| Author |
Message |
    
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1564
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 12:23 pm: | 
|
Perhaps you haven't noticed your screen name....
Is having a cop look at you an "invasion of privacy"? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13195
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 12:24 pm: |
|
The problem with cameras and fingerprints is that allows the government to collect data for later use and abuse. A camera would be posted ostensibly to catch a purse snatching or something like that. But it will catch me going into an adult book store, and the committee on unamerican activities can use it against me.
But I don't taking a fingerprint presupposes guilt. The problem is that it builds a database of lots of people, and that "lots of people" approaches a database of absolutely everyone. Then maybe later they'll fingerprint everyone who registers to vote or signs a lease or mortgage. And we have a reasonable expectation of anonymity in our actions. Not that the mortgage can exist without a name, but linking the mortgage assignee to be the customer in the adult bookstore is overreaching.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5435
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 12:35 pm: |
|
How is privacy invaded when someone -- government or private citizen -- takes a picture of you freely walking around in a public place and then keeps it? If an officer on the corner observes you, is your privacy protected simply because his eyes can't provide a hard record of the image from storage in the brain?
How is fingerprinting for purposes of identification presuming guilt any more than running a license number or car registration, and therefore an invasion of privacy? Especially since the subject has been pulled over for ostensibly breaking the law, isn't some presumed guilt already in the equation?
You can pull out your dictionary and use big words if you'd like. And I can wait for you to call someone who can help you with this. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11045
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 12:37 pm: |
|
On the fingerprint front, don't a lot of police run a program to photograph and fingerprint young children to help if they are lost or kidnapped? Also, years ago (I don't know if they still do it or not) the boy scouts used to fingerprint volunteers and I am sure the prints ended up in the FBI file. |
ML
Supporter
Username: Ml1
Post Number: 2961
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 12:52 pm: |
|
BobK,
when the cops photograph and fingerprint kids, they hand the prints and picture back to the parents. they don't put it on file. it's simply for parents to have in case their child is missing. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 875
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Wow...I suspected he couldn't explain it, but I can't believe I was right.
Shorter Libertarian: "Taking a picture of me on the street is an invasion of privacy. Why? Because it invades my privacy."
Lesson 1: If you're doing ANYTHING on a public street (walking, talking, mugging, speeding) you don't have any expectation of privacy. Because you are in...drum roll please...PUBLIC! If the police set up a camera to point in your window (without a warrant) then, yeah, you got a point. But wow...you really have no idea what you're upset about.
But by all means, keep making those snide jokes in a lame attempt to cover it up. After all, what would libertarianism be without unjustified arrogance? |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 876
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:03 pm: |
|
this is not a discussion of the libertarian party and its views. but thanks for stopping by!
Stop trying to curtail dave23's freedom.  |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1722
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Wow...I suspected he couldn't explain it, but I can't believe I was right.
Shorter Libertarian: "Taking a picture of me on the street is an invasion of privacy. Why? Because it invades my privacy."
Lesson 1: If you're doing ANYTHING on a public street (walking, talking, mugging, speeding) you don't have any expectation of privacy. Because you are in...drum roll please...PUBLIC! If the police set up a camera to point in your window (without a warrant) then, yeah, you got a point. But wow...you really have no idea what you're upset about.
incorrect. if i am in public and a camera is set up in order to track my movements , or if the film is stored by a government agency for later tracking purposes , then it is an invasion of my privacy as defined by the privacy act of 1978.
i cant believe that this all has to be explained. i also like the argument that if i wont dumb the subject down to explain it then i have no argument. the self importance and hubris of some of you amazes me!
that this thread has become a discussion of what the point is when it is so painfully obvious is a disgrace. i guess some ideas have to be written on a 2x4 and whacked across some peoples heads before they grasp them.
i concede all past and future arguments. you all win. i am sticking to the home fix it and sports forums.
as my mother once said, "it's not polite to argue with stupid people". |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2709
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:15 pm: |
|
Libertarianism, with its "market utopia" views, its pie-in-the-sky promises, its Ayn Rand reading groups, always smack of crackpotism. Libertarians always end up saying "I hate fat people" or something after you've gotten used to them.
They are better on social issues by far than economics, where they always soound like college freshmen.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13199
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Thank you for telling all of us what we are. Clearly, we needed it.
I don't have to strain myself to get others here to understand me. I guess we're mostly at the same level.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1723
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:19 pm: |
|
I don't have to strain myself to get others here to understand me. I guess we're mostly at the same level.
i couldnt agree more |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13201
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:24 pm: |
|
I was merely paraphrasing what you said. Now, I would dispute that I'm lower and you're higher. I think those are artificial concepts.
