[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Privacy? Not no, but hell no... (Page 1 of 2)
|
Quoted:
Anyone riding public transit? How does this make you feel? Horny, you? Where the fuck is my FEMA card... |
|
Quoted:
I've said it before, but Homeland security is the fucking Gestapo of the US. Nobody believes it, but .................... this is just a beginning, and millions of assholes will think it is a fine idea because it makes them feel "safer". Some of us agree with you. Establishing "homeland" security was a bad idea. It sounds right out of Nazi Germany. No good can can from it. |
|
It sucks, but I'm struggling to find any way to rule it unconstitutional. I also despise face-recognition cameras around cities, surveillance along highways, etc. - all linked to some central site. The fact DHS sponsors this suggests it's not about bus safety or charging people with crimes for vandalism, assault, etc. It is in public, though, and does not break any of the decency rules. Ultimately, we all know this isn't about safety - it's about tracking and controlling.
As far as "stay out of the city" - you guys are fooling yourselves if you think it's not on the way out to the suburbs and rural areas. They're just starting with the high cost-benefit areas (dense population centers) first. In order for DHS to be effective at what they're doing - they have to cover everywhere eventually..... |
|
White people such as myself are polite, and we don't talk on public transportation. I'm really not worried.
All those microphones are going to pick up are profanity-laced tirades directed at infants, sexist blather directed towards women's cleaveage and asses, and incoherent rage shared between adolescent dipshits. |
|
Quoted:
If you're out in public you should have no expectation of privacy. There is a difference though between a chance you might be overheard by a generic "anyone" and the certainty of being overheard by a government actively recording and monitoring conversations. The first is common sense, the second is... well, it certainly isn't in the list of synonyms for freedom. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It sucks, but I'm struggling to find any way to rule it unconstitutional. Isn't this the wrong way to think of it? Where's the constitutional authority for a panopticon system of tracking every putative citizen? Fair enough (good point, actually). If the Constitution captures powers given to the government (and all other powers are retained by the people), then we would have to look at whether the government is granted the ability to overwatch citizens while in public. Their argument is going to come back to the fact that electronic means are merely "more efficient, but equivalent to" a police officer. If an LEO was standing in the front of the bus, would that be outside of their powers? If an LEO was standing in a busy intersection watching cars go by, would that be outside of their Constitutionally captured powers? I suspect that would be a hard argument to make. The electronic version of a police officer (a camera, microphone and recording device) are effectively the same thing. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not defending this. I hate it. I'm just trying to present what I suspect the logic would be..... |
|
Quoted:
If you're out in public you should have no expectation of privacy. Pretty much this. I'm not thrilled that my tax dollars are being used to put in surveillance devices in San Fran.....But the overall gist of if...the issue of privacy...is pretty much moot I think. If I'm having a conversation with someone, or doing something in public, I can't really expect it to be private. |
|
Quoted:
So if I meet someone at a public place and record my conversation with them, without prior notification, and provide it to the police, then it's cool? Or is it only cool when the government does it? Depends on your state laws. In Georgia, I believe recording conversations is fine as long as at least 1 party is aware they are being recorded. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So if I meet someone at a public place and record my conversation with them, without prior notification, and provide it to the police, then it's cool? Or is it only cool when the government does it? Depends on your state laws. In Georgia, I believe recording conversations is fine as long as at least 1 party is aware they are being recorded. They're not hidden cameras - they're clearly visible. Notification is not the same as consent. If they are clearly visible, that's probably considered "notification." Businesses everywhere have visible cameras recording people in the public areas of their shops. I don't suspect this is any different from that perspective..... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've said it before, but Homeland security is the fucking Gestapo of the US. Nobody believes it, but .................... this is just a beginning, and millions of assholes will think it is a fine idea because it makes them feel "safer". Some of us agree with you. Establishing "homeland" security was a bad idea. It sounds right out of Nazi Germany. No good can can from it. I agree. Shit like this was spawned from an incremental tolerance to Homeland Security. The TSA and Homeland Security needs to be defunded now. The longer we wait - the more difficult it will be. 
|
|
Used,naked and abused. |
|
Quoted:
I've said it before, but Homeland security is the fucking Gestapo of the US. Completely agreed. Nothing they're doing is for our safety or protection. They're using the letter of the law and technology against us - completely contrary to the spirit of what this Country is founded upon. Unfortunately, those we trust to interpret the "spirit" are no longer on our side.... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It sucks, but I'm struggling to find any way to rule it unconstitutional. Isn't this the wrong way to think of it? Where's the constitutional authority for a panopticon system of tracking every putative citizen? Fair enough (good point, actually). If the Constitution captures powers given to the government (and all other powers are retained by the people), then we would have to look at whether the government is granted the ability to overwatch citizens while in public. Their argument is going to come back to the fact that electronic means are merely "more efficient, but equivalent to" a police officer. If an LEO was standing in the front of the bus, would that be outside of their powers? If an LEO was standing in a busy intersection watching cars go by, would that be outside of their Constitutionally captured powers? I suspect that would be a hard argument to make. The electronic version of a police officer (a camera, microphone and recording device) are effectively the same thing. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not defending this. I hate it. I'm just trying to present what I suspect the logic would be..... Limitation of powers? The idea was a limited form of government (crazy, I know). This is the equivalent of having government authorities follow you where ever you roam in public. |
|
I always thought the more technology advances and becomes cheaper the more privacy will go away.
For example police running license plates. Your plate is right there on your car, you have no expectation of privacy. A cop can run it any any time. Well shit lets go a step further. How about the plates are made of easier to read text that's readable by a scanner that is always on? Instead of a human calling it in and exacting a cost, it's basically free. Holy fuck, well I didn't agree to that. Baby steps through technology to watch us all. This is what happened with cameras and now a place like London has something like 25,000 public cameras watched by people. When I said cameras were a good idea they cost $1,200 a piece not $20. |
|
Quoted:
If you're out in public you should have no expectation of privacy. This is absolutely silly. I have an expectation of privacy when I'm talking on the bus to someone. I firmly believe the people 5 feet from me can hear me but not the driver, not the person in the last row, not the people in cars next to me and certainly not the government. Is it possible that this issue is complex enough as to not fit on a bumper sticker as a tiny slogan. |
|
Quoted:
I've said it before, but Homeland security is the fucking Gestapo of the US. Nobody believes it, but .................... this is just a beginning, and millions of FUCKING STUPID ASSHOLE LIBERALS will think it is a fine idea because it makes them feel "safer". there I fixed it for ya.. I agree that it will only get worse.. No foil hate rant. But seriously.. |
|
I really don't care. I don't ride public trans and I would have never expected privacy in there anyways.
On the plus side: When there is security footage of ghetto goblins dukeing it out, we will at least be able to hear what they were arguing about before they started swinging. 
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you're out in public you should have no expectation of privacy. This is absolutely silly. I have an expectation of privacy when I'm talking on the bus to someone. I firmly believe the people 5 feet from me can hear me but not the driver, not the person in the last row, not the people in cars next to me and certainly not the government. Is it possible that this issue is complex enough as to not fit on a bumper sticker as a tiny slogan. Legally, you do not. |
|
Quoted:
White people such as myself are polite, and we don't talk on public transportation. I'm really not worried. All those microphones are going to pick up are profanity-laced tirades directed at infants, sexist blather directed towards women's cleaveage and asses, and incoherent rage shared between adolescent dipshits. It would be "muthafucka" every other word in DC, and spanish in the NoVA suburbs. Hope the feds have lots of translators who don't bore easily. 
|
|
Quoted:
Limitation of powers? The idea was a limited form of government (crazy, I know). This is the equivalent of having government authorities follow you where ever you roam in public. Which would be legal (in public) would it not? It would be legal for a police car to follow you wherever you go in your car. It is legal for paparazzi to follow and photograph stars, right? Not saying I like it, but surveillance devices simply give the government more automated means to do something they already could do in person.... |
