View Full Version : The Hits keep coming!!
Gunfighter.45
02-05-13, 00:37
This is great stuff right here!! I love how they portray this..:rolleyes:
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
"The U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S"
Suddenly I'm having flashbacks to a bunch of arfcommers about 10 years ago telling me how The Patriot Act will NEVER be used against US citizens. I kept telling them that sooner or later it will be a tool at the disposal of a Democratic President who will expand it. They of course told me I was nuts and trolling.
Moose-Knuckle
02-05-13, 03:48
Comforting is it not?
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/obama-signs-bill-authorizing-30000-drones-over-america.jpg
Gunfighter.45
02-05-13, 05:04
I think we all can agree on this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np9tBI7_nq8
Just as they say we'll never be under the boot of tyranny and need arms to defend ourselves...
I wonder when your gonna start issuing brown shirts to all DHS personnel, afterall we gotta get that civilian police force that rivals the military in terms of strength and funding up and running.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 15:44
So an american citizen joins a terrorist group overseas and trains with them and makes plans to kill american's and we should do nothing?
Pat:blink:
To me it seems its so open ended the criteria could be what ever they want. Might be a domestic situation like:"He has guns and always speaks out against our policies. He's a terrorist. Drone him."
They don't have to justify it or even have definitive intel to prove it?
Or an American on enemy soil that they want to rub out that wasn't in the middle terrorism but they say he was to cover their ass.
Moose-Knuckle
02-05-13, 16:00
So an american citizen joins a terrorist group overseas and trains with them and makes plans to kill american's and we should do nothing?
Pat:blink:
It's called Due Process.
If you haven't seen the DOJ flyers lately you should see just what our .gov considers "terrorists". It's a mighty broad brush.
So we now HELLFIRE US citizens into oblivion with no evidence other than our benevolent .gov's word, yeah that's liberty.
So an american citizen joins a terrorist group overseas and trains with them and makes plans to kill american's and we should do nothing?
Pat:blink:
1) No one said anything about doing nothing.
2) What do you think should be the proper course of action?
So an american citizen joins a terrorist group overseas and trains with them and makes plans to kill american's and we should do nothing?
Pat:blink:
My read of the white paper is a bit different than yours. I read it as we think someone has joined an organization we deem as a terrorist one, have no idea what they are really doing, but we are going to kill them and you have no (judicial or congressional) oversight before, during or after the event. How convenient is that. Eric the gun runner gets to make a decision on whether a organization is a terrorist organization or not and Barack the trap shooter gets to pull the trigger with no recourse what so ever.
I am dumbfounded by people who want to prepare for the worst when it comes to everything, but choose to always give the government carte blanche, even though it has historical proven to step on its dick every time it can.
montanadave
02-05-13, 16:07
I listened to several news commentaries today where, in the space of minutes, people talked shit about pro-2nd amendment groups, characterizing them as paranoid loons worried about the government "black helicopters" coming to take their guns away, then deftly shifted gears and began discussing the inherent dangers of a drone policy which appears to give the government carte blanche to take out American citizens on the basis of loosely defined and extremely broad criteria with little or no oversight.
WTF? How does a person not realize the complete disconnect between those two policy positions?
So an american citizen joins a terrorist group overseas and trains with them and makes plans to kill american's and we should do away with Due Process?
Pat:blink:
Fixed it for ya. :(
I'm all for killing terrorists. I'm all for apprehending American citizens involved in criminal conspiracies to commit terrorism, and using lethal force if necessary to effect that apprehension.
Justice dispensed from a drone platform on an American citizen is where I draw the line though. :(
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 16:15
Fixed it for ya. :(
I'm all for killing terrorists. I'm all for apprehending American citizens involved in criminal conspiracies to commit terrorism, and using lethal force if necessary to effect that apprehension.
Justice dispensed from a drone platform on an American citizen is where I draw the line though. :(
I understand the concern but this is a unique situation. We are not talking about using drones on US soil. We are talking about killing terrorists held up in regions hostile to the US and where sending in troops to arrest them would just cause more american lives to be lost. I admit its a tough issue and I don't know what is truly the right answer.
Pat
Agreed. It seems the executive power has no bounds anymore. Just ignore the rules and do whatever you want administration. Our "security" is being traded for our liberty. Just like we must keep the children safe from guns really means "we have a good excuse to trick the public into taking all their guns so we can act like kings".
sinlessorrow
02-05-13, 16:18
The white paper, for those that missed it.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf
I understand the concern but this is a unique situation. We are not talking about using drones on US soil. We are talking about killing terrorists held up in regions hostile to the US and where sending in troops to arrest them would just cause more american lives to be lost. I admit its a tough issue and I don't know what is truly the right answer.
Pat
It's so loosely written, you have no clue if this could one day turn into being a falsely justified attack on US soil. None.
sinlessorrow
02-05-13, 16:19
I understand the concern but this is a unique situation. We are not talking about using drones on US soil. We are talking about killing terrorists held up in regions hostile to the US and where sending in troops to arrest them would just cause more american lives to be lost. I admit its a tough issue and I don't know what is truly the right answer.
Pat
You say that now, but what if they came for everyones guns and people faught back? You then have terrorists and its ok to launch hellfire missles because they are bad mmmkay.
So an american citizen joins a terrorist group overseas and trains with them and makes plans to kill american's and we should do nothing?
Pat:blink:
I guess you missed the "if they are believed" part.
Doc Safari
02-05-13, 16:21
I understand the concern but this is a unique situation. We are not talking about using drones on US soil. We are talking about killing terrorists held up in regions hostile to the US and where sending in troops to arrest them would just cause more american lives to be lost.
That standard could also be stretched to apply to situations like Ruby Ridge and Waco by the wrong person.
I swear, this country turns into East Germany more and more every day.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 16:21
You say that now, but what if they came for everyones guns and people faught back? You then have terrorists and its ok to launch hellfire missles because they are bad mmmkay.
Then we would have a problem. But that is not the case at this point. Like I said no one is being drone attacked on US soil. If that day comes then we will have a good reason to say no more. In the mean time if we tie the hands of our military in killing terrorist, more american lives are going to be lost.
Pat
I understand the concern but this is a unique situation. We are not talking about using drones on US soil. We are talking about killing terrorists held up in regions hostile to the US and where sending in troops to arrest them would just cause more american lives to be lost. I admit its a tough issue and I don't know what is truly the right answer.
Pat
I missed the part where it stated it could never be done in the US. Do you have a quote to that part?
sinlessorrow
02-05-13, 16:24
Then we would have a problem. But that is not the case at this point. Like I said no one is being drone attacked on US soil. If that day comes then we will have a good reason to say no more. In the mean time tie the hands of our miltiary in killing terrorist is just going to cause more american lives to be lost.
Pat
Last time I checked that didnt work out so well for the Jews.
It does say on foreign soil but it never says it cannot be on US soil.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 16:26
Last time I checked that didnt work out so well for the Jews.
I don't see the comparison between genocide in Germany and taking out threats in the middle east?
sinlessorrow
02-05-13, 16:27
I don't see the comparison between genocide in Germany and taking out threats in the middle east?
I was referring to your, dont worry till thy actually bomb the us. Pretty sure no one worried about hitler untill he started putting jew in camps....by that time it was to late as will it be for us if it comes to that point.
Read the NDAA, the MIAC and DHS reports on terrorist threats. This really shouldn't come as much of a surprise.
http://notalemming.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/patriot_act_terrorist_certificate1.jpg
Last time I checked that didnt work out so well for the Jews.
Just like the first set of gun control passages. They'll never completely ban a class of rifle, confiscate or reduce us to 7rds in a mag...oh wait.
http://imageshack.us/a/img855/9312/73466748412236831341515.png
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 16:45
The problem with the slippery slope argument is it can be used for anything. For example someone could say they are against the death penalty because the state could one day use it to kill jay walkers.
An amount of common sense must be kept in the debate to keep it logical.
Pat
What?! You're unreal man. The expansion of this countries govt is enormous in size and growing in power, by constitution, it's not supposed to have. The fear of losing our liberties to false security is very real Pat. I'm not saying tomorrow bombs will fall on our homes. There's already been talk of whether drones should be allowed here to watch for crime. That doesn't sound creepy to you. Taking our privacy away. A few steps away maybe they could be used for more.
The problem with the slippery slope argument is it can be used for anything. For example someone could say they are against the death penalty because the state could one day use it to kill jay walkers.
An amount of common sense must be kept in the debate to keep it logical.
Pat
Those two examples have nothing in common. Passing a law that makes the death sentence legal does nothing but make the death sentence legal, other laws are still required to pass judgment on someone to receive the death sentence - "objective" guidelines. It's in no way Unconstitutional.
On the other hand, you are arguing for laws that are BLATANTLY Unconstitutional (the removal of due process and the appropriation of powers to individuals who have neither the right or authority to wield such power). Not only that, you're promoting subjective guidelines to enforce them.
Contrary to your beliefs, people do not need you or any other government assistance to live as decent people. Just because it makes YOUR job easier and gives you a sense of security does not make it a good idea.
Doc Safari
02-05-13, 17:01
The problem with the slippery slope argument is it can be used for anything. For example someone could say they are against the death penalty because the state could one day use it to kill jay walkers.
An amount of common sense must be kept in the debate to keep it logical.
Pat
Except that they are not saying that jaywalkers are terrorists. They are saying that right-wing, gun-owning, religious conservatives are terrorists. (Did I miss anybody?)
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 17:06
What?! You're unreal man. The expansion of this countries govt is enormous in size and growing in power, by constitution, it's not supposed to have. The fear of losing our liberties to false security is very real Pat. I'm not saying tomorrow bombs will fall on our homes. There's already been talk of whether drones should be allowed here to watch for crime. That doesn't sound creepy to you. Taking our privacy away. A few steps away maybe they could be used for more.
