Big Brother watching? - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > Big Brother watching?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-08-2007, 10:35 PM   #11
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

You will get no objections from me to warrantless semi-domestic or foreign wiretaps, provided one party is from a hostile country. The line must be drawn at the government monitoring We the People. The argument "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" is sophistry and must not be tolerated.

Private entities -- homes and businesses -- that want to put up cameras may certainly do so.

But that there are cameras up on most highways and many roads that allow someone somewhere to track movement of cars (and identify faces and tag numbers) does not generate a warm fuzzy feeling.

Trust for the government comes at a premium these days.

__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2007, 11:25 PM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
FALPhil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
I know a lot of cops. I doubt they'd appreciate the implications here that they're the "local Gestapo" (as one poster here put it) or that they've signed off on taking away the rights of Americans.
Not directed at you, cnorman, but I really don't care if they appreciate it or not. I pay their salaries. And I am not getting my money's worth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
Cops put their lives on the line and walk around with targets on their backs to protect YOU and YOUR FAMILY, every damned day.
Uh, no. Police obey the desires of the local authorities, period. And sometimes not even that. Generally speaking, the police keep the level of order the local authorities want and apprehend persons wanted by the local authorities. This may or may not have anything to do with protecting the local citizenry. There has been at least 3 SCOTUS cases that I am aware of in which decisions have been rendered which indicate that police have no duty to protect anyone, least of all, individuals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
If your home is invaded by thugs--as mine has been--I know you'll be ready with your gun. So was I. But who are you going to call for backup, or afterward?

A blogger?
If I could get away with just calling the undertaker, that would be fine with me. Every time I have asked for help from police, they give me some stupid excuse as to what they won't/can't help me.
__________________
FALPhil is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 12:16 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

You're perfectly right about the "nothing to hide" argument being a scam--but that's not where I'm coming from.

I don't trust the government--but I don't think it has infinite capabilities, either. As long as there are actual criminals and terrorists for the police to deal with--and I don't see the supply drying up anytime soon--I doubt very much if any local, state or Federal government is going to have the energy, resources, or motivation (the TIME, PEOPLE, or MONEY) to try to track 300,000,000 ordinary citizens. Maybe Orwell's fictional superstate could do that, but the one I live in can't even keep the bridges from falling down.

The fact remains that when you're in public, you're in public. So what? Why would anyone think they're writing it down when you drive to the Burger
King?

It can only work like this: FIRST you do something that gets the government's attention--like that call to Damascus, or buying twelve tons of ammonium nitrate and six barrels of diesel fuel when you live in an apartment and drive a Rabbit--and THEN they track you. I don't think any government outside of a book or movie could have the capability to do it the other way around.

I can only speak for myself, but I can't get exercised about the government having any interest at all in tapping my phone or tracking my movements. Any cop or bureaucrat that undertakes that mission will very shortly be bored stupid.

My argument is sort of the inverse of "nothing to hide". It's more like, "Who cares?" People who think the government wants to spy on them always strike me as a little arrogant. No offense meant, but what makes you think the government would be all that interested in YOU? Certainly not this perfectly innocent and harmless website; I suspect the sites the government is tracking are mostly in Arabic, don't you?

__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 12:45 AM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pioneer461's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 938
Liked 27 Times on 22 Posts
Likes Given: 7

Default

Since I started this, let me clarify. I'm not saying that all cctv is bad. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some surveillance in some places. I'm talking about the slippery slope toward a "Big Brother" surveillance society. I'm talking about the loss of privacy, and our freedoms to come and go as we wish, without it being any damn business of the government. It's not just about TV, it's about the increasing loss of civil liberties by an ever powerful central government. The more freedom you surrender, the more "they" will demand. Perhaps you trust the current government with those powers, but how about the next, or the next after that? Can you guarantee that power won't be abused? Read your history, learn from it or relive it.

Benj. Franklin said it best; ""Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" Civil liberties is at the heart of the gun rights movement, and I am offended that you characterize it differently.

Look at my signature line and tell me about how many cops you know.

__________________
Sui Juris
Cogito, ergo armatum sum
NRA Life Member / SAF Member
Retired Police Detective '71-'01 / LEOSA Certified
Naval Aviation Veteran '65-'69

United States Constitution (c) 1791
All Rights Reserved
pioneer461 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 05:19 AM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pioneer461 View Post
Since I started this, let me clarify. I'm not saying that all cctv is bad. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some surveillance in some places. I'm talking about the slippery slope toward a "Big Brother" surveillance society. I'm talking about the loss of privacy, and our freedoms to come and go as we wish, without it being any damn business of the government. It's not just about TV, it's about the increasing loss of civil liberties by an ever powerful central government. The more freedom you surrender, the more "they" will demand. Perhaps you trust the current government with those powers, but how about the next, or the next after that? Can you guarantee that power won't be abused? Read your history, learn from it or relive it.

Benj. Franklin said it best; ""Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security" Civil liberties is at the heart of the gun rights movement, and I am offended that you characterize it differently.

Look at my signature line and tell me about how many cops you know.
Pioneer, I think you're reading something into my posts that isn't there.

Where have I signed off on the "loss of our civil liberties"? My point is that, insofar as the two issues at hand are concerned, we haven't lost any. None at all.

If we ever begin to slide down that slippery slope--for instance, if someone ever decided it would be a good idea to monitor, say, everyone's bank account activity, or even where, when and how often we buy gas, or what books we read--I'll be on the barricades with you. I just don't think we're there, or even close.

I agree that civil liberties are what gun rights are all about, and I can't find anywhere that I've "characterized it differently."