If number of insults hurled were a measure, you'd get a special designation.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1724
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Now, I would dispute that I'm lower and you're higher. I think those are artificial concepts.
of course you would dispute. those in your position often do. i think its cute. now run along and go play. its a beautiful day outside. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13202
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:35 pm: |
|
And you're ugly, too! 
Why don't we find someone impartial to decide which of us is lower and higher? Neither of us can trust either of us to be the arbiter of that kind of dispute. It amounts to "is not...is too!" kind of rhetoric, which is what I find to be infantile.
|
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 877
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:42 pm: |
|
if i am in public and a camera is set up in order to track my movements , or if the film is stored by a government agency for later tracking purposes , then it is an invasion of my privacy as defined by the privacy act of 1978.
So it's your position that cameras are not allowed in public. Hmmmm...can't spot any holes in that one!
How about quoting the relevant text from the privacy act you cite for the rest of us mouthbreathers? After all, if you don't educate us, who will? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5436
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:46 pm: |
|
There is no "privacy act of 1978." There's the FISA legislation of 1978. And there's an Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1978 that involves communications between at least two parties but not images (that I can find).
I can't find anything involving video surveillance in public. I'm just sure Libertarian can quote laws on that from memory....not.
What I have found are written pieces that say the reason there is little regulation or legislation involving cameras like are proposed in NYC is that the Supreme Court generally has indicated there is no presumption of privacy when people are in a public place. Makes perfect sense. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1726
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:47 pm: |
|
tom, i dont need an arbiter. i dont care. this is boring. i give up. i have found that trying to have a real discussion on this board is an exhausting and mostly pointless exercise. too many obvious points have to be dumbed down and explained. too many people make shrill comments that have no meaning to the actual discussion. too many people merely spout their parties rhetoric without any real knowledge of what it means or how it might pertain to the thread.
and then there are people like you, who take a contrrian position just to be contrarian. who post endless lateral questions that do not advance the discussion and turn every thread into a discussion about tom reingold.
it is boring. BORING! |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1727
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:49 pm: |
|
There is no "privacy act of 1978." There's the FISA legislation of 1978. And there's an Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1978 that involves communications between at least two parties but not images (that I can find).
I can't find anything involving video surveillance in public. I'm just sure Libertarian can quote laws on that from memory....not.
too many errors and false assumptions to address in one post. but , then again, you may be right.....not. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13207
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:50 pm: |
|
It's your choice. I'm not begging you to leave or stay.
We've countered your arguments, which is an attempt to play on a level field, but you haven't engaged. You continue to complain, instead.
You don't see the point of my lateral questions, but that doesn't mean there is no point.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1728
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:52 pm: |
|
you have not countered anything. you have discussed nothing.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13208
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:53 pm: |
|
OK, buh bye. It might not be enlightening, but we probably will enjoy it.
I hope you find what you're looking for.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1729
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:55 pm: |
|
It might not be enlightening, but we probably will enjoy it.
much could be said the same about small shiny objects |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5437
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:57 pm: |
|
You aren't having a discussion, Libertarian. You're running away from a discussion because you don't know what you're talking about and it's apparent to everyone. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 801
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:58 pm: |
|
"i dont care. this is boring. i give up. i have found that trying to have a real discussion on this board is an exhausting and mostly pointless exercise."
. . . then why do you keep posting. . . ? |
Oldstone
Citizen
Username: Rogers4317
Post Number: 656
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 1:58 pm: |
|
i have a question. if this is so boring and you are dealing with stupid people, why are you still here? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13209
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Tell you what. I'll let you have the last word. Go ahead.
Hey folks, after he speaks, let's all be quiet, for a while anyway.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1831
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 2:03 pm: |
|
To paraphrase Crash Davis, reading this thread is like listening to a Martian talk to a fungo. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 878
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 2:04 pm: |
|
OK...I'm officially starting to feel embarassed for Libertarian now. If he knew what he was talking about, he'd post it and end this discussion (if it ever even began). Instead, we get the Eric Cartman defense: "Screw you guys, I'm going home."
Ignorance and arrogance is a dangerous combination. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1566
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Here’s the main reason why I oppose things like security cameras and automatic fingerprinting (leaving aside legalistic and constitutional arguments): It instills an almost subliminal, society-wide sense of fear, suspicion and guilt. “Freedom” is as much a state of mind as it is a host of opportunities.
To use a cliché: If you treat people like children they will act like children and make demands like children. And on whom do adults make demands? The government, which by its very nature restricts freedom, then tries to recondition behavior by edict. And so a cycle of dependence and oppression is born. Yes, this is a conservative tenet, but the right-wingers usually apply it to programs like welfare without recognizing its even greater destructive nature in things like the Patriot Act and greater police powers.