Not creepy at all. Now if they install cameras in our homes that woudl be creepy. I am not afraid of anything a drone would see when I am out in public.
Pat
Not creepy at all. Now if they install cameras in our homes that woudl be creepy. I am not afraid of anything a drone would see when I am out in public.
Pat
So if for some reason, you mentioned your discontent about something online, they started watching you via drone, you wouldn't mind because you have nothing to hide? Even though its violating your privacy?
The problem with the slippery slope argument is it can be used for anything. For example someone could say they are against the death penalty because the state could one day use it to kill jay walkers.
An amount of common sense must be kept in the debate to keep it logical.
Pat
And thankfully we don't need to rely on subjective notions like what some think is "common sense" and instead have a Constitution with very specific rules that LIMIT what a government may or may not do.
Moose-Knuckle
02-05-13, 17:33
And thankfully we don't need to rely on subjective notions like what some think is "common sense" and instead have a Constitution with very specific rules that LIMIT what a government may or may not do.
Word.
Love Barry's new catch phrase . . . :rolleyes:
threeheadeddog
02-05-13, 17:51
Not creepy at all. Now if they install cameras in our homes that woudl be creepy. I am not afraid of anything a drone would see when I am out in public.
Pat
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
I dont know what to say... but I wil try anyway.
Freedom and Liberty MEAN SOMETHING. Being monitored flies in the face of that. I fully respect someones wishes if they decide to monitor private property, but public spaces are NOT the govt's private property they are the property of the people. When a Govt decideds that the people ARE ITS PROPERTY there is a problem.
This is just so unreal. Makes me sick to my stomach.
Gunfighter.45
02-05-13, 18:12
I understand the concern but this is a unique situation. We are not talking about using drones on US soil. We are talking about killing terrorists held up in regions hostile to the US and where sending in troops to arrest them would just cause more american lives to be lost. I admit its a tough issue and I don't know what is truly the right answer.
Pat
No disrespect Sir..but you can only wear horse blinders for so long. I understand something of this complexity is hard to make heads or tails of it. My stand point of this is I know where their coming from, and I myself don't like it. No matter how they try and paint the picture.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 18:31
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
I dont know what to say... but I wil try anyway.
Freedom and Liberty MEAN SOMETHING. Being monitored flies in the face of that. I fully respect someones wishes if they decide to monitor private property, but public spaces are NOT the govt's private property they are the property of the people. When a Govt decideds that the people ARE ITS PROPERTY there is a problem.
When you are out in the public eye you have no privacy never have even back in the 1700s. So frankly if the neighbors can see what your doing then what is wrong with some drone seeing what you are doing. You have no expectation of privacy in public. This is not a creepy notion but rather common sense. Now if they start installing hidden cameras and listening devices in your home and car without a warrant you will have a valid civil rights violation until then its simply crying over nothing.
I just don't get it Alaskapopo. I really don't. Besides the fact that you are always at odds with pretty much everyone. Your views usually sound like someone just dandy with socialism, except you're pro gun. Is it because you are in a safe position as a police officer? Do tell.
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/uploads/2/current_and_projected_drone_bases_june_2012.JPG
I just don't get it Alaskapopo. I really don't. Besides the fact that you are always at odds with pretty much everyone. Your views usually sound like someone just dandy with socialism, except you're pro gun. Is it because you are in a safe position as a police officer? Do tell.
Pretty sure he's a troll. He always seems to come out against the common opinion. Oh, and has he told you he's a cop yet?
Is it because you are in a safe position as a police officer? Do tell.
Bingo. I'd wager if you stripped away the title and badge of the average LE arguing for "common sense," you'd get a different response.
threeheadeddog
02-05-13, 18:45
When you are out in the public eye you have no privacy never have even back in the 1700s. So frankly if the neighbors can see what your doing then what is wrong with some drone seeing what you are doing. You have no expectation of privacy in public. This is not a creepy notion but rather common sense. Now if they start installing hidden cameras and listening devices in your home and car without a warrant you will have a valid civil rights violation until then its simply crying over nothing.
I didnt reference a persons privacy. This IMO is not a privacy issue. It is an issue of how the populace is viewed by the govt.
I had more. I deleted it, but your use of the term "common sense" infuriates me...
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 18:47
Pretty sure he's a troll. He always seems to come out against the common opinion. Oh, and has he told you he's a cop yet?
A troll? Why because I have a different opinion than you. Also apparently a troll who has been on this forum a lot longer than you. Strange to be called a troll by a Johnny come lately. Also I know you're new here but engaging in personal insults violates the forum rules.
Pat
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 18:49
I didnt reference a persons privacy. This IMO is not a privacy issue. It is an issue of how the populace is viewed by the govt.
I had more. I deleted it, but your use of the term "common sense" infuriates me...
I understand that the term common sense would be aggravating the way the anti gunners use it. However that does not mean there is not such thing as common sense. I look at it the same way as the courts. If you have a right to privacy the government needs a warrant. If you don't have a right to privacy because you placed yourself in public view then no warrant needed.
pat
Bingo. I'd wager if you stripped away the title and badge of the average LE arguing for "common sense," you'd get a different response.
Most of the big thinkers/writers that are super liberal, socialist or communists, are placing themselves in positions of power, immune to the terrible effects of their ideology.
Drone activity chart?
This one's more interesting. http://publicintelligence.net/dod-us-drone-activities-map/
Here's the DOD report on future bases. http://info.publicintelligence.net/DoD-FutureUAS.pdf
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 18:54
I just don't get it Alaskapopo. I really don't. Besides the fact that you are always at odds with pretty much everyone. Your views usually sound like someone just dandy with socialism, except you're pro gun. Is it because you are in a safe position as a police officer? Do tell.
So you have a problem with me having different political views than others on here. Yes I am pro gun i was before I was a cop and will be long after I retire. Some people don't seem to understand is you don't have to be a rapid right wing tin foil hat person to still appreciate firearms and the 2nd amendment. Nor will I call someone a troll for having a different point of view.
Pat
I understand that the term common sense would be aggravating the way the anti gunners use it. However that does not mean there is not such thing as common sense. I look at it the same way as the courts. If you have a right to privacy the government needs a warrant. If you don't have a right to privacy because you placed yourself in public view then no warrant needed.
pat
Yet at the same time I'd rather NOT become England.
How would you feel about a LE "watchdog group" who followed LEOs around constantly and recorded everything included every traffic stop and encounter with any other individual?
What if every time you left home to go to work you were followed and recorded, your entire shift was recorded and then you were followed home and recorded? How about if your off duty activities were followed and recorded by the same group? What if your wife were similarly followed and recorded?
Keep in mind that this would all happen in a "public place"?
Yet at the same time I'd rather NOT become England.
How would you feel about a LE "watchdog group" who followed LEOs around constantly and recorded everything included every traffic stop and encounter with any other individual?
What if every time you left home to go to work you were followed and recorded, your entire shift was recorded and then you were followed home and recorded? How about if your off duty activities were followed and recorded by the same group? What if your wife were similarly followed and recorded?
Keep in mind that this would all happen in a "public place"?
My guess is he'll type up some reply concerning "common sense," with that of course being his own view of what "common sense" is.
threeheadeddog
02-05-13, 19:01
I understand that the term common sense would be aggravating the way the anti gunners use it. However that does not mean there is not such thing as common sense. I look at it the same way as the courts. If you have a right to privacy the government needs a warrant. If you don't have a right to privacy because you placed yourself in public view then no warrant needed.
pat
I do understand where you are coming from. My point is not the legality or even the ethics of such a thing. My point is the evergrowing intrusion into the peoples lives.
The analogy is simple. A dog with a shock collar can do everything it is supposed to do. It can do everything that a "good" dog can do without fear. As long as it is doing what he is supposed to do it has "nothing to fear". No one would say that it is free.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 19:03
Yet at the same time I'd rather NOT become England.
How would you feel about a LE "watchdog group" who followed LEOs around constantly and recorded everything included every traffic stop and encounter with any other individual?
What if every time you left home to go to work you were followed and recorded, your entire shift was recorded and then you were followed home and recorded? How about if your off duty activities were followed and recorded by the same group? What if your wife were similarly followed and recorded?
Keep in mind that this would all happen in a "public place"?
At my department we already record every contact. All traffic stops are on video. All normal contacts are on audio and can be reviewed by the chief at any time. Not scared about that. Off duty if I am out of my home I have no problem with someone recording me. They would get pretty bored watching me shop, go the range etc. Seriously when you go out in public anyone can see you. They can see you pick your nose in your vehicle as you drive by. Don't want them to see that? Don't do it. Who really cares. The only ones who have a reason to care are criminals. I mean no one cares if you are going to the store. Now if your a drug dealer you might not want to have people watching you.
Pat
At my department we already record every contact. All traffic stops are on video. All normal contacts are on audio and can be reviewed by the chief at any time. Not scared about that.
But that is hardly the same. I can record myself, it isn't the same as others recording me. Some of us are also recorded "on the job" it isn't the same thing, we can choose to not work there.
Off duty if I am out of my home I have no problem with someone recording me. They would get pretty bored watching me shop, go the range etc. Seriously when you go out in public anyone can see you. They can see you pick your nose in your vehicle as you drive by. Don't want them to see that? Don't do it. Who really cares. The only ones who have a reason to care are criminals.
Pat
I am not a criminal and I care. In fact I care quite a bit. If I'm not doing anything wrong, I can't think of a single reason why I should be recorded.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 19:09
I do understand where you are coming from. My point is not the legality or even the ethics of such a thing. My point is the evergrowing intrusion into the peoples lives.
The analogy is simple. A dog with a shock collar can do everything it is supposed to do. It can do everything that a "good" dog can do without fear. As long as it is doing what he is supposed to do it has "nothing to fear". No one would say that it is free.
But the problem with your analogy is that the shock collar has always been there just not as high tech. When your in public people have always been able to see you. The neighborhood busy body is still watching and talking about you.