A camera doesn't prevent me from going anywhere I choose, and I'm puzzled by those who think it does. I don't care if there's a camera on every damn corner in Dallas; they'd be useless for anything other than tracking where a felon or kidnap victim has gone after the fact, and that is how they have been used to date. If you, or anyone else, can document any pernicious use of cameras in public places, i'l change my mind--but I know of none, and frankly can think of none.

I cherish my civil liberties, too; I just don't see a problem here.

I don't understand your last remark at all. If you're a retired police officer, I would think you'd agree with my remarks defending cops rather than take a shot at my right to make them. How do YOU feel about being called "Gestapo"? Do I have to be a police officer myself to express my admiration and support and for them?
__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 06:07 AM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

[QUOTE=FALPhil;6040] Police obey the desires of the local authorities, period. And sometimes not even that. Generally speaking, the police keep the level of order the local authorities want and apprehend persons wanted by the local authorities. This may or may not have anything to do with protecting the local citizenry."

By "local authorities," I presume you mean the city council, the mayor, the county commissioners, aldermen, that sort of thing? Aren't those all elected officials, and therefore responsible to the citizens? What's the difference?

"There has been at least 3 SCOTUS cases that I am aware of in which decisions have been rendered which indicate that police have no duty to protect anyone, least of all, individuals."

You are correct; I used a kind of shorthand that I think is pretty generally understood. The police are an agency that is designed to apprehend criminals AFTER a crime has been committed--which, of course, is why the individual's right to own and use weapons is so vital. If you want an officer to specifically protect you and prevent crimes from being committed against you or your family, you have to hire one. Nevertheless, I think my expression was clear enough: apprehending criminals is difficult and dangerous work, and it IS carried out to make the community safer. That is, or ought to be, obvious. It commonly said that the Army "protects the country," too, but no one takes that to mean that there will be a soldier standing outside one's door.

"If I could get away with just calling the undertaker, that would be fine with me. Every time I have asked for help from police, they give me some stupid excuse as to what they won't/can't help me."

Really? Any specifics?

There are bad cops, and even bad departments. If you truly have a complaint about unfair or irresponsible treatment at the hands of the police, there are procedures for filing complaints. If that fails, one can go to the media; that kind of story is meat and drink to them, and exposing official abuses or incompetence to public scrutiny usually causes changes to be made.

That said, every cop you will ever meet will have stories about irate citizens demanding services or special treatment that isn't part of what cops do. If you have to live in an area with poor police performance, you have my sympathy, but you should work to change that. If you want a personal police force, sorry. That's not their job--anywhere.

In either case, the overwhelming majority of American cops work very hard at a very difficult job, are the targets of violent attack because of the uniform they wear, are subjected to abuse and invective from ordinary citizens for doing their jobs (e.g. For writing tickets), and remain the first line of defense our society has against the most vicious and dangerous elements in our society.

You don't like cops? Fine. Describe to me what our society would be like if we had none. Sure, you could carry your trusty .45 everywhere you go--and the two dozen gangbangers at the corner could all carry MAC-10s, and probably would.

Enjoy.

__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 01:54 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
ANYBODY can take pictures of you in public
Tell that line to the people that have been arrested and had their cameras taken while trying to photograph police and other people.
__________________
Taxpayer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 03:43 PM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default Who, when and where?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxpayer View Post
Tell that line to the people that have been arrested and had their cameras taken while trying to photograph police and other people.
I know of no such cases. Can you provide examples?
__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 04:01 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42
Default

I could, but I won't bother. There have been many cases of just such abuse here in this country. You can search for them if you like.

Edit:

Allright, on second thought, it's a slow day...here's one;

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html

two;
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html

three;

http://www.rcfp.org/news/1996/1104k.html

__________________

Last edited by Taxpayer; 08-09-2007 at 04:16 PM.
Taxpayer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2007, 05:51 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
cnorman18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fort Worth,Texas
Posts: 457
Liked 24 Times on 19 Posts
Likes Given: 4

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxpayer View Post
Here we go:

Case #1: From the website you provided:

"There is no law that prevents people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street," said Larry Frankel of the American Civil Liberties Union. (For once, I agree with the ACLU.)

The story continues with this:

"Police also denied that they told Cruze he was breaking the law with his cell phone." (Apparently the police know that the ACLU is right.)

This is a clear case of police misconduct, and it proves my point. Nothing will come of this--except that these particular cops won't try this again.

Case #2: again, from the site you provided:

"The criminal case relates to the sound, not the pictures, that his camera picked up."

Taking pictures in public is acknowledged as perfectly legal. Q. E. D. It IS generally illegal to record someone's SPEECH without their consent--but that isn't what we're discussing here. This case proves my point, too.

Case #3: Here's the headline:

"Man arrested for videotaping wins $210,000 jury award"

Gee, I hope I get arrested like that...

Do you have any cases that DON'T prove my point?
__________________

"Valor needs first strength, then a weapon."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973)

"Free men have arms; slaves do not."
-- William Blackstone (1723-1780)

cnorman18 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Like Watching a Trainwreck.... Dillinger The Club House 11 06-15-2009 03:22 PM
RIP my brother hillbilly68 The Club House 22 03-15-2009 02:42 PM
While I was watching Burn Notice repeats... supergus General Handgun Discussion 4 10-09-2008 03:51 PM
Obama brother to Fidel Castro? hkusp45 Politics, Religion and Controversy 9 06-26-2008 07:33 AM
Worth Watching PAGLOCK23 Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 3 02-10-2008 07:52 PM