Minister of Justice
In mother russia, government doesn't monitor YOU! wait....
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Theyd be tracking from a new location if that was on my car. Namely the bottom of the mighty mud.
edited 8th Oct '10 4:32:03 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Nemesis
@OP: I think "noble efforts" is somewhere between a stock phrase and sarcasm in that piece you're quoting from.
A brighter future for a darker age.
Replace "Noble" with "naive" and I believe you'll have the intended meaning.
Check out this article.
Now check out the author of the article's interpretation of this egregious violation of privacy:
"Like many noble efforts to keep us safe from terrorism, this one may be turning out to not be so effective."
Uhm, what exactly is so "noble" about the FBI spying on American citizens? This is kind of really creepy propaganda going on in here...
The ironic part about this is people tend to think that this means everyone is monitored in such a way.
Unless you do something to get flagged, and it has to be something pretty damn suspicious, or association with some very shady people, they don't even pay attention to your existence.
I know it can be a slippery slope, but more often than not the old "Nothing to hide, then nothing to fear." idea works in practice.
Even if I wasn't military I wouldn't be flagged, because I don't associate with anybody with a mile long criminal record, or have any connections even vaguely close to organized crime or terrorism. If I was approached about my association with someone who was under suspicion of being involved with terrorism, I'd be fully cooperative in finding out the truth. If they weren't, they'd get left alone from then on. If they were, then I'd help bag the son of a bitch.
Number one way to get monitored: piss off some petty bureaucrat!
Banned
See signature-
[[User Banned]]_ My Pm box ix still open though, I think?
Greater change however comes from the gun. It wasn't the pen that won the American Revolution or the American Civil War or ended the Holocaust. It wasn't the pen that brought Slobodan Milosevic to justice or Saddam Hussein.
But that debate is for another thread.
Also known as Katz
^^^^You need to be astoundingly trusting of government to think that.
edited 9th Oct '10 12:43:36 PM by jewelleddragon
Yes, but guns don't solve civillian problems. I'd like to see military types run a country... no wait, that's been done. These are usually called "Juntas", and include savory little deatils like "death squads" and "secret police".
They see me troll'n
^^^
Well, I am part of the Government myself after all.
Also known as Katz
^ Aaaand you think that no one in our government ever is or will be wont to abuse power?
No, I fully expect them to. I also fully expect others who are not to keep these chucklefucks in check.
Also known as Katz
OK, but if you catch someone doing something corrupt and oust them, that's too late for whoever was harmed by their corruption.
Sounds like the criminal justice system to me.
^^
Which is why in this country we have law suits and settlements!
Though I don't see the actual harm in a GPS under someones car if they aren't actually doing anything wrong. Unethical, yes, harmful, no.
edited 10th Oct '10 8:26:39 AM by Barkey
I want to point out that "doing anything wrong" is not (in my mind) equivalent to "Breaking the law" due to the existence of unjust laws.
Though that's rather a separate issue altogether.
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
No idea if this is actually true, but my brother claims that when the policemen in his town get bored, they listen in on random Iphone conversations (which is apparently really easy to do.) Just because you aren't breaking the law doesn't mean you can't embarrass yourself.
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
Also known as Katz
^Indeed, and it ought to be your prerogative * what you do or don't want other people to know about.
The very concept of privacy flies in the face of the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" logic.
edited 10th Oct '10 1:07:41 PM by jewelleddragon
No idea if this is actually true, but my brother claims that when the policemen in his town get bored, they listen in on random Iphone conversations (which is apparently really easy to do.) Just because you aren't breaking the law doesn't mean you can't embarrass yourself. That's extremely difficult for a regular cop to have access to that sort of equipment, and is most likely an urban legend.
Now if it's radio conversations, then yes, police and military radios can go to all sorts of bands, including ones that civilians cannot. They can also receive from a far greater distance.
I'm not an expert on surveillance, but I call bullshit on your brother unless he's a cop who does it himself. That equipment is not easy to get, and doing that is a huge no-no for cops. As in the type that if you get caught doing that, you're getting a long suspension, or getting fired. Either way, a small town cop couldn't get that equipment, and a metro city cop has way more oversight via an Internal Affairs department.
edited 10th Oct '10 3:33:46 PM by Barkey
More like giant cherries
Having oversight doesn't mean it can't happen. Much worse things have been known to occur.
Just look at the Kathryn Johnston case. Or all the coverups in New Orleans.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
Also known as Katz
^^But now you're arguing that abuse won't happen/isn't happening because people won't/don't have access to that sort of surveillance.
This is a thread about government gaining access to additional forms of surveillance.
If the main factor preventing abuse of privacy is lack of surveillance methods that might invade that privacy, then under no means should we allow more methods of surveillance.
(Allow me to make it copiously clear that I'm not against the military or law enforcement in any way, btw.)
No, abuse can always happen.
The difference is that while abuse cases will always be out there(but not excused or handwaved, people should always be on the lookout for abuse), it's no reason to outlaw extremely effective law enforcement tools.
I would say that it's unconstitutional to track someones car without a warrant, and put it at the same level as searching someones home. That's what I feel would be the best balance of ethics, efficiency, and fairness overall.
edited 10th Oct '10 6:19:36 PM by Barkey
Check out this article
.
Now check out the author of the article's interpretation of this egregious violation of privacy:
"Like many noble efforts to keep us safe from terrorism, this one may be turning out to not be so effective."
Uhm, what exactly is so "noble" about the FBI spying on American citizens? This is kind of really creepy propaganda going on in here...
Fear is our ally. The gasoline will be ours. A Honey Badger does not kill you to eat you. It tears off your testicles.