Pat
The only ones who have a reason to care are criminals.
Pat
There are a metric shit ton of cops who would disagree with you on that. I won't bother to post links but I'm sure you know many cops think photography is a crime when it comes to having themselves filmed.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 19:11
But that is hardly the same. I can record myself, it isn't the same as others recording me. Some of us are also recorded "on the job" it isn't the same thing, we can choose to not work there.
I am not a criminal and I care. In fact I care quite a bit. If I'm not doing anything wrong, I can't think of a single reason why I should be recorded.
Why do you care? I will tell you this no one cares what you are doing unless your breaking the law and frankly that is the only time any one at all is going to take interest. If your not breaking the law and they watched you they are going to get bored fast I imagine.
Pat
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 19:14
There are a metric shit ton of cops who would disagree with you on that. I won't bother to post links but I'm sure you know many cops think photography is a crime when it comes to having themselves filmed.
One rule I tell my recruits when I have FTO'd is don't do anything you don't want to see on the 5 oclock news. Rule to live by. In this day and age everyone has the ability to record you with their cell phones on the video feature. Some cops hate this but its usually the ones who have issues with following the law and policy and procedure. I seriously wonder why so many people are against cameras in public places. I have not seen one valid argument against it.
Pat
But the problem with your analogy is that the shock collar has always been there just not as high tech. When your in public people have always been able to see you. The neighborhood busy body is still watching and talking about you.
Pat
Somebody looking out their window is hardly the same thing as cameras on every block or drones overhead. You have a frightening view of things.
I'm pretty supportive of Obamas heavy drone use actually. I'd rather drone a target than risk US personnel. It's one of the few areas where I actually agree with his approach.
But just as he objects to "weapons of war" in the hands of US citizens, I object to domestic use of drones. And I certainly don't think "believing somebody is a terrorist" or declaring them to be the same is grounds for any action against a US citizen without irrefutable evidence or due process.
Why do you care? I will tell you this no one cares what you are doing unless your breaking the law and frankly that is the only time any one at all is going to take interest. If your not breaking the law and they watched you they are going to get bored fast I imagine.
Pat
Because I live in a free country where the government doesn't monitor you for no reason. Or at least I used to. The idea that "if you aren't doing anything wrong there is nothing wrong with recording you" is so offensive I can't politely discuss it.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 19:17
Somebody looking out their window is hardly the same thing as cameras on every block or drones overhead. You have a frightening view of things.
I'm pretty supportive of Obamas heavy drone use actually. I'd rather drone a target than risk US personnel. It's one of the few areas where I actually agree with his approach.
But just as he objects to "weapons of war" in the hands of US citizens, I object to domestic use of drones. And I certainly don't think "believing somebody is a terrorist" or declaring them to be the same is grounds for any action against a US citizen without irrefutable evidence or due process.
I also support the use of drones to save soldiers lives. I also agree with you in disagreeing with the president on the gun issue.
What I don't get is what is so scary about camera's?
Pat
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 19:17
Because I live in a free country where the government doesn't monitor you for no reason. Or at least I used to. The idea that "if you aren't doing anything wrong there is nothing wrong with recording you" is so offensive I can't politely discuss it.
How does being recorded in public hamper your freedom?
Pat
RogerinTPA
02-05-13, 19:26
Law abiding citizens should not be surveilled for just for the sake of shits and giggles. We are not a totalitarian state, yet. In a tactical situation, absolutely, and I'm cool with it, otherwise, it's another encroachment on our personal liberties and freedoms. Having a UAV watching law abiding citizens carries the same weight as a helo hovering over people's homes. It's time for someone to invent rocket assisted shotgun slugs.;)
threeheadeddog
02-05-13, 19:27
But the problem with your analogy is that the shock collar has always been there just not as high tech. When your in public people have always been able to see you. The neighborhood busy body is still watching and talking about you.
Pat
But again, you are focusing on the action. You missed the part of the dog being in chains and bondage(figuratively). This is an issue of freedom. Where is Rosa Parks when you need her? Just because something is legal, and happens doesnt meen it doesnt fly in the face of freedom.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 19:33
Law abiding citizens should not be surveilled for just for the sake of shits and giggles. We are not a totalitarian state, yet. In a tactical situation, absolutely, and I'm cool with it, otherwise, it's another encroachment on our personal liberties and freedoms. Having a UAV watching law abiding citizens carries the same weight as a helo hovering over people's homes. It's time for someone to invent rocket assisted shotgun slugs.;)
There is not the time or resources for someone to watch a law abiding citizen. Those that would be watched would be those suspected of criminal activity. If none is observed I doubt they would keep being watched. There is not the time or money for such a fruitless labor.
Pat
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 19:34
But again, you are focusing on the action. You missed the part of the dog being in chains and bondage(figuratively). This is an issue of freedom. Where is Rosa Parks when you need her? Just because something is legal, and happens doesnt meen it doesnt fly in the face of freedom.
Rosa Parks was being discriminated against because she was black. This is not a related issue. In fact no discrimination. Everyone in public would face the same possibility for being filmed.
pat
Moose-Knuckle
02-05-13, 19:35
How does being recorded in public hamper your freedom?
Pat
Here is some light reading for you to help get you up to speed.
Nineteen Eighty-Four
Brave New World
Fahrenheit 451
Animal Farm
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 19:36
Here is some light reading for you to help get you up to speed.
Nineteen Eighty-Four
Brave New World
Fahrenheit 451
Animal Farm
No offense but those are more like propaganda than entertainment.
Pat
There is not the time or resources for someone to watch a law abiding citizen. Those that would be watched would be those suspected of criminal activity. If none is observed I doubt they would keep being watched. There is not the time or money for such a fruitless labor.
Pat
Then they don't need the god dam drones in the first place. Its called good ole fashioned police work, get out of the office and do some (I'm not directing this at you fyi) but honestly you come across as way to trusting of a government that has never done anything except grow and further expand its meddling in our collective lives. Since history always manages to repeat itself abuse is inevitable, no matter how honorable the intentions may be to start with. Drones will be no different.
Moose-Knuckle
02-05-13, 19:41
There is not the time or resources for someone to watch a law abiding citizen. Those that would be watched would be those suspected of criminal activity. If none is observed I doubt they would keep being watched.
At this point in the game the .gov suspects ALL of We the People of criminal activity.
There is not the time or money for such a fruitless labor.
I see you not familiar with the Military Industrial Complex and it's damn near infinite black budget.
Moose-Knuckle
02-05-13, 19:42
No offense but those are more like propaganda than entertainment.
Pat
Well of course that is your response.
threeheadeddog
02-05-13, 19:44
Rosa Parks is this countries symbol of someone who wasnt willing to accept the satus quo as being right. She recognized that Freedom means more than existing.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 19:46
Then they don't need the god dam drones in the first place. Its called good ole fashioned police work, get out of the office and do some (I'm not directing this at you fyi) but honestly you come across as way to trusting of a government that has never done anything except grow and further expand its meddling in our collective lives. Since history always manages to repeat itself abuse is inevitable, no matter how honorable the intentions may be to start with. Drones will be no different.
Criminals are getting more high tech and so should the police to keep up. By the way I don't trust the government. I do appreciate people like yourself who act as a check and a balance. If enough people are against this it won't happen. I can live with it either way.
Pat
Criminals are getting more high tech and so should the police to keep up. By the way I don't trust the government. I do appreciate people like yourself who act as a check and a balance. If enough people are against this it won't happen. I can live with it either way.
Pat
LE is always behind the tech curve always is always will be. But what gripes me is that instead of striving to work the problem in a rationale manner that still protects yours and my civil rights the gov (at all levels) just says ah the hell with it and dives headfirst into heuristic fallacies that only serve to makes matters worse. I don't see it as a matter of choice of either choosing to trust the government or choosing not to. With government essentially being a necessary evil the choice is relatively straightforward imo.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 19:55
LE is always behind the tech curve always is always will be. But what gripes me is that instead of striving to work the problem in a rationale manner that still protects yours and my civil rights the gov (at all levels) just says ah the hell with it and dives headfirst into heuristic fallacies that only serve to makes matters worse.
You lost me on this. What do you mean?
You lost me on this. What do you mean?
Basically just saying that when confronted with a problem the government takes the most expedient (and often incredibly ill informed course of action to address it). Gun control is perfect example. Gun violence all of sudden becomes a problem so what do they do? Try to ban guns..
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 20:01
Basically just saying that when confronted with a problem the government takes the most expedient (and often incredibly ill informed course of action to address it). Gun control is perfect example. Gun violence all of sudden becomes a problem so what do they do? Try to ban guns..
Ok thanks for clarifying.
Pat
Drones in our skies is the govt saying we foolish children beneath them cannot be trusted to do the right thing so they must watch our every move while we are out and about. That's wrong.
Drones in our skies is the govt saying we foolish children beneath them cannot be trusted to do the right thing so they must watch our every move while we are out and about. That's wrong.
All anyone should have to do is look at the credibility of the administration subscribing to this policy. The same administration that says waterboarding and use of enhanced interrogation methods is bad, unlawful, immoral etc but will gladly support the launching of drone strikes against America's enemies even if that includes her own citizens under some circumstances. Something seriously wrong with this logic.
Lying, cloudy (transparent my ass), hypocritical, snarky, elitist, anti-constitutional people that are only power and money hungry and nothing more, while pointing the finger at their opposition for being so much of the same. . Tired of it.
VooDoo6Actual
02-05-13, 20:44
Drones in our skies is the govt saying we foolish children beneath them cannot be trusted to do the right thing so they must watch our every move while we are out and about. That's wrong.
What's even more wrong & ironic is that their the ones doing F&F, Their the ones who can't balance the budget, create jobs for Americans, allowing Illegals in while squandering away our children's legacy, lieing to the American public etc. yet, trust them. Wowsers.....