Here are two small--and perhaps odd--examples of how less is more when it comes to encouraging good behavior from citizens. But they are, I believe, good examples of how adults behave when granted responsibility within the confines of apparent but understated guidelines:
- The good folks who run Bryant Park recently completed their annual installation of new sod. Rather than erecting tall, ugly, temporary fences to block anyone from walking on it while the root system grows, they simply bordered it with a low-slung rope—no more than a foot off the ground— and posted a half-dozen small signs respectfully requesting the public stay off of it for while. And you know what? Everyone is abiding by that request.
- My one and only time that I went to Jazzfest in New Orleans—in 2002—I happily noticed the complete lack of uniformed security. I also noticed reasonably priced food, water and beer. And there was so “cut-off” point beyond which you weren’t allowed to buy beer. The inherent message was, “You’re an adult so you know what to do.” The lack of obvious police presence (I’m sure there were some there, out of uniform) helped instill—perhaps subconsciously—a relaxed and responsible atmosphere that allowed everyone to focus on having a great time.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1730
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 3:28 pm: |
|
You're running away from a discussion because you don't know what you're talking about and it's apparent to everyone.
your lack of of quality reading comprehension is at least consistent. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1731
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Tell you what. I'll let you have the last word. Go ahead.
Hey folks, after he speaks, let's all be quiet, for a while anyway.
as always with tom, when in doubt, patronize. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1431
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 3:34 pm: |
|
I'm sorry but being OUTSIDE does NOT constitute being in PUBLIC...I don't care what the Supreme Court ruled.
I don't want camera's on me. I don't like people saying, dumb things like, you must be a criminal because you oppose cameras in public. No, I just don't want my every movement and action later scrutinized and somehow (anyhow) used. I don't like the idea of Big Brother watching me. I don't believe that a few nasty twats with big bombs have to ruin it for everyone else. Don't punish me for other people's stupidity. Please don't forget I'm innocent until proven otherwise.
Some of you guys all make it out that the privacy laws are there to protect the bad guys. They are there to protect you and I to lead our lives how we want to. It's one of the basic foundations that our country was built upon and that makes America great. Just because you are scared doesn't mean that I need to give up my rights. I already have, please refer to the Patriot Act for evidence. You can argue all you want that these laws are good, but I take a look at Bush arresting people and holding them in jails in Guantanamo Bay, kicking people out of the country for little or no reason, detaining people in jail cells indefinitely with no charges being brought against them. This is where our country is going? I'm sorry but I want to retain my rights to privacy NOW more than ever. I'm more scared of my own government than I am of this unknown vague concept, terrorists.
Who has done more damage to this country? The terrorists or the "War against Terrorists"? Some days I'm not so sure. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13213
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 3:34 pm: |
|
as always with tom, when in doubt, patronize.
I apologize for that.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4611
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Excuse me but I'm lowercase "t" tom. Don't make me go put one of those little registration marks next to it like Monster does. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1437
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 4:37 pm: |
|
I think Monster had to do that because he found out that someone was using his name for their member.
I suppose people have already been doing it with your name for years now, right? Every Tom, Dick and Hairy? |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1732
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 4:37 pm: |
|
you are never lower case anything, in my opinion. one of the few. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13217
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 4:51 pm: |
|
My father's name is Harry. I guess if I had had a son, I ought to have named him Dick.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5440
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Alleygater says "being outside doesn't mean you're in public" when addressing (I presume) the issue of NYC cameras posted to capture activity on the streets of the city. Taken to a logical conclusion, you can have sex outside in public and you shouldn't be arrested on indecency charges just because everyone saw you while they were walking by. The act itself was private (unless you sold tickets to it, I guess). Is street theater a private performance?
I disagree, but it's better than anything Libertarian advanced. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1748
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 8:09 pm: |
|
I disagree, but it's better than anything Libertarian advanced.
boo hoo. want me to hold your hand while you cross the street too? |
SO Ref
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 1616
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Quote:as my mother once said, "it's not polite to argue with stupid people".
I wonder to whom she was referring??? |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1751
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 9:25 pm: |
|
she was apologizing for fighting with a cab driver in front of me and explaining why she was wrong to do it. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4617
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 9:50 pm: |
|
"you can't out-think somebody who isn't thinking." |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1447
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006 - 11:31 pm: |
|
cjc, no it's nothing like what you said regarding sex and indecency. When I got out with my family to enjoy the wilderness...I want to do it in private. I don't want to find out later that I was filmed. My actions outside of my house are NOT MEANT TO BE SCRUTINIZED.
When you shoot a picture of someone, for instance if you are a photo-journalist, do you feel obligated to ask permission to shoot the subject's image? Courtesy dictates that you should? Some people believe that their soul can be stolen or captured by cameras. Shouldn't you honor someone else's beliefs? Why do you take it for granted that people should be photographed against their will? Because they left there house? What happens when someone doesn't own a house? Homeless people deserve no privacy because, well damn it, their poor. That's just dumb. People can't live in their homes forever. And I don't subscribe to your notion that being outside of my house gives others the right to track my every motions, acts and deeds to be used at a later date against my will. I feel that that is too much. Why don't you explain to me what is gained by having everyone's actions tracked, photographed and recorded? I've thoroughly explained myself and while you don't agree with my theories, I don't really get the sense that I understand your grand plans for this future of cameras everywhere. Please, now it's your turn.
