Glory Days;765738 wrote:then who determines what is right if not the law? you?

Oh I see, so anything that's technically legal is absolutely right then. That how that works? The law is some perfect thing?

I'm not saying whatever I believe is absolutely "right" but the idea that just because someone is legally allowed to do something that it's therefore right is messed up.

All of this fear of being monitored is being discussed in a forum on the internet.

Kinda like pissing into the wind, wouldn't you say?

I Wear Pants;765955 wrote:Oh I see, so anything that's technically legal is absolutely right then. That how that works? The law is some perfect thing?

I'm not saying whatever I believe is absolutely "right" but the idea that just because someone is legally allowed to do something that it's therefore right is messed up.

No, its not perfect. but every time there is a ruling, its also not an infringment on someone's rights. and just because "you" feel it is an infringment, maybe 9 out of 10 people dont (society). this case was determined by years and years of case law and judges opinions etc. its not like it just came out of no where and was decided on by these judges.

stlouiedipalma;765996 wrote:All of this fear of being monitored is being discussed in a forum on the internet.

Kinda like pissing into the wind, wouldn't you say?

No. Because it isn't fear of being monitored. I'm not afraid of that because I've got nothing to hide. But me not having anything to hide does not mean I have to be complacent when privacy is slowly but surely being raped and murdered in the name of "safety".

I Wear Pants;766963 wrote:No. Because it isn't fear of being monitored. I'm not afraid of that because I've got nothing to hide. But me not having anything to hide does not mean I have to be complacent when privacy is slowly but surely being raped and murdered in the name of "safety".

Well said, Pants, BRAVO!

I Wear Pants;766963 wrote:No. Because it isn't fear of being monitored. I'm not afraid of that because I've got nothing to hide. But me not having anything to hide does not mean I have to be complacent when privacy is slowly but surely being raped and murdered in the name of "safety".

I can't believe this but I'm in 100% agreement with you! lol

Check out the quote regarding new cameras to monitor Americans - http://www.610wtvn.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=268656?feed=268656&article=8565820


More than 100 cameras in five Columbus neighborhoods will be part of the pilot program. City officials reiterated at the meeting that the cameras will be in public view, aimed at public property.

Most of the people from the five pilot neighborhoods, the Hilltop, Livingston Avenue, Mt. Vernon Avenue, South Linden and Weinland Park spoke in favor of the cameras, saying they will improve safety and business.

If we keep trading "safety" for liberty, when will we run out of liberty? When we do, will we be totally safe? If not, how do we get our liberty back at that point? The answer is that we can't without using force.

1. those cameras view public areas.
2. those cameras are wanted by most of the citizens in those areas.

how are YOUR privacy/rights being violated?

Glory Days;767723 wrote:1. those cameras view public areas.
2. those cameras are wanted by most of the citizens in those areas.

how are YOUR privacy/rights being violated?

Something being a public area does not mean the state has a free reign to do whatever the hell they want and that you forego all your rights.

Glory Days;767723 wrote:1. those cameras view public areas.
2. those cameras are wanted by most of the citizens in those areas.

how are YOUR privacy/rights being violated?

1. Yeah right. Sure. Whatever they tell us is 100% factual. No hidden uses planned. Nope. Pure as the driven snow.
2. Citizens will nearly always choose safety over liberty because the majority of people are like most Americans...they haven't done anything wrong, so they don't mind if someone else is "on their side" and "protecting them". The problem is, and you've failed to answer, where does it stop? When will the trade for "public safety" vs. individual liberties assure no crimes? You know the answer as there are no assurances.

So, just because it doesn't directly affect me...yet, I can't reject such things as warrantless searches and seizures? I can't object to having GPS devices placed without cause? I can't object to being held up at checkpoints when they have no reason to pull me over and hold me up?

By the way, the answer to reducing crime is to increase public awareness in the area, have people look out for one another, and grant concealed carry permits. Criminals aren't so quick to act if they think the guy they're trying to rob might just cap their ass first.

BGFalcons82;768310 wrote:1. Yeah right. Sure. Whatever they tell us is 100% factual. No hidden uses planned. Nope. Pure as the driven snow.
2. Citizens will nearly always choose safety over liberty because the majority of people are like most Americans...they haven't done anything wrong, so they don't mind if someone else is "on their side" and "protecting them". The problem is, and you've failed to answer, where does it stop? When will the trade for "public safety" vs. individual liberties assure no crimes? You know the answer as there are no assurances.

So, just because it doesn't directly affect me...yet, I can't reject such things as warrantless searches and seizures? I can't object to having GPS devices placed without cause? I can't object to being held up at checkpoints when they have no reason to pull me over and hold me up?

By the way, the answer to reducing crime is to increase public awareness in the area, have people look out for one another, and grant concealed carry permits. Criminals aren't so quick to act if they think the guy they're trying to rob might just cap their ass first.

A reasonable person might otherwise be ok with a with a camera on public property but clearly not be ok with a government mandated camera on private, non-public-owned property. That is where it stops.

BoatShoes;768327 wrote:A reasonable person might otherwise be ok with a with a camera on public property but clearly not be ok with a government mandated camera on private, non-public-owned property. That is where it stops.

+ 243535

Does it really? How about cameras on public property pointed at private property. "It's viewable from public property so it can't be private!" they might say. We've already seen that argument used with the GPS devices being put on cars while on private property since the driveway is "accessible from public property".