What's even more wrong & ironic is that their the ones doing F&F, Their the ones who can't balance the budget, create jobs for Americans, allowing Illegals in while squandering away our children's legacy, lieing to the American public etc. yet, trust them. Wowsers.....
Should things finally go south at some point people will look back and say.. dam, they were right we didn't think it could happen here.
I also support the use of drones to save soldiers lives. I also agree with you in disagreeing with the president on the gun issue.
What I don't get is what is so scary about camera's?
Pat
I don't trust that everyone watching me is doing it in a benevolent or beneficial manner. I wonder if you've read Orwell?
How does being recorded in public hamper your freedom?
Pat
It limits the places I'd be willing to go.
No offense but those are more like propaganda than entertainment.
Pat
If you view warnings about totalitarianism as propaganda I don't think there is much more to discuss. You do understand that three of those books were written after WWII because we did have totalitarian states and they didn't work out so well don't you?
And BNW was written in Italy in 1931 where a fascist state had existed for 10 years.
Says its propaganda
I don't trust that everyone watching me is doing it in a benevolent or beneficial manner. I wonder if you've read Orwell?
It limits the places I'd be willing to go.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 22:22
The good that can come from cameras is a deterrence to crime because people know they are more likely to get caught and it helps catch the offenders and documents the evidence.
Pat
Bull shit! And gun laws stop criminals too right? When you stop by the Tyrannical GIft shop on the way home, get me a shirt too so I can burn it.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 22:28
Bull shit! And gun laws stop criminals too right?
Actually I have seen it work. We have cameras in certain areas of my town and they have been helpful in solving crimes in those areas they are put up. Its not bull shit nor is it anything like gun control. An open mind is a good thing and it seems that some of you on here are so paranoid you can't even accept a good idea when you see it because the government is doing it? I mean really relax a little. I know when in car cameras first came out a lot of cops were worried in the same way you are. Big brother and all watching them. Turns out it saved more cops from losing their jobs from false accusation than it ever hurt. The ones it hurt needed to go. Plus its great for training and evidence. Rather you like it or not your being recorded in most places anyway. In store security systems, people recording on their smart phones etc.
Pat
The good that can come from cameras is a deterrence to crime because people know they are more likely to get caught and it helps catch the offenders and documents the evidence.
Pat
I understand that. Freedom has risks. There wasn't much crime in the Soviet Union but it isn't an environment I'd want to live in.
And given the amount of footage of criminal acts in progress, I don't think the deterrence factor is as significant as you think.
Actually I have seen it work. We have cameras in certain areas of my town and they have been helpful in solving crimes in those areas they are put up.
Pat
I have little doubt they help solve crimes. It is an impartial, more reliable witness than most people. I just don't think it prevents crime as much as you might believe. And I don't think the benefits justify having an environment like England.
The good that can come from cameras is a deterrence to crime because people know they are more likely to get caught and it helps catch the offenders and documents the evidence.
Pat
Neighbors spying on neighbors surely kept crimes to a minimum in East Germany too.
Most of us simply don't want to live anywhere near your utopian, crime free society. We find your desire to live there alien and unfathomable. :(
All anyone should have to do is look at the credibility of the administration subscribing to this policy. The same administration that says waterboarding and use of enhanced interrogation methods is bad, unlawful, immoral etc but will gladly support the launching of drone strikes against America's enemies even if that includes her own citizens under some circumstances. Something seriously wrong with this logic.
And I'm betting this info was intentionally leaked as a trial balloon. I'm quite sure what they are really doing and planning is far worse.
And with the way technology is advancing, domestic drones will be far more capable than simply recording videos of us walking down main street.
Alaskapopo
02-05-13, 23:58
I understand that. Freedom has risks. There wasn't much crime in the Soviet Union but it isn't an environment I'd want to live in.
And given the amount of footage of criminal acts in progress, I don't think the deterrence factor is as significant as you think.
It is not an issue of freedom. Having cameras up does not stop you from doing anything. The only thing that would stop you is you.
Pat
sinlessorrow
02-06-13, 00:18
It is not an issue of freedom. Having cameras up does not stop you from doing anything. The only thing that would stop you is you.
Pat
Why don't we just wire tap and record every phone call? Since you know the only people that have to worry about anything are criminals.
Alaskapopo
02-06-13, 00:45
Why don't we just wire tap and record every phone call? Since you know the only people that have to worry about anything are criminals.
See that is the distinction people can't seem to make on here. Private vs public. When you are on a phone call you have an expectation of privacy, however when your walking down Main Street in full view you don't.
Pat
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md4o98d7wW1qfi7l0o1_1280.jpg
It is not an issue of freedom. Having cameras up does not stop you from doing anything. The only thing that would stop you is you.
Pat
Sure it does. You just don't understand why. I probably couldn't explain it to you.
See that is the distinction people can't seem to make on here. Private vs public. When you are on a phone call you have an expectation of privacy, however when your walking down Main Street in full view you don't.
Pat
I fully understand the distinction. But just because you don't need a warrant doesn't make it ok and it certainly doesn't make it acceptable to me.
You have claimed otherwise but I kinda doubt if a "LE watchdog" group constantly followed and filmed you everywhere you went, especially off duty, you'd eventually get fed up with it and understand it is an invasion of your privacy. Especially since it was being done with the express purpose of hoping to obtain evidence of any wrong doing that could be used against you.
Store cameras are different, I can choose to not shop in those stores. Cell phone video is different, generally those people aren't following you everywhere and recording everything. More importantly they are individuals, not government agents.
I recall seeing the movie Enemy of the State years ago and the wife stating "this is what you have mentioned could be in our future". How ironic today. Things captured electronically can be altered and made to look however...your actions may not be illegal but may not be something you want others to see. Therefore you could be blackmailed by the government. I do believe in a reasonable expectation of privacy even in public. I cannot stop private citizens from filming me but my government should not be unless under surveillance for criminal activity.
I am a cop of nearly 28 years and I disagree with nearly everything Alaskapopo has written of a political nature. Just saying since others asked how other Leo feel.
In regards to the drone attacks on Americans, foreign land or not, if there is evidence rather than some politicians belief (good excuse to take out a political enemy when abroad) then try the person in abscencia for treason in front of a jury of his peers first. Give some due process at least. We grant due process and constitutional protections to those who are in the US illegally but none to our own people?
This is getting so outta ****ing control
Drones in our skies is the govt saying we foolish children beneath them cannot be trusted to do the right thing so they must watch our every move while we are out and about. That's wrong.
I vehemently disagree with using drones in CONUS.
Me too. I hope you didn't think I was ok with it.
montanadave
02-06-13, 07:59
I vehemently disagree with using drones in CONUS.
Not sure if this has been previously posted (if so, my apologies), but it appears you are not alone and state legislatures in at least 10 states are currently reviewing proposals to place limits/prohibitions on the use of surveillance drones (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/10/domestic-drones-backlash/1566212/).
Encouragingly, there seems to be some bipartisan support for such legislation as these drones touch upon a nexus of personal privacy/big government intrusion that triggers alarm bells on both sides of the aisle.
On cameras:
Where is the line? If I can be photographed and filmed going about my lawful daily activities, what else can be done? Well, you're in a high crime zone... OK. Well you're at a school... Its for the kids.. OK. Well you're near a bank... Then the argument will be, well you're always near a bank, school, high crime zone, so we'll just cover the city.
Facial recognition? Zoomed in photos on what I am buying? Directional microphones? Pictures at public protests? Drones taking pictures? It is the oft discussed slippery slope. Once Seattle has cameras, they will want to link with Redmond. Then they'll want to link it with Olympia. Then someone will say "you know, we're looking for this really bad guy, and we can use facial recognition and find him". Then it will be a "sort of bad guy". Then a guy who is a pain in the neck...
If you have to have a warrant to GPS track me, will you have to have a warrant to use cameras to locate me? Since 9/11 we have tended to give up our privacy and liberties for "safety". Paraphrasing Franklin - we will deserve neither.
I recall seeing the movie Enemy of the State years ago and the wife stating "this is what you have mentioned could be in our future". How ironic today. Things captured electronically can be altered and made to look however...your actions may not be illegal but may not be something you want others to see. Therefore you could be blackmailed by the government. I do believe in a reasonable expectation of privacy even in public. I cannot stop private citizens from filming me but my government should not be unless under surveillance for criminal activity.
I am a cop of nearly 28 years and I disagree with nearly everything Alaskapopo has written of a political nature. Just saying since others asked how other Leo feel.
In regards to the drone attacks on Americans, foreign land or not, if there is evidence rather than some politicians belief (good excuse to take out a political enemy when abroad) then try the person in abscencia for treason in front of a jury of his peers first. Give some due process at least. We grant due process and constitutional protections to those who are in the US illegally but none to our own people?
This is getting so outta ****ing control
i find it notable that my liberal friends were all up in arms about Gitmo and drones when it was Bush making the decisions and now not a peep. When I ask them "how would you feel about it if it were Dick Cheney an Bush making the call... and they freak out". We need to adopt laws independent of personality and political party, because they will too quickly change and the law will stand long after.
montanadave
02-06-13, 08:31
i find it notable that my liberal friends were all up in arms about Gitmo and drones when it was Bush making the decisions and now not a peep. When I ask them "how would you feel about it if it were Dick Cheney an Bush making the call... and they freak out". We need to adopt laws independent of personality and political party, because they will too quickly change and the law will stand long after.
Absolutely agree!
See that is the distinction people can't seem to make on here. Private vs public. When you are on a phone call you have an expectation of privacy, however when your walking down Main Street in full view you don't.
