Big Brother watching? - Page 4
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House >

Big Brother watching?


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-10-2007, 07:06 AM   #31
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 Sheesh!

"If it's perfectly legal, why were they arrested?"

This question was followed by its answer in your quote from my post: "There will always be bad, stupid or incompetent cops."

Not all arrests are proper, and those that aren't generally get dropped or dismissed. Is there something there that you don't understand? If you're worried about being falsely arrested, then you'd better not do anything at all. Seriously, I don't see whatever point you're trying to make here.

"There's also a whole lot of cops that are not stupid or imcompetent that will do