Now I would prefer if you didn't compare my posts to other peoples, even if it is to goad him on. Do you want me comparing your posts to Grrrrrr.... or SLK or Straws? I take your posts for their own merits, please do me the same favor. Thanks. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5442
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Alleygater -- courtesies aren't under discussion here. Civil liberties and their possible erosion are.
But as to my personal feelings about cameras "everywhere" -- I think that's a waste of time. It's like opening and screening every container coming into a port, or like screening every passenger in the name of terrorism. You're diluting your effectiveness by devoting concentration on obvious non-suspects. If I were to vote, I'd limit cameras based upon threats and opportunities for harm. I would not limit them because I didn't like them. I personally don't care if I'm in public and a camera captures what I'm doing. I realize others feel differently. But legally, I think it's allowable and with good reason. I'm against some activities that are legal too, but that's just tough for me. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1767
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
70500-0.html?tw=rss.technology,http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,70500-0.h tml?tw=rss.technology |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1450
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 8:57 pm: |
|
So cjc: We should put up cameras in the Projects right, where all the criminals are. Isn't that correct? Are these cameras for eliminating crime in general or terrorism specifically? If for terrorism shall we put up cameras in places like Jersey City where there is a larger Arab/Muslim population?
BTW: Libby you link doesn't work. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1784
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 25, 2006 - 9:00 pm: |
|
oops!
try this:
http://www.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,70500-0.html?tw=rss.technology |
Gregor Samsa
Citizen
Username: Oldsctls67
Post Number: 467
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 9:02 am: |
|
There are already cameras up in the PJ's... |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5445
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 9:45 am: |
|
Putting up cameras in the projects doesn't curtail freedoms. Whether they're necessary in the projects per se or will be effective there to deter crime or prevent some terrorist act is another discussion. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 1:13 am: |
|
cjc, did you miss my point entirely or are you just avoiding it completely?
You and I seem to agree on a lot of things politically (which is good because I don't really care to battle you), and I give you the fact that you are extremely good at researching your topics (I've been impressed numerous times in the past with your thoroughness) and I think we will all agree that your vocabulary and sentence structure is fine and dandy (hell even impressive), but sometimes I just feel like you don't really try very hard. If your not interested than just stop posting and I feel confident that the conversation will die. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5450
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 10:47 am: |
|
Alley -- I'll go line by line for you.
"We should put up cameras in the Projects right, where all the criminals are. Isn't that correct?"
-- I don't know. I'd go with the police officers recommendations on that. Sometimes (as in Chicago a while back) the tenants invited the police in.
"Are these cameras for eliminating crime in general or terrorism specifically?"
---Could be both, I'd imagine.
"If for terrorism shall we put up cameras in places like Jersey City where there is a larger Arab/Muslim population?"
---I don't know if Jersey City is more likely to be hit by terrorism than another city, but if it is, I say put the cameras up. It would depend what the local, state and federal authorities have to say on that being a wise course of action based upon the threat or crime and/or terrorism. Nor do I think simply because there's a "larger Arab/Muslim population" that that alone makes it the best use of resources.
I have no problem with cameras being put up to provide surveillance of public areas if you can't afford or it's unwise to station a live law enforcement figures there. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1711
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 11:32 am: |
|
As an aside, the 1993 WTC Bombing was basically a Jersey City operation. From Ramzi Yousef to Sheik Omar. Van rented on Kennedy Blvd, chemicals stored in Space Station on Mallory ave. etc. |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1464
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 12:43 pm: |
|
So the people who did such a fabulous job responding to Katrina (the people in charge) are essentially the people you trust to make these decisions? I have little faith in the police to make the right decisions because if it was up to them they would try to eradicate all crime by all means necessary regardless of the costs to our freedoms. I think that is partially where the term Police State comes from. I have even less faith in our current administration to make these decisions also. Just look at the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, torturing prisoners, indefinitely detaining without charging prisioners, illegally flying prisioners around the globe, kicking people out of the country uneccessarily with little or no cause other than they come from the wrong country, spying on citizens without warrants -- and then defending it. I don't get they sense that the people in charge give a rat's azz about me or people's rights. I'm just glad I'm not poor, then I'd really be screwed.
If there is EVER a time to demand your rights to privacy NOW IS IT. I say don't give them up, but demand more. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1816
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 5:43 pm: |
|
much like the proposed camera system here in maplewood or the unconstitutional "gang" ordinance they are going to try and pass in april. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page