Pat
Is this any type of justification for "stop and frisk"? I understand that the court has ruled that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place but we take it too far. In New York I remember the police trying to execute warrants for toll bridge cameras and EZ Pass records to prove a person entered or exited the city at a particular time. We have come to a place in time when your every movement through most suburbs can be tracked from origin to destination. I don't like being tracked and filmed passively by camera. I think it's wrong, just like I don't like police scanning thousands of cars in parking lots to "find stolen cars", mostly they find lapsed registrations and I know they know where everyone is all the time.
http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/13/is-your-car-being-tracked-by-a-license-plate-scanner/
Police don't need this technology and can't be trusted with it, nobody should be. I am NOT anti-cop just anti-oppression. If I'm not breaking the law leave me alone. I always have something to hide it's why I have pockets. :secret:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oJcHJrLrrM
I have no issues with drones taking out terrorists OCONUS regardless of their nationality. The problem is that who is going to make the determination on regards to an American citizen? A "secret court"? Eric Holder? The Star Chamber? The real problem is the growing distrust of the government by its citizens based on what we have seen.
I'll bet in 1940 if someone had said we are going to round up American citizens and "inter" them for everyone's safety you would have laughed out of office. Yet we did just that a short time later. And we only did it to those who were easily identifiable based on their looks.
Guys, don't feed trolls. Alone in this thread I've already seen the most narrow minded views on privacy I've ever seen on a gun forum. The "well, if you have nothing to hide..." argument. It's beyond stupid. There is no reasoning this.
Someone else had it dead the **** on, this is a guy who is constantly arguing opposing points just be difficult or he is a statist or totalitarian that happens to have an interest in guns. Oh, and has he reminded you he's a cop yet? That's apparently super important (to him). Take that badge away and watch his views towards LEO exemptions and privacy change!
Why don't we just wire tap and record every phone call? Since you know the only people that have to worry about anything are criminals.
Google Stingray. Here's a quick overview in this article, it's no frickin' bueno. http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/21204/fighting-unconstitutional-stingray-phone-surveillance-tracks-innocent-people
Police routinely track cellphones - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us/police-tracking-of-cellphones-raises-privacy-fears.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
They don't need a warrant - http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57493811-83/federal-court-oks-warrantless-cell-phone-tracking-by-police/
And don't forget your friendly NSA :)
Crow Hunter
02-06-13, 14:17
The biggest problem I have with any monitoring is the difference between:
-Looking for something you are doing
vs
-Looking for you doing something
Examples:
-Someone wants to put up a camera in their store/ATM/Bank/private property because they want to catch thieves in the act. - Not a problem
-Putting up a camera at an intersection to catch people blowing through red lights - Not a problem
-Putting up cameras/drones and monitoring it, just watching for people doing something/anything wrong - That IS a problem
Don't forget there is an expectation of privacy not only in the home but also the within the curtilage of property as well. That specifically includes backyards. Drones flying over peering into people's backyards without a warrant is a constitutional violation in my opinion.
Totally agree. I think all but one agrees with you.
Alaskapopo
02-06-13, 14:47
The biggest problem I have with any monitoring is the difference between:
-Looking for something you are doing
vs
-Looking for you doing something
Examples:
-Someone wants to put up a camera in their store/ATM/Bank/private property because they want to catch thieves in the act. - Not a problem
-Putting up a camera at an intersection to catch people blowing through red lights - Not a problem
-Putting up cameras/drones and monitoring it, just watching for people doing something/anything wrong - That IS a problem
Don't forget there is an expectation of privacy not only in the home but also the within the curtilage of property as well. That specifically includes backyards. Drones flying over peering into people's backyards without a warrant is a constitutional violation in my opinion.
Agreed drones should not be used without a warrant to monitor someone on their own property. However with curliage its not all protected. If you have a fence or something else to keep people from being able to view you then you have an expectation of privacy according to the courts. However if you do not and your yard can be seen from a public area no warrant is needed.
I am actually more concerned with monitoring areas vs people. Critical infrastructure, high crime areas etc. It would be nice to discuss such issues as this without the personal insults coming forth. We are all adults and should be able to handle opposing points of view.
Pat
When you are out in the public eye you have no privacy never have even back in the 1700s. So frankly if the neighbors can see what your doing then what is wrong with some drone seeing what you are doing. You have no expectation of privacy in public. This is not a creepy notion but rather common sense. Now if they start installing hidden cameras and listening devices in your home and car without a warrant you will have a valid civil rights violation until then its simply crying over nothing.
Plymouth Township in Michigan just recently passed new a 'LAW' stating all restaurant owners must place video cameras filming the front entrance and walkways of their business and keep said footage for 7 days for viewing by law enforcement. New signs have been posted with with camera symbols on them stating you are being watched. Plymouth Township is considered a good safe place to live, shop and dine. People have mixed feelings on this new big brother law. Some are down right pissed this is now a law.
Alaskapopo
02-06-13, 15:33
Plymouth Township in Michigan just recently passed new a 'LAW' stating all restaurant owners must place video cameras filming the front entrance and walkways of their business and keep said footage for 7 days for viewing by law enforcement. New signs have been posted with with camera symbols on them stating you are being watched. Plymouth Township is considered a good safe place to live, shop and dine. People have mixed feelings on this new big brother law. Some are down right pissed this is now a law.
I understand this is a controversial issue. We had similar concerns in our town. I understand why people would not want to be filmed in their own home or in a public bathroom etc which is currently not allowed. However what I don't get is why people would care about being filmed on a public street, that is unless they are buying selling drugs, or looking for a prostitute etc.
The people that see this as an issue of freedom are a bit off as cameras do nothing to stop you from doing anything. Your still free to do as you please. However if you do something illegal you might get caught. It seems what some are really saying is they want to be free to commit crime and not have evidence against them.
Pat
Moose-Knuckle
02-06-13, 15:49
Here is a new startup company that specializes in counter surveillance clothing. I think this guy has the potential to blow up overnight much like Kevin Plank did when he started Under Armour.
Images of product testing.
http://ahprojects.com/projects/stealth-wear
However if you do something illegal you might get caught. It seems what some are really saying is they want to be free to commit crime and not have evidence against them.
Pat
Did you really just blanket us all non (and prospective LEOs) for that matter as criminals? How about its because we want to live free of the concern that big brother (i.e. tyrants) is constantly watching over our collective shoulder. Outside exigent circumstances which is not what this discussion is about you and I know both know it is inevitable that government will abuse whatever technological means or enforcement tools it has at its disposal, its a question of when not if. First they start with using drones to police the boarder, then it turns into using them for radar and speeding enforcement on our nations highways and before long DHS is flying non armed predator drones to and fro for no other reason than they are looking for the boogeyman hiding under a rock. With the advent and eventual proliferation of miniature drones this outcome becomes all the more inevitable. What myself and many others in this thread are arguing for or against depending on your perspective is NOT giving the gov the opportunity to encroach any further on our civil rights in the first place. Over the time the more they over reach the more it becomes the norm and people accept it. It needs to stop.
Alaskapopo
02-06-13, 15:58
Did you really just blanket us all non (and prospective LEOs) for that matter as criminals? How about its because we want to live free of the concern that big brother (i.e. tyrants) is constantly watching over our collective shoulder. Outside exigent circumstances which is not what this discussion is about you and I know both know it is inevitable that government will abuse whatever technological means or enforcement tools it has at its disposal, its a question of when not if. First they start with using drones to police the boarder, then it turns into using them for radar and speeding enforcement on our nations highways and before long DHS is flying non armed predator drones to and fro for no other reason than they are looking for the boogeyman hiding under a rock. With the advent and eventual proliferation of miniature drones this outcome becomes all the more inevitable. What myself and many others in this thread are arguing for or against depending on your perspective is NOT giving the gov the opportunity to encroach any further on our civil rights in the first place. Over the time the more they over reach the more it becomes the norm and people accept it. It needs to stop.
I am not blanketing anyone. Just making an observation that the only reason to really be worried about being filmed in public outside of being seen picking your noise is being caught in criminal activity. I have not seen anyone give me an argument other than well big brother could get me. This is just my opinion of course.
Pat
I am not blanketing anyone. Just making an observation that the only reason to really be worried about being filmed in public outside of being seen picking your noise is being caught in criminal activity. I have not seen anyone give me an argument other than well big brother could get me.
Pat
Because that's all the argument we need given the governments track record. There is no point in waiting till drones fill the sky or were all micro-chipped for our own safety or some other nonsense and we officially become a police state to then sit back and whoops told ya'll so.
thopkins22
02-06-13, 16:05
I understand this is a controversial issue. We had similar concerns in our town. I understand why people would not want to be filmed in their own home or in a public bathroom etc which is currently not allowed. However what I don't get is why people would care about being filmed on a public street, that is unless they are buying selling drugs, or looking for a prostitute etc.
The people that see this as an issue of freedom are a bit off as cameras do nothing to stop you from doing anything. Your still free to do as you please. However if you do something illegal you might get caught. It seems what some are really saying is they want to be free to commit crime and not have evidence against them.
Pat
It's the same as consenting to a search of my vehicle, when I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide. Why would I tell the officer no, and that yes, we will waste all of our time to wait on dogs?
Because you're asking me to be a willing participant in my own witch hunt. "I think you're guilty of something." "Why won't you play nice and help me catch you." "Oh...never mind."
Screw that. The world is safer than it has ever been. There's literally never been a safer time to be alive. I'm done giving in to more, and more, and more.
Here in Houston we passed a law regarding red light cameras. It's literally illegal for them to look at the screens without a warrant.
Alaskapopo
02-06-13, 16:09
Because that's all the argument we need given the governments track record. There is no point in waiting till drones fill the sky or were all micro-chipped for our own safety or some other nonsense and we officially become a police state to then sit back and whoops told ya'll so.
With all due respect I think that is a bit of an unreasonable fear.
Pat
Alaskapopo
02-06-13, 16:10
It's the same as consenting to a search of my vehicle, when I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide. Why would I tell the officer no, and that yes, we will waste all of our time to wait on dogs?
Because you're asking me to be a willing participant in my own witch hunt. "I think you're guilty of something." "Why won't you play nice and help me catch you." "Oh...never mind."
Screw that. The world is safer than it has ever been. There's literally never been a safer time to be alive. I'm done giving in to more, and more, and more.
Here in Houston we passed a law regarding red light cameras. It's literally illegal for them to look at the screens without a warrant.
You have every right to not consent to a search and personally I don't generally go fishing like that. However its generally not guys like you who experience this its dirtbags who we know buy and sell drugs.
Pat
I have not seen anyone give me an argument other than well big brother could get me. Pat
Here's one. Imagine you are a closet gay and CEO of a large corporation. You legally frequent a gay oriented bar. One night someone commits a crime and you too are caught on camera which in turn has a negative impact on your business and it's employees.
Here's another. You are shopping for a diamond for your fiance and the store is robbed. You are seen on TV and spoil the surprise.
Here's another. You are famous and don't want the general public to know where you enjoy going out.
It's just endless why people might not want to be on video tape. None of which have anything to do with criminal activity.
If you were dining with your friends in a restaurant in a booth and I was in the booth directly across with a video camera on my table aimed at your table. Would you mind? I think most people would, even though they are not engaged in criminal activity.
With all due respect I think that is a bit of an unreasonable fear.
Pat
I don't dispute that as it may very well be but if given a choice I'd prefer to be ever vigilant against any prospective encroachments on our constitutional rights. Sadly most people choose the other option and simply bleat like sheep.
You have every right to not consent to a search and personally I don't generally go fishing like that. However its generally not guys like you who experience this its dirtbags who we know buy and sell drugs.
Pat
Except this discussion isn't necessarily directed towards impuning your discretionary integrity. Its directed at the types of hypocritical organizations in the government who see it fit to disarm the American people and argue its for our own safety. But I digress. ...
I am not blanketing anyone. Just making an observation that the only reason to really be worried about being filmed in public outside of being seen picking your noise is being caught in criminal activity. I have not seen anyone give me an argument other than well big brother could get me. This is just my opinion of course.
Pat
Because I prefer NOT to live in a constant state of surveillance?
I don't drink...AT ALL...but I still don't want to be subject to a DUI checkpoint.
I'm not transporting anything illegal but I wouldn't want to be subject to an inspection every time I entered a new state.
I'm not a fugitive nor am I engaged in criminal activity but I wouldn't want to be subject to a "papers please" check without genuine probably cause.
And while private entities like banks and retail stores are free to install cameras, I know they are there and I can choose to accept them or take my business elsewhere, that is a HUGE difference from installing government cameras in public locations or flying surveillance drones in the same areas WITHOUT any genuine probable cause.
Crow Hunter
02-06-13, 16:37
However if you do something illegal you might get caught. It seems what some are really saying is they want to be free to commit crime and not have evidence against them.
This is the fundamental difference, apparently, between you and most of us.
We are all working off of the presumption of innocence and because of that, we feel that our persons and papers should be free of unwarranted searches and seizures. Being that someone filming us, keeping this film and then reviewing it and TRYING to find something that we have done illegal and THEN trying to prosecute us flies in the face of the presumption of innocence.
If on the other hand a warrant was properly requested and executed to keep an eye on us because there was a justifiable cause to monitor us, that is not an unreasonable use of the technology.
The presumption of innocence doesn't mean that you are innocent until found guilty of something. It means that you are PRESUMED to have done no crime UNTIL there is evidence or reasonable suspicion that you have done something. Just walking down the street to go out to eat is not a reasonable suspicion.
Just like all gun owners will not turn into raving lunatics and shoot up a school, the average Joe walking down the street is not going to be committing crimes and because of that should NOT be treated as a criminal and have his/her every single action monitored.
Personally, I am much more okay with the danger that a criminal MIGHT do something bad and someone not know about, than I am with someone watching my every single move day in and day out just waiting or (maybe even hoping) that I do something illegal.
This is completely leaving out the problems with miss-identifications, LEO/prosecutorial maleficence and other mistakes that could cause a person to be charged with a crime they didn't commit because of "evidence" collected without proper targeted evidence collection with judicial/constitutional oversight. Just think how many people have been wrongly charged, even with DNA evidence because someone had a grudge or putzed a test somewhere because their DNA or other evidence was "in the system".
If my data isn't "in the system", I can't possibly be mistakenly charged. The more data there is, the more opportunity there is for mistakes.
With all due respect I think that is a bit of an unreasonable fear.
Pat
That is what they said 50 years ago about surveillance cameras everywhere like something out of 1984.
You have every right to not consent to a search and personally I don't generally go fishing like that. However its generally not guys like you who experience this its dirtbags who we know buy and sell drugs.
Pat
Or the completely honest guys with a vindictive ex girl friend or ex wife.
And while private entities like banks and retail stores are free to install cameras, I know they are there and I can choose to accept them or take my business elsewhere, that is a HUGE difference from installing government cameras in public locations or flying surveillance drones in the same areas WITHOUT any genuine probable cause.
Or reasonable suspicion for that matter.
You're all wasting your time. You either get what America's about or you don't.
I understand this is a controversial issue. We had similar concerns in our town. I understand why people would not want to be filmed in their own home or in a public bathroom etc which is currently not allowed. However what I don't get is why people would care about being filmed on a public street, that is unless they are buying selling drugs, or looking for a prostitute etc.
The people that see this as an issue of freedom are a bit off as cameras do nothing to stop you from doing anything. Your still free to do as you please. However if you do something illegal you might get caught. It seems what some are really saying is they want to be free to commit crime and not have evidence against them.
Pat
I think your being a LEO has inappropriately colored your perception here. Not everyone who does not wish to be surveilled has criminal intent. You need to step back from the "what I don't get is why people would care about being filmed on a public street" and understand that it doesn't matter whether you understand or not. Your understanding is not necessary or germane to the conversation. Just like my "need" for an assault weapon isn't germane to my desire to own one, nor the societal norms in my state that mean it's a common possession that isn't frowned upon.
You are not merely bound by the Constitution alone. You are also bound by the societal norms and expectations of the community you serve, within the state in which you're employed. It doesn't matter whether the Dept. of Homeland Security wants to surveil the people of AK with drones or not. If the State of Alaska says "NO", then the DHS had better have damned compelling evidence as to why they should anyway. If AK says no to drones, then you are bound by that demand to comply, "no expectation of privacy in public" or not.
From another perspective, does AK have anti-stalking laws? If so, then why would you argue for government authority to do it? Remember that intent isn't necessary for the aggrieved party to feel stalked and persecuted, just as intent on the part of the person commiting sexual harassment isn't a required element for someone to feel sexually harassed.
I'll leave you with one more scenario to consider. I realize that you're in AK, but you have to take a national perspective on this debate anyway. You're at the beach with your attractive 13 year old daughter. She recieves the unwanted attention of several adult men, who begin filming her and taking photos of her. You are seriously concerned as a father, but neither you nor she has a right to privacy. Do you stand there and tell her "sorry hon, it's their right to do this"?
If you do nothing, do you think your daughter will feel comfortable in exercising her right to freedom of movement in public (which has been ruled a right by SCOTUS)?
If you say something to the men or the authorities about this activity and the men protest that "their motives are entirely pure and they just want to capture her beauty as an artistic form of expression", will you assume that it must be OK then?
Environmental stressors, such as active governmental surveillance of the public at large can have a chilling effect on exercised rights. it has nothing to do with intent or visions of the boogeyman. It's a real and tangible phenomenon. I'd really like you to consider this, because that's what we're trying to convey here. Not that we're all criminals who want an easier environment in which to commit criminal activity in pubic. :(
threeheadeddog
02-06-13, 17:59
Again I say that being Free and simply existing are two different things. Just because something has been deemed legal doesnt make it right. This is a very interesting thread because it is the very imbodiement of why so many are weary of what laws LEO will follow in reguard to unconstitutional firearms laws. Your rebuttal to why such things should be done or are valid hinges on wether or not they are legal not wether or not they are right.
Wow. The Portsmouth thing is like a double whammy IMO. Not only are we going to try to surveil people, but we are going to mandate what private citizens do to their own property. Golly. Land of the free.... Really!?
For the record I have no clue where you guys are getting this whole crime free surveillance society information from. Large cities in England have a decent crime problem just like every other big metroplex and the cameras don't do shit to catch criminals. Go catch the guy in the Man U hoodie that beat the shit out of the old lady. LOL. I grew up behind the iron curtain with all the neighbors watching neighbors and ratting each other out to get an extra roll of TP crap and can tell you first hand that crime was just as bad as anywhere. People still got killed, robbed, raped... Life here in the USA, even big in the metroplexes was far safer than our Eutopic society. The only things that the constant surveillance and government leering stifled were free speech, freedom of religion, and in general activity against the state. It was however sold to the useless idiots as a safety measure. Just like here these idiots bought into it hook line and sinker. By the time they realized what was going on it was too late. The only positive news I have is that generally the useful idiots get purged first cause they tend to make the most noise when reality sets in. Been there done that. I sure as shit hope my kids don't have to swallow that load.
threeheadeddog
02-06-13, 18:19
Wow. The Portsmouth thing is like a double whammy IMO. Not only are we going to try to surveil people, but we are going to mandate what private citizens do to their own property. Golly. Land of the free.... Really!?
For the record I have no clue where you guys are getting this whole crime free surveillance society information from. Large cities in England have a decent crime problem just like every other big metroplex and the cameras don't do shit to catch criminals. Go catch the guy in the Man U hoodie that beat the shit out of the old lady. LOL. I grew up behind the iron curtain with all the neighbors watching neighbors and ratting each other out to get an extra roll of TP crap and can tell you first hand that crime was just as bad as anywhere. People still got killed, robbed, raped... Life here in the USA, even big in the metroplexes was far safer than our Eutopic society. The only things that the constant surveillance and government leering stifled were free speech, freedom of religion, and in general activity against the state. It was however sold to the useless idiots as a safety measure. Just like here these idiots bought into it hook line and sinker. By the time they realized what was going on it was too late. The only positive news I have is that generally the useful idiots get purged first cause they tend to make the most noise when reality sets in. Been there done that. I sure as shit hope my kids don't have to swallow that load.
May I ask your background? I am genuinly interested.
Alaskapopo
02-06-13, 18:21
Wow. The Portsmouth thing is like a double whammy IMO. Not only are we going to try to surveil people, but we are going to mandate what private citizens do to their own property. Golly. Land of the free.... Really!?
For the record I have no clue where you guys are getting this whole crime free surveillance society information from. Large cities in England have a decent crime problem just like every other big metroplex and the cameras don't do shit to catch criminals. Go catch the guy in the Man U hoodie that beat the shit out of the old lady. LOL. I grew up behind the iron curtain with all the neighbors watching neighbors and ratting each other out to get an extra roll of TP crap and can tell you first hand that crime was just as bad as anywhere. People still got killed, robbed, raped... Life here in the USA, even big in the metroplexes was far safer than our Eutopic society. The only things that the constant surveillance and government leering stifled were free speech, freedom of religion, and in general activity against the state. It was however sold to the useless idiots as a safety measure. Just like here these idiots bought into it hook line and sinker. By the time they realized what was going on it was too late. The only positive news I have is that generally the useful idiots get purged first cause they tend to make the most noise when reality sets in. Been there done that. I sure as shit hope my kids don't have to swallow that load.
Cameras do catch criminals that is a fact that can't be disputed. I could list many cases I have worked myself where video evidence was key. Just because an area has high crime rates and cameras does not mean the cameras had no effect in reducing that crime rate. It would have been higher without them. In England specifically the subway bombers were caught several years back using cameras to retrace their steps. The real debate seems to be rather its worth the subjective privacy value you give up to have the benefits of cameras. That is an argument that is not clear cut as we can see from this debate.
Pat
Cameras do catch criminals that is a fact that can't be disputed. I could list many cases I have worked myself where video evidence was key. Just because an area has high crime rates and cameras does not mean the cameras had no effect in reducing that crime rate. It would have been higher without them. In England specifically the subway bombers were caught several years back using cameras to retrace their steps. The real debate seems to be rather its worth the subjective privacy value you give up to have the benefits of cameras. That is an argument that is not clear cut as we can see from this debate.
Pat
They may catch some criminals sure but they do not reduce crime rates if anything they are no different in effect that increasing visible patrols in a particular area, they just displace crime and make people in the targeted area feel safer. It seems all to often that people today are willing to sacrifice their freedom to make themselves feel better.
They may catch some criminals sure but they do not reduce crime rates if anything they are no different in effect that increasing visible patrols in a particular area, they just displace crime and make people in the targeted area feel safer. It seems all to often that people today are willing to sacrifice their freedom to make themselves feel better.
Ding ding. "If it saves one child, its worth it..." JP, I agree with you.
sinlessorrow
02-06-13, 19:35
I understand this is a controversial issue. We had similar concerns in our town. I understand why people would not want to be filmed in their own home or in a public bathroom etc which is currently not allowed. However what I don't get is why people would care about being filmed on a public street, that is unless they are buying selling drugs, or looking for a prostitute etc.
The people that see this as an issue of freedom are a bit off as cameras do nothing to stop you from doing anything. Your still free to do as you please. However if you do something illegal you might get caught. It seems what some are really saying is they want to be free to commit crime and not have evidence against them.
Pat
I like how you say Currently....Then again this stuff does not affect you.
Guys, you're not going to sway him. This is the perfect example of a guy that lives his life through his badge. His whole identity is his uniform. It's truly sad that some officers get that way. It's a small minority of them, but it happens.
I had this same exact conversation with another guy from a different agency today. He is the type that I described above, that eats, shits and sleeps LE. You cant hold a conversation with them unless its about arresting someone, guns or the lights on the ****ing patrol car. Typically they come from a lot smaller more rural departments, as the guy I talked to today does (and AKPOPO). He said exactly what popo is saying. I didn't waste my breath arguing.
You'll often see them arguing about their "experiences" with weapons or hear the same old story over and over (cough cough). Little do they know that there's a much bigger world outside of their little town/county, and many more people that have a lot more experience in LE (calls, situations etc) and weapons than they do. They will argue till the end though, because of "that one time" is all that they have to go on.
Basically, they need some more culture. You can guess which types I DONT hang out with outside of work.;)
Moose-Knuckle
02-06-13, 21:00
Guys, you're not going to sway him. This is the perfect example of a guy that lives his life through his badge. His whole identity is his uniform. It's truly sad that some officers get that way. It's a small minority of them, but it happens.
I had this same exact conversation with another guy from a different agency today. He is the type that I described above, that eats, shits and sleeps LE. You cant hold a conversation with them unless its about arresting someone, guns or the lights on the ****ing patrol car. Typically they come from a lot smaller more rural departments, as the guy I talked to today does (and AKPOPO). He said exactly what popo is saying. I didn't waste my breath arguing.
You'll often see them arguing about their "experiences" with weapons or hear the same old story over and over (cough cough). Little do they know that there's a much bigger world outside of their little town/county, and many more people that have a lot more experience in LE (calls, situations etc) and weapons than they do. They will argue till the end though, because of "that one time" is all that they have to go on.
Basically, they need some more culture. You can guess which types I DONT hang out with outside of work.;)
We call guys like that "badge heavy".
Gunfighter.45
02-06-13, 21:14
News Update
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp=50724727?
Alaskapopo
02-06-13, 21:14
Guys, you're not going to sway him. This is the perfect example of a guy that lives his life through his badge. His whole identity is his uniform. It's truly sad that some officers get that way. It's a small minority of them, but it happens.
I had this same exact conversation with another guy from a different agency today. He is the type that I described above, that eats, shits and sleeps LE. You cant hold a conversation with them unless its about arresting someone, guns or the lights on the ****ing patrol car. Typically they come from a lot smaller more rural departments, as the guy I talked to today does (and AKPOPO). He said exactly what popo is saying. I didn't waste my breath arguing.
You'll often see them arguing about their "experiences" with weapons or hear the same old story over and over (cough cough). Little do they know that there's a much bigger world outside of their little town/county, and many more people that have a lot more experience in LE (calls, situations etc) and weapons than they do. They will argue till the end though, because of "that one time" is all that they have to go on.
Basically, they need some more culture. You can guess which types I DONT hang out with outside of work.;)
S1 seems to believe that the bigger the agency you work for the better you are. The truth being there are good and bad cops working for all sizes of departments. But his little personal attack tangent is not related to this thread. As far as living life through my badge that is laughable. Most of my friends are non cops from the shooting community. Most of my free time is spent involved in competition shooting. Most of S1's life is spent defending Sigs crappy quality control and stalking me online but that is also another topic. (seriously look up his posts 90% are defending Sigs)
As for this topic there is room for disagreement and people should not want to just hang around with yes people who will never disagree with them.
brushy bill
02-06-13, 21:32
Ding ding. "If it saves one child, its worth it..." JP, I agree with you.
The next time they give you that BS line ask them why they haven't banned 5 gallon buckets, which kill more kids every year than guns.
The next time they give you that BS line ask them why they haven't banned 5 gallon buckets, which kill more kids every year than guns.
Haha! Right. Noone gave me that one, it seems to be a catch phrase like "conversation " or "common sense".
S1 seems to believe that the bigger the agency you work for the better you are. The truth being there are good and bad cops working for all sizes of departments. But his little personal attack tangent is not related to this thread. As far as living life through my badge that is laughable. Most of my friends are non cops from the shooting community. Most of my free time is spent involved in competition shooting. Most of S1's life is spent defending Sigs crappy quality control and stalking me online but that is also another topic. (seriously look up his posts 90% are defending Sigs)
As for this topic there is room for disagreement and people should not want to just hang around with yes people who will never disagree with them.
When did I say that a bigger dept is better than smaller one? I did say that you get a lot more experience, and that's the truth. I also said that I typically see the big badge syndrome at smaller departments.
Hmmm... my life is spent defending SIGs and stalking you? Maybe I just like to talk about SIGs and call people out on the BS that they spread with their very limited experience (cough) with them. Maybe I just gravitate to your posts on this board because you argue about EVERYTHING, and believe that you're vast experience is the end all be all to every subject that you post about.
Fwiw... I've been here longer and have around 500 posts, you have around 5k. Yeah, I spend all of my time on the net and all of yours is spent shooting.:rolleyes:
Anyways, back to the original topic...
Alaskapopo
02-06-13, 22:32
When did I say that a bigger dept is better than smaller one? I did say that you get a lot more experience, and that's the truth. I also said that I typically see the big badge syndrome at smaller departments.
Hmmm... my life is spent defending SIGs and stalking you? Maybe I just like to talk about SIGs and call people out on the BS that they spread with their very limited experience (cough) with them. Maybe I just gravitate to your posts on this board because you argue about EVERYTHING, and believe that you're vast experience is the end all be all to every subject that you post about.
Fwiw... I've been here longer and have around 500 posts, you have around 5k. Yeah, I spend all of my time on the net and all of yours is spent shooting.:rolleyes:
Anyways, back to the original topic...
You mean people like me who have owned a dozen different Sig pistols and carried them for a living. Just because someones experience does not jive with yours does not make it any less correct. Lots of the SME's in fact have said the same negative things about Sig (Are you questioning their experience).