I Wear Pants;768307 wrote:Something being a public area does not mean the state has a free reign to do whatever the hell they want and that you forego all your rights.

what rights are being violated by the state when a camera is viewing public property? should police officers close their eyes when not looking for something specific?

I Wear Pants;768350 wrote:Does it really? How about cameras on public property pointed at private property. "It's viewable from public property so it can't be private!" they might say. We've already seen that argument used with the GPS devices being put on cars while on private property since the driveway is "accessible from public property".

what if this, they might say that. that is where it stops. look up, the sky isnt falling.

Glory Days;768353 wrote:what rights are being violated by the state when a camera is viewing public property? should police officers close their eyes when not looking for something specific?

Again, just because they may be legally entitled to do so does not mean they should.

I Wear Pants;768390 wrote:Again, just because they may be legally entitled to do so does not mean they should.

So no rights are being violated, yet it is an invasion of your privacy...in a public place?

believer;767140 wrote:I can't believe this but I'm in 100% agreement with you! lol

Having noticed much of IWP's posting, he seems to be pretty pro-freedom, which I don't think is a bad thing.

Glory Days;767723 wrote:2. those cameras are wanted by most of the citizens in those areas.

In all fairness, if the issue is possibly a rights violation, I lend zero credibility to this, because a single person's rights, like yours or mine, ought to trump the whim of the majority.

It's the biggest problem with pure democracy: the minority can get shit on by the majority with no repercussions.

BoatShoes;768327 wrote:A reasonable person might otherwise be ok with a with a camera on public property but clearly not be ok with a government mandated camera on private, non-public-owned property. That is where it stops.

I actually tend to lean this way, but I admit I am still unsure about a camera on public property being used to monitor private property.

I Wear Pants;768350 wrote:Does it really? How about cameras on public property pointed at private property. "It's viewable from public property so it can't be private!" they might say. We've already seen that argument used with the GPS devices being put on cars while on private property since the driveway is "accessible from public property".

Can a camera from the street watching private property do something that a passerby cannot? I think that's my question on this subject.

Stepping FOOT on private property, however, is CERTAINLY over a line.

believer just meant that I tend to be a bit more "left" in my arguments here then he is. Though not always as was the case here.

As for the camera, again it might be legal and it might not provide any more of a threat than that of just some dude stopping and watching from the street(unless the camera was elevated allowing it to see over a fence or something but then we're getting into hypotheticals) but I don't think that means that cameras everywhere are automatically a good idea. Nor do I believe that sticking a camera everywhere will significantly reduce crime or make anyone safer. Has the UKs crime dropped a significant amount since they started getting Orwellian with their CC cameras everywhere?

I Wear Pants;768713 wrote:As for the camera, again it might be legal and it might not provide any more of a threat than that of just some dude stopping and watching from the street(unless the camera was elevated allowing it to see over a fence or something but then we're getting into hypotheticals) but I don't think that means that cameras everywhere are automatically a good idea. Nor do I believe that sticking a camera everywhere will significantly reduce crime or make anyone safer. Has the UKs crime dropped a significant amount since they started getting Orwellian with their CC cameras everywhere?

Oh I agree. I don't think it would actually end up doing anything positive (other than give everyone a feeling of "big brother is always watching"), but I'm not sure a right to privacy is actually being infringed at that point.

Thus, I would just think it idiotic and an enormous waste of money, but not an infringement of rights, but I'm not committed to that view yet.

If we all had a police officer or armed soldier stationed in our homes that would really cut down on crime. Lets get it done!

Cleveland Buck;768941 wrote:If we all had a police officer or armed soldier stationed in our homes that would really cut down on crime. Lets get it done!

I vote for this plan.....and would gladly welcome this officer and soldier in my home at the same time!

Cleveland Buck;768941 wrote:If we all had a police officer or armed soldier stationed in our homes that would really cut down on crime. Lets get it done!

I know it's tongue in cheek but that would guarantee an increase in violent crime. Look how well that policy worked for the British in Boston?

Fact is that people like their authority figures to be as invisible as possible at most times but to be there when we need them in full force. The real question is how do you achieve a good balance between those things.

Edit: I started writing that before Glory Day's post. If the officers GD's posted were the ones garrisoned in my home I'm in full support of this new initiative.

Now, according to this court's interpretation, there is no more 4th Amendment. It sits right next to the 10th Amendment, soon to be joined by the 5th.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-police-unlawfulen,0,6950521.story

From the arcticle: Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson strongly dissented, saying the ruling runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, The Times of Munster reported. "In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said.

And this: But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."

On behalf of the "winners", this: "It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer."

According to this, the police can treat you like a criminal, barge through the front door, beat you down if you look at them cross-eyed, take whatever they please, and your remedy is through CIVIL COURT??? Therefore, they get to perpetute what would normally be a crime of breaking and entering, then you have to sue them personally? Think about the British doing these same things in the 18th century and you'll know why the founders included the 4th and 5th Amendments so high up the Bill of Rights list.

Unfuckingbelievable. But then, we allow TSA agents to sexually molest our children, so I guess this is more in line with today's "all in the name of safety" crowd.

BGFalcons82;769565 wrote:Now, according to this court's interpretation, there is no more 4th Amendment. It sits right next to the 10th Amendment, soon to be joined by the 5th.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-police-unlawfulen,0,6950521.story

Did you read the circumstances of the case. The police cant really just walk away in those situations. i would believe they were "acting in good faith".