolic antenaes may only be directed in your direction after a Judge has decreed there is probable cause that a crime has been commited.
Based on what?
You just said that you have "privacy" when you're in public, so what evidence could anyone offer against you?
It would all be "protected" under your privacy!
I don't think you understand, and I think you need to think this through a bit more. If you want to extend this, well, OK, I don't think you've got a logical leg to stand on, but feel free to try.
But the way to get that, (and not decend into anarchy) is to make the law, the definitions, etc work. *not* by vandalizing public property.
The automatic sunset is something that I've often wanted to see, but its probably impractical.
Addison
|
Post #3,318
7/31/01 9:18:50 PM
|
heres another reason (thanx, freep!)
[link|http://www.freep.com/news/mich/lein31_20010731.htm|http://www.freep.co...20010731.htm]
RICO was bad to begin with from the getgo. Wanna catch a mobster? Get a reasonable cause, get a warrant and tap him up the ass. RICO is an excuse for frustrated prosecutors who wanted more than charging a mobster with the crime at hand. Too fscking bad. You cant catchem dont change the law to provide criminal charges by denying the constitutional right to freedom of association. Aside from that you are right it is heavily abused in both criminal and civil cases.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #3,334
7/31/01 10:18:41 PM
|
Re: heres another reason (thanx, freep!)
You're complaining about the police keeping and having (unlogged and unmonitored) access to a database.
I have the same concerns.
So I want the access logged and (the ability to) monitor.
Wanna catch a mobster? Get a reasonable cause, get a warrant and tap him up the ass.
And when your witnesses disappear, and your jury is threatened or bribed, (or the judge)... what then?
That's when RICO was passed.
Yes, its abused as hell now by prosecutors. I don't like its use.
You cant catchem dont change the law to provide criminal charges by denying the constitutional right to freedom of association.
It was more to deal with the "organized" crime part. The planned murders - now if you were *part* of it - even if you didn't pull the trigger - you could be held liable.
If you planned the bank robbery, you could be charged. If you drove the getaway car, they could charge you with more than running a red light.
And more importantly - when you caught more than 1 person, they couldn't all point the finger in a circle, making it hard to convict anybody.
I don't have a problem with convicting on conspiracies. Its not who you hang out with. Its who you hang out with when planning to break the law.
Addison
|
Post #3,323
7/31/01 9:43:54 PM
|
*sigh*
Based on what?
You just said that you have "privacy" when you're in public, so what evidence could anyone offer against you?
It would all be "protected" under your privacy! So - prior to surveillance cameras, in order to solve crimes, police had to be stationed every streetcorner, taking notes, and asking for ID (facial recog. software) in order to solve crimes? This is not about the ability to assign surveillance on an individual - with 'probable cause', that's always been possible. This is about the police monitoring all of our movements in public, 'trawling for crime' without evidence that any specific crime has been committed. You have no problem with being unmonitored being the exception to the rule (something you would have to do by hiding on private property). I do - so do many others. Why should we be punished for the convenience of the police? And that's what it is - convenience. To insist that law enforcement requires constant monitoring of the populace is ridiculous - or do you insist that law enforcement has been impossible until now?
Imric's Tips for Living- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
|
Post #3,330
7/31/01 10:10:42 PM
|
That's not what I said.
So - prior to surveillance cameras, in order to solve crimes, police had to be stationed every streetcorner, taking notes, and asking for ID (facial recog. software) in order to solve crimes?
That was not what I said.
Go back and read it again.
I was using *Bill O*'s stated case.
The way he described it, police *could not witness anything* without a warrent.
And that's what I was replying to.
And that's what it is - convenience. To insist that law enforcement requires constant monitoring of the populace is ridiculous - or do you insist that law enforcement has been impossible until now?
Nope.
But if we did it according to Bill's rules, we'd either have inconsistant, impossible-to-follow laws, or none.
Under *what he said*, it would be near impossible, yes.
Not what I said, his hypothesis. I was just expanding on the extention of that.
Addison
|
Post #3,338
7/31/01 10:29:27 PM
|
What he said:
quote: Extend the expectation of privacy to being in the open air where you hope that all the cameras, infrared detectors parabolic antenaes may only be directed in your direction after a Judge has decreed there is probable cause that a crime has been commited. He seems to include probable cause and the assignation of a warrant very clearly....
Imric's Tips for Living- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
|
Post #3,341
7/31/01 11:04:47 PM
|
Yep.
Extend the expectation of privacy to being in the open air where you hope that all the cameras, infrared detectors parabolic antenaes may only be directed in your direction after a Judge has decreed there is probable cause that a crime has been commited.
(emphasis mine).
And I was pointing out that that expectation of privacy - that the police can't observe you without a warrent - means that there would be almost an impossibility of *getting said probable cause*.
"we saw....." "I object" "Objection sustained".
In order to change that, you have to differentiate between the police watching with their eyes, and a camera. (Hasn't been done so far). Given that - when the police can only watch AFTER a warrent has been answered, then how do they get the warrent?
Addison
|
Post #3,444
8/1/01 1:05:50 PM
|
Hasn't been done so far?
Sure it has.
Police can use what they hear as testimony, yet cannot record without a warrant.
This does not seem to stop them from fighting crime, or testifying in court.
Imric's Tips for Living- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
|
Post #3,454
8/1/01 1:47:25 PM
|
No.
I started to say... "That's the *way it is now*. (the police can observe)"
Not under the Boxley situation, however. There, he's saying the police can only observe ONCE a warrant has been issued. Since they can't observe to get a warrant...... Then how can they get one? (Bill's not explained the difference between a cop, undercover cop, and a camera. So if you restrict the actions of one, you restrict them all. (per current law)).
This is Bill's hypothesis - that a warrent is needed for police attention. Of course that's silly - but its *what he said*. Talk to him about the silliness, I"m just pointing it out.
But then it hit me - Wait. No its not.
Police can use what they hear as testimony, yet cannot record without a warrant.
That's not true. Notice the police cruiser cameras? No warrant needed for sound and video for them.
So, no, that's not right at all. Because what they're taping and recording is *public*. Not private.
So no, they *don't* need a warrent for taping public events.
Addison
|
Post #3,455
8/1/01 1:55:06 PM
|
Question about recording
As I mentioned elsewhere, laws vary state-to-stae on who has to be aware of recording for it to be legal. I've never considered how that applies to dashboard cameras. I suspect that what law exists specifies audio recording, with no mention of video. If that's the case, it's bad law, IMO.
So does anyone know: In the states where it's illegal to record your own phone conversations without informing the other party, are the police allowed to record audio or video of you without your consent?
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Post #3,469
8/1/01 3:20:25 PM
|
Not sure about other places.
But in georgia, they have something called "implied consent". If you get a drivers license, one of the caveats is that by accepting the license, you give implied consent for a breathalizer test in case of a dui stop and you also give implied consent to be video recorded in any traffic stop.
"When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
|
Post #3,490
8/1/01 4:36:41 PM
|
Heh.. Kinda like the Windoze EULA, no ?
You wanna drive? OK - sign away a few rights right ____ here.
Want medical care for that punctured lung? OK - sign away that house ___ here.
Wanna report illegal actions of your Corp employer? OK Mr. Unemployed with no insurance, sign ___ here.
Murica. Love it or Leave It\ufffd
(Still and all - the cops' dash cameras are a two-edged sword - and it isn't clear what all the implications are. Bad cop behavior may be as easily shown as bad driver behavior.) Nothing is *really* 'simple'. We just so *want* it to be..
A.
|
Post #3,530
8/1/01 7:41:36 PM
|
Interesting point.
Notice the police cruiser cameras? No warrant needed for sound and video for them.
Is court testimony based on them then, legal? It's possible that such recordings might be used (until some lawyer challenges it, anyway). Police powers now encompass so many things now, some directly in conflict with the constitution (if a cop mentions "drugs", for instance, property can be siezed, and sold at auction without restitution to the owner, even if the charges never go to court. DUI checkpoints allow basic searches without probable cause... etc., etc) and precedent. An officer can 'run' a license plate (public) without any overt reason; asking for identification, license, insurance, registration, etc. requires probable cause. So - is a face a 'license plate', or 'ID'? Can the police legally use face-recognition software to trawl for 'perps'? Since, as many love to quote, driving is a privelege, not a right, license plates might be spot-checkable - I suspect that since "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is a holy canon here in the 'States, 'face checks' don't fall into the same category. And if they are tested legally, and are considered legal, watch hoods and masks become commonplace fashion statements. Not everyone is comfortable with the police watching everything you do, with the only respite being to hide on private property.
Imric's Tips for Living- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
|
Post #3,536
8/1/01 8:19:24 PM
|
Re: Interesting point.
Is court testimony based on them then, legal? It's possible that such recordings might be used (until some lawyer challenges it, anyway)
As far as I know, yes.
I did a quick web search, and didn't find any news to it being every challenged. (found a couple Canadian articles decrying it).
Again, since this is a public issue, I don't think they can be.
Maybe we can ask LAM,E for an opinion. :)
watch hoods and masks become commonplace fashion statements. Not everyone is comfortable with the police watching everything you do, with the only respite being to hide on private property.
And the West thinks the Arabs are old-fashioned and archaic. :)
As to the police powers - the seizure law is so obscene as to be worthy of question how it ever was passed.
Addison
|
Post #3,541
8/1/01 8:49:39 PM
|
Cruiser cams
Presumably the cruiser cameras are used to back up the testimony of the officer - at least that's what I've seen. They aren't used in a vacuum, like the street cams. Officer testifies "I did this and thus, and the perp did this." Produces cruiser video in support. Problem is that without other evidence, people can claim they were roughed up or evidence planted; with that camera, it's harder to do the claim.
Also, remember, the street intersection cams have been associated with deliberate shortening of the yellow light period. Of *course* when the yellow light interval is shortened, there will be more people caught in the intersection. Pure dollars at stake here.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
|
Post #3,615
8/2/01 12:05:07 PM
|
And as such, I have no problem with them
The cruiser cam is limited in a very practical sense - there are only as many out there as there are cruisers. You can't blanket the city with them without blanketing the city with cruisers. You can't use them to track everybody everywhere without spending too much money and scaring the straights.
A cruiser cam is equivalent to a cop seeing things that happen in public.
Not only that, they encourage professionalism and acceptable behavior on the part of the police. Sure, they can be turned off, but the officer's testimony is so much more compelling when there is video.
I suppose the software could be used, and the database built, on the images anyway. But considering the limited resources, it is likely that the cameras will be focused on problems, not fishing for crimes.
White guys in suits know best
- Pat McCurdy
|
Post #3,294
7/31/01 3:51:00 PM
|
But aren't you eliding the "powers reserved to the people"
here? (Again). You observe, Your home is private because the law says you have a reasonable expectation of privacy there.
And I say that - just as universal presence of cel-fone info in the \ufffdther qualifies for protection from Corp/Govt snooping - so do other electromagnetic 'waves' like light (as Bill opines). That's plain bloody physics BTW - not that that has much to do with 'laws' we invent.
And if you think that's a stretch: *that* appears to be what the 'reserved powers' phrase was intended to cast light upon -- there bloody well *can't* be a specific 'granting of video wave protection' explicitly stated! (And here we enter the Strict Consructionist realm: if'n the Founding Mothers didn't say we couldn't: We Can\ufffd) A variant of daleross' little doggerel? "if'n it's legal it's ethical".
Now Addison may not *mean* that he agrees with the SConstructionists, nor necessarily believe that constant surveillance is a Good Thing (??) - but he surely is arguing that we all ought to see the Problem in their er 'light'.
This POV is tantamount to yielding to that antediluvian mindset: without a fight - because "it's the law - or the absence of": a nicely granted specific "permission" from some authority, which is 'required'.
I demur.
A.
|
Post #3,296
7/31/01 4:14:41 PM
|
I don't think so.
And I say that - just as universal presence of cel-fone info in the \ufffdther qualifies for protection from Corp/Govt snooping
Not, you'll notice, merely because of constitutional grounds, but because of *additional* laws passed to give such protection.
so do other electromagnetic 'waves' like light (as Bill opines)
Which - given similar laws passed, sure.
The two are somewhat - but not perfectly - analogous. (The commonality in EMR notwithstanding) The problem(s) are because 1) Images on a public street are not protected by any law. 2) Sounds on a public street, likewise. Conversations in private, images in private *are*.
but he surely is arguing that we all ought to see the Problem in their er 'light'.
I've yet to find a better way to suggest a good law (or counter a bad one) than to think about how to explain it.
I do consider myself to be a Constructionist, who you mistakenly lampoon, BTW.
Is Government survellience illegal under the constitution? Not so far - but if it *invades privacy* (other than what is *publically accessable*), then there must be a due process.
Nothing in the Constutition specifies speed limits, or mandates a car registration.... but you can't (with much support) say that the "right" to speed as fast as you want with an unsafe car is a "right not enumerated".
Doctors, therapist records - those are sealed *by legistlative fiat*.
(Because of privacy concerns). Not, apparently, because it was a 4th amendment violation to inspect them. But police can observe someone's activities, on the street, without warrents or needing to show cause.
And that's *exactly* where this discussion is about.
If you want to define an arbitrary difference, (as we have for certain things) be my guest. But since it *is* arbitrary, it *will* be debated/argued. That it doesn't go far enough, or it goes too far.
But these analogies where exactly that occured are reinforcing *that*, which is *my* point.
But don't go smashing cameras and police cars because you don't want a speeding ticket. (or claim that that's a "right reserved to the people".
Addison
|
Post #3,345
8/1/01 12:58:11 AM
|
Forget.. mobs dressed in black, smashing cameras.
And: all which would have had to go Very wrong before.. that many folk would get off asses and away from a Tee Vee.
Our fundamental disagrement is over the significance of a program of increasing presence of video cameras everywhere. You appear to deem this a small (?) escalation over the numbers of such devices as are already at ATMs, stoplights (allegedly triggered Only on a moving car + red signal state), airports and such.
I OTOH see that the reasons currently being bandied - have to do with crowd surveillance, face recognition - allegedly OK because "they mean well", want to see IF any of those faces are Wanted faces. Of necessity such pix must be compared with file pix - and if not stored this week, the techno is available and cheap - to store All pix. Just in case. Even to coordinate face-matches with time-codes of a variety of locations = tracking. And much more, as we well know: essentially a search warrant for NO probable cause - a fishing expedition 24/7.
"A series of quantitative changes eventually constitute a qualitative change." I say that the direction of a possible, impending ramping-up of just plain surveillance is itself a qualitative change in the way Muricans might next live their lives.
I also deem your public/private precise dichotomy a Red Herring. This because: it simply Is Not Enough for there to be merely and *only* a private locked door.. where certain measured activities might be permitted (except sex of some kinds, ingesting plants of some kind, reading __ (not quite yet))-- while *everywhere else*, all shall be taped, and results indexed, saved and shared.
No, we aren't there yet - but if we actually Get there: IMhO very much ugliness Will have occurred all along the way. And by that stage - we shall already have lost too much to list.
Meanwhile, vigilance and action is the obviously sane course - and we shall soon enough see, how many Muricans care or do not care - if their daily activities are fodder for nothing less serious than, universal dossiers.
Everyone reading this forum is capable of extrapolating the fact of many cameras + all which can be done with the images. And all can see what occurs (has already occurred) when techno makes something, once impossible: very very easy. This is far from a trivial prospect, or a mere 'quantitative change'.
Protest all you like that - there is no real difference between a policeman observing faces in a crowd and happily matching One -- and, all of the above. I disagree in toto.
Unless many munis follow the lead of the mayor (Not his own c. council) of the Fla backwater - all of this sound and fury shall be moot. We can see who will man the barricades if and when these have appeared. Meanwhile we may all hope this IS seen to be a moot topic. Via countless next rejections of the idea.
A.
|
Post #3,423
8/1/01 11:06:07 AM
|
Not the only thing forgotten.
Our fundamental disagrement is over the significance of a program of increasing presence of video cameras everywhere. You appear to deem this a small (?) escalation over the numbers of such devices as are already at ATMs, stoplights (allegedly triggered Only on a moving car + red signal state), airports and such.
No, Ashton.
Our fundamental disagreement is over the fact that I speaka English.
You no speaka English, you speaka emotion.
I have fundamental, basic PROBLEMS with cameras being everywhere.
I don't *like* them everywhere. But they're NOT ILLEGAL. And I *realise* this. Nor, can I realistically point to any given case law and scream "THIS IS WRONG". I don't LIKE cops having databases. But I accept the realistic fact that they DO, and WILL. *I* want laws governing *access* and *logs* to said data, and accountability.
I've said this many times.
allegedly OK because "they mean well",
Allegedly who? I never said that. I've disabused you twice of that notion.
Are you illiterate or just stupid? (Sorry for the insult there, but I didn't know how else to *ask* that, since its *been covered*, and its what you said, not I).
I didn't say that it was OK because they 'meant well'. I said that they weren't any different from any other public safety equipment. I still stand by that.
Now, stop telling me what I "said" and stick to what I did say. I know its harder - a lot. But either that, or I have to presume that you're doing it *intentionally*. And intention deception - how do you classify that?
I also deem your public/private precise dichotomy a Red Herring.
You can deem the law of Gravity to be a crock of butter. It doesn't change it.
That *is* the issue at hand. You ignoring it is *your* problem, not mine. Your focus is at issue, not mine. You wanting to redefine it away is.. well, you get the picture.
In fact, that's the problem with your argument - you don't LIKE the actual issue, so you change it. "Red Herring?" No.. changing it away from that (or attempting to) is a red herring....
This because: it simply Is Not Enough for there to be merely and *only* a private locked door.. ... while *everywhere else*, all shall be taped, and results indexed, saved and shared.
That's *how it is*. If you're in a public place, its public. If you are in a private place, its private.
If you don't like the concept of a permanent record - then you'll have to get a law passed FOR THAT PURPOSE.
This isn't (merely) *my opinion*, its the *law*. And right now, the law doesn't cover what you do *in public*.
Do what you will. Its your ignorance showing there.
Unless many munis follow the lead of the mayor (Not his own c. council) of the Fla backwater
Ya know.
For all your insults, all your derisions, you've yet to provide one really tangible piece of evidence why this sort of thing is bad.
Just one.
I know its easier to insult, and to toss straw onto me. But c'mon, Ash. Just one.
If they do, well, hell, why wouldn't they? Why *not*?
When you're at the meeting frothing and declaring that things done in public is a red herring, and everybody looks at you and asks "What kind of mushroom did he have on his salad?" well, I don't think you'll do very well.
I can tell you reasons I don't *like* the idea. I can come up with likely abuses of the system(s).
But those are not legal reasons that they aren't allowed to put them up.
Addison
|
Post #3,480
8/1/01 4:08:54 PM
|
Once again you speak of The Law, monolithically
..as if it were utterly unambiguous. Implicit in that view IS digital think ultimately ending as Right/Wrong.
If you are insulted by my characterizing the mindset behind this view of The Law as I have done - consider that your expressed idea of The Law is not uniformly shared. Libraries have been written about the nuances. And considering 'emotional' as pejorative is just another piece of cant. The people who elected to fight the Redcoats were &^#$^ emotional! about what they decided, and what consequences they accepted.
Then after redefining emotion you presume to be sole possessor of *correct* English too. Ah it's so lovely when One Knows One is Right\ufffd
While denying that you are spouting digital think: you persist in ignoring, no matter how many times I mention it - the "reserved powers" clause - as much *The Law* as any of the countless statutes officially on someone's books and - often contradictory and varied, from locale to locale.
Lastly you adhere to your digital idea of Public/Private - also in your mind but not all minds. We #&@* *LIVE all over* and not just behind our locked doors (which are hardly our 'castles' either - given the laws regulating behavior *even there*).
For you: The Law is permission from authority, already written. For me and my ilk - the State must prove it has the license from Constitutional implications, before it may embark upon any new program of limiting my "reserved powers" - not vice versa.
It is only in *your mind* that there is NO limit to the state's powers to employ surveillance at will. You think it's cut & dried - and why can't I just See that You are Right !? Hah. That's ~ same message as the folks that ring doorbell and will explain to me all unasked: how the Universe works! - and Why can't I just See it ? You emotional, about your purely intellectual perfectly logical / legal exercise here? Nahhhh.
I demur. More cameras soon? Barricades sooner.
A.
|
Post #3,534
8/1/01 8:14:09 PM
|
What can I say?
But you are a low-down, out and out, dirty liar.
If you are insulted
I am insulted by direct falsehoods, and their repeated assertations after being (mistakingly presuming they were innocent mistake) corrected.
I see there is no point. If you get in a corner, you lie.
It is only in *your mind* that there is NO limit to the state's powers to employ surveillance at will.
Nope.
Been stated many times.
The only way you could say that was that you - you are implementing the "Big Lie".
Like I told you before - you are the falsehood-spouting mouthpiece of irrational 'meedja'... Talk not of Rush, of the Meedja - for you speak of yourself.
Except now I realise you're doing it on *purpose*.
So while I attempt to use facts, and correctly state what (at least I think, and beg pardon if I misunderstand) people are saying, you are out spreading lies. Lies lies and more lies.
What more can I say? I tell the truth, you lie.
I presume its a mistake, you lie more. So fine - continue your dishonesty. Not a lot of my business - and I'll just tarnish *my* reputation and *my* honor - which I guard scrupulously - trying to discuss with you as you continue to lie time and again.
So if you insist on being known as a hypocrite, and worse - a direct, unabashed liar - more power to you.
For you have no excuse for that description being any sort of mistake, or accident. Not any more.
(I also would presume this means the end of rants about the "Repo lying", were you not as blatant a hypocrite as a liar.)
Addison
PS - My very sincere apologies to the rest of the people here, especially those who, despite disagreeing with me, do the honor and favor of discussing with me. I've attemped to keep the vitrol down, and merely state what had happened here in the name of civility, and if I failed, again, my apologies.
|
Post #3,553
8/1/01 9:58:21 PM
|
I regret you are taking a characterization of a mindset
- one which I see you apparently defending, in each reply - as if I imagined that *You* personally ARE that mindset. I have treated your assertions as being (your best understanding of) "what The Law states / does not state" currently. I am arguing with *the mindset* for which you appear to be an apologist:
A) The law is clear about cameras - they are allowed and more will be allowed (whether you or I like it).
B) Short of making new laws - any other actions are ~ despicable (my summary not your word).
I have noted your also stated 'reservations': as each new er flaw of present legalistic application, is mentioned by one or another. Obviously! you are not "happy" with The Law as it is often interpreted. Either.
Yet you rebut my comments re the Source of (at least our) Law, the means for gaining attention to unworkable ones, and the occasions where civil disobedience has been required in the past: as if those concepts are foreign to you / anathema to Murican behavior / irresponsible if not scurrilous, even to speak of.
I do not *need* to LIE about "what you might, would? will!~ do" re say, some next proliferation of surveillance equipment near-to home or far away. I have never pretended to know (since: I couldn't).
Your reductio of the emotional quality which lies behind every action (which anyone ever deems "important") is as insulting as the LIES you claim I am telling about YOU.
Can we get this straight? I have No Idea what you might do or not do re any aspect of this topic. I argue with your IDEAS, and your characterization of ~ "what the problem is" - and do not confuse those with YOU.
It is always and everywhere Devil's Advocacy IMhO unless and until a proponent says: "this is the way it is supposed to be". (Rush allegedly does that a lot, for ex.) THEN it may become 'personal' - the self-ID with the POV has been made.
Argue as passionately for a POV as you want. Expect ridicule of the POV by those who find it flawed. (They certainly will, if mine is flawed) If it really is your POV - the ridicule is *STILL* about the POV.
Personally, I consider any discussion of 'surveillance' to go to the heart of "whatever 'personal freedom' might mean", anywhere at all. And I will oppose its ascent in Murica, as assiduously as I would have opposed nascent Nazism in Germany (and would likely be dead as consequence - if I hadn't fled the country in time.) If such a trend occurs here: I cannot ever claim ignorance of where it was leading. And choices will be ~same, I expect: fled or dead.
I doubt you are 'for increased surveillance', either; just a guess. I know what I will tolerate - not what you will. Nor do I presume that I know that.
If this is not clear enough.. then ditto:
What can I say?
A.
|
Post #3,176
7/31/01 7:59:31 AM
|
I think you might be slightly mistaken...
...in that it is illegal to tap a landline phone but NOT illegal to listen to cellphone conversations which are broadcast over public frequency.
I could be wrong, too...but I thought that was the rule...which makes cellphones a really bad idea for crooks.
Um...er...well...
I have no choice!
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #3,243
7/31/01 12:47:51 PM
|
Actually, I believe it is illegal to listen in on
cell phone transmissions. (Not that it's stopped anyone from doing so.) I seem to recall from a 2600 friend that was quite annoyed that scanners, computers and a few other things were now classified as thieve's tools.
Stainless steel traps breed stainless steel rats.
|
Post #3,260
7/31/01 1:47:07 PM
|
Isn't recording the problem, cell phone or live?
I know it's state-to-state but isnt' the prohibition against recording? Some states, at least one party to the conversation has to have given prior consent to recording, so you can record your own telephone conversations without the other party knowing. In some states, both parties have to know.
This, I think, is the hook Addison has been looking for: an existing legal precedent that can be used against the Florida surveillence system. The system simply doesn't work without recording everything and comparing the captured images. What are the laws in Florida about covert recordings?
Now, this would become an issue again once the hardware is fast enough to do the recognition in real time and notify a human operator. Then they could work out procedures for notifying police to contact a possible suspect. But by then, hopefully, we would have been able to have a better debate on what we want.
Then again, if Microsoft and RIAA and friends have been able to define copying from hard drive to RAM as "copying" for the purposes of copyright enforcement, then I imagine capturing an image of my face to a computer system in order to do a comparison -- even if that comparison is done in real time -- could be considered "recording."
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Post #3,297
7/31/01 4:35:19 PM
|
And that's my problem with the cameras
It isn't exactly privacy in the usual sense. You are out in public, and anybody can see you. If a cop is watching, you have no cause to complain.
But if the cop is recording your every public move, that's wrong unless there is a real specific reason. And that's what the problem is with the system - not that the camera allows the cops to see you, but that the database allows the cops to easily compile a detailed record of your movements. If there is a specific investigation and they are watching you, they can do that already, but this allows them to do it with everybody all the time.
That's just plain creepy.
And there are plenty of lawful things that I might be doing that I don't want recorded. I may drop in at the local pr0n shop (the resolution on glossy paper is so much better than anything on my monitor) or do a little gun shopping, and I have even been known (don't tell anybody) to enter the offices of [link|http://www.shepherd-express.com|that hippy rag] that sometimes publishes stories that some cops find annoying. Now, all of those are legal, and all out in public where I can't expect privacy, and if I'm being investigated for a crime those are valid things to look for. But I don't want the cops keeping track of me doing them all the time. Even if the cops are on the up-and-up. And if they hire human beings as cops, the potential for abuse is rather major.
A few years ago, Milwaukee had a police chief named Harold Brier. He was chief for many, many years, and had a kind of agreement with City Hall that as long as he kept the Maffia out of Milwaukee, they wouldn't ask any questions, put any restrictions on him, or replace him. One thing he did was maintain the red files - a set of dossiers on local communists, socialists, political activists, prominent jews, and other problem people. The information was (as far as I know) gleaned from photographs of demonstrations, news reports, regular police files, etc. Harold, when asked about those files, said that he kept them because these people were vulnerable to being attacked by intolerant individuals and groups, so he needed the information in order to better protect them. Riiiiiiiiight. As far as anyone knows, those files didn't contain any information that wasn't public. And yet, there were quite a few people who had a big problem with those files. Among those people was the next police chief, hardly a libretarian privacy freak.*
Loss of privacy has real, concrete consequences - my daughter didn't to go to a doctor for more effective birth control because she mistakenly thought that Wisconsin has a parental notification law. She is now 16 and pregnant. We have an excellent relationship, she was just trying to avoid embarrasment.
-------------------------
* The new police chief promised to destroy the files as his first official act. But then he said that it would be illegal for him to do that, because of the Freedom of Information Act. He did promise to lock them away from any use other than responding to FOIA requests.
And the Maffia thing? The Feds investigated right around the time he retired. Harold hadn't been keeping up his end of the deal for a long, long time. He was no more effective in keeping them out than any other police chief.
White guys in suits know best
- Pat McCurdy
|