Also agency size has nothing to do with experience. Call volume does, specifically call volume per officer.(ie how busy they are) My first agency was about 20 officers but had the 3 rd highest calls for service per officer in the state. Also rural officers have to be able to handle more calls on their own without the help of investigators. A small town department will have its officers handling all the calls from the simple ones to homicides. Where in a large department patrol handles just patrol generally while more complex cases get passed off to investigators. So if you had experience you would realize that being from a large department or a small department does not make the officer better or worse at his job. It depends on the officer individually. Take shooting for example I take first place in our state shoot typically beating cops from departments a lot larger than mine with a lot more financial resources. Typically the biggest badge syndroms come from State Troopers and big city cops. Their agency brain washes them into believing they are the best of the best. It usually takes them 5 years to get out of this mode of thinking.
Pat
Cameras do catch criminals that is a fact that can't be disputed. <snip> The real debate seems to be rather its worth the subjective privacy value you give up to have the benefits of cameras. That is an argument that is not clear cut as we can see from this debate.
Pat
Do you have any comments on the points I posed?
Case in point, a conservative GOP rep and the ACLU have joined forces in my state to protect peoples privacy.
http://ivn.us/editors-blog/2013/02/06/republicans-and-the-aclu-agree-on-privacy-rights-in-oklahoma/
District 54 Representative Paul Wesselhoft (R-Oklahoma) announced three bills earlier today addressing an individual’s right to privacy in Oklahoma. The bills, HB 1559, HB 1557, and HB 1556 outline protections against various privacy concerns including RFID tracking, geolocation in cellphones, and domestic drone use by law enforcement respectively.
You mean people like me who have owned a dozen different Sig pistols and carried them for a living. Just because someones experience does not jive with yours does not make it any less correct. Lots of the SME's in fact have said the same negative things about Sig (Are you questioning their experience).
Also agency size has nothing to do with experience. Call volume does, specifically call volume per officer.(ie how busy they are) My first agency was about 20 officers but had the 3 rd highest calls for service per officer in the state. Also rural officers have to be able to handle more calls on their own without the help of investigators. A small town department will have its officers handling all the calls from the simple ones to homicides. Where in a large department patrol handles just patrol generally while more complex cases get passed off to investigators. So if you had experience you would realize that being from a large department or a small department does not make the officer better or worse at his job. It depends on the officer individually. Take shooting for example I take first place in our state shoot typically beating cops from departments a lot larger than mine with a lot more financial resources. Typically the biggest badge syndroms come from State Troopers and big city cops. Their agency brain washes them into believing they are the best of the best. It usually takes them 5 years to get out of this mode of thinking.
Pat
I have also carried SIGs professionally since I started, and continue to do so by choice. Started out with the old German 226 and continued to upgrade as updates/new models came out. So do many of my peers, even though we can take a free issued Glock at any time. Quite a few of our instructors also carry SIGs, even though the issued pistol is a Glock. That doesn't mean that Glocks are shit, but they are far from the "perfection" in the ads that many people believe. The stuff spread on the errornet about SIGs is WAAAY over played, and is regurgitated by few over and over. Same could be said about Glocks and M&P's.
I have yet to see a "SME" that is currently issued a SIG, state that they are unreliable pieces of shit. Quite the opposite actually. Here's a few snips of what a SME on this board had to say about the subject. Are you questioning his experience?
*I've seen the older rebuilt guns- which a few can be spotted, to the newer MK25. I believe as a whole the MK25's; which are currently issued to the Teams to be the best incarnation of the P226 to date. These SIG Sauer Pistols come out of the same factory in NH as those offered commercially to the civilian market.
I know someone is going to chime in with, well such and such said this or that... Fine, if someone's word has that much effect on your psyche then by all means follow it to the end. Don't letmy objective view of SIG Sauer Pistols in the form of the P226; which comes from a large sample size of guns that have seen very hard use over a period of almost a quarter century get in your way.
Yes, I know that smaller departments have their officers, at times, follow through with more cases, or follow them to the end. That's one way of doing things, and isn't a negative unless you have the need for more help with follow through. Larger departments offer alot in the experience side by offering specialty positions. Such as... Detectives- major crimes(homicides etc), sex crimes, financial crimes, car and retail theft. Specialty street units such as Gang Units, Street Crimes (drug & prostitution) that include DEA agents, Task Forces to apprehend violents fugitives (also has the USMS attached). Many County agencies have a Court Protection unit also, which, at times arrest/book more people than guys on the road do.
I get what you're trying to say about State Troopers. I wouldn't necessarily call it "big badge syndrome", but rather an elitist attitude when they come out of the academy. They tend to think they are the shit until they have to handle anything but a traffic stop, DUI/DWI or an collision. Those areas are their niche, but give them anything else, then they have some learning to do. Like you said, it takes about 4-5 years for them to get over their academy induced elitism.
Alaskapopo
02-07-13, 04:45
I think your being a LEO has inappropriately colored your perception here. Not everyone who does not wish to be surveilled has criminal intent. You need to step back from the "what I don't get is why people would care about being filmed on a public street" and understand that it doesn't matter whether you understand or not. Your understanding is not necessary or germane to the conversation. Just like my "need" for an assault weapon isn't germane to my desire to own one, nor the societal norms in my state that mean it's a common possession that isn't frowned upon.
You are not merely bound by the Constitution alone. You are also bound by the societal norms and expectations of the community you serve, within the state in which you're employed. It doesn't matter whether the Dept. of Homeland Security wants to surveil the people of AK with drones or not. If the State of Alaska says "NO", then the DHS had better have damned compelling evidence as to why they should anyway. If AK says no to drones, then you are bound by that demand to comply, "no expectation of privacy in public" or not.
From another perspective, does AK have anti-stalking laws? If so, then why would you argue for government authority to do it? Remember that intent isn't necessary for the aggrieved party to feel stalked and persecuted, just as intent on the part of the person commiting sexual harassment isn't a required element for someone to feel sexually harassed.
I'll leave you with one more scenario to consider. I realize that you're in AK, but you have to take a national perspective on this debate anyway. You're at the beach with your attractive 13 year old daughter. She recieves the unwanted attention of several adult men, who begin filming her and taking photos of her. You are seriously concerned as a father, but neither you nor she has a right to privacy. Do you stand there and tell her "sorry hon, it's their right to do this"?
If you do nothing, do you think your daughter will feel comfortable in exercising her right to freedom of movement in public (which has been ruled a right by SCOTUS)?
If you say something to the men or the authorities about this activity and the men protest that "their motives are entirely pure and they just want to capture her beauty as an artistic form of expression", will you assume that it must be OK then?
Environmental stressors, such as active governmental surveillance of the public at large can have a chilling effect on exercised rights. it has nothing to do with intent or visions of the boogeyman. It's a real and tangible phenomenon. I'd really like you to consider this, because that's what we're trying to convey here. Not that we're all criminals who want an easier environment in which to commit criminal activity in pubic. :(
You have good points. Stalking is a bit different because of the nature of unwanted contact in conjuction with the surveilance and the potential danger it leads to. On the other hand I think video surveilance does a lot of good. Like any other tool limits have been placed on its use and it will continue to be monitored for many of the reasons you state. Do I want a drone assigned to every citizen no. But do I want the ability to surveil drug dealers yes. Do I want the ability to have cameras up in parts of the city with real crime problems yes. The answer is probably going to be with more court scruitiny of how cameras and drones (high tech whatever) are used.
Pat
Alaskapopo
02-07-13, 05:26
I have also carried SIGs professionally since I started, and continue to do so by choice. Started out with the old German 226 and continued to upgrade as updates/new models came out. So do many of my peers, even though we can take a free issued Glock at any time. Quite a few of our instructors also carry SIGs, even though the issued pistol is a Glock. That doesn't mean that Glocks are shit, but they are far from the "perfection" in the ads that many people believe. The stuff spread on the errornet about SIGs is WAAAY over played, and is regurgitated by few over and over. Same could be said about Glocks and M&P's.
I have yet to see a "SME" that is currently issued a SIG, state that they are unreliable pieces of shit. Quite the opposite actually. Here's a few snips of what a SME on this board had to say about the subject. Are you questioning his experience?
Yes, I know that smaller departments have their officers, at times, follow through with more cases, or follow them to the end. That's one way of doing things, and isn't a negative unless you have the need for more help with follow through. Larger departments offer alot in the experience side by offering specialty positions. Such as... Detectives- major crimes(homicides etc), sex crimes, financial crimes, car and retail theft. Specialty street units such as Gang Units, Street Crimes (drug & prostitution) that include DEA agents, Task Forces to apprehend violents fugitives (also has the USMS attached). Many County agencies have a Court Protection unit also, which, at times arrest/book more people than guys on the road do.
I get what you're trying to say about State Troopers. I wouldn't necessarily call it "big badge syndrome", but rather an elitist attitude when they come out of the academy. They tend to think they are the shit until they have to handle anything but a traffic stop, DUI/DWI or an collision. Those areas are their niche, but give them anything else, then they have some learning to do. Like you said, it takes about 4-5 years for them to get over their academy induced elitism.
Looks like we agree on more than we realized. Take care.
Pat
You have good points. Stalking is a bit different because of the nature of unwanted contact in conjuction with the surveilance and the potential danger it leads to. On the other hand I think video surveilance does a lot of good. Like any other tool limits have been placed on its use and it will continue to be monitored for many of the reasons you state. Do I want a drone assigned to every citizen no. But do I want the ability to surveil drug dealers yes. Do I want the ability to have cameras up in parts of the city with real crime problems yes. The answer is probably going to be with more court scruitiny of how cameras and drones (high tech whatever) are used.
Pat
Just some more data for the discussion, from my AOR:
http://ivn.us/editors-blog/2013/02/06/republicans-and-the-aclu-agree-on-privacy-rights-in-oklahoma/
District 54 Representative Paul Wesselhoft (R-Oklahoma) announced three bills earlier today addressing an individual’s right to privacy in Oklahoma. The bills, HB 1559, HB 1557, and HB 1556 outline protections against various privacy concerns including RFID tracking, geolocation in cellphones, and domestic drone use by law enforcement respectively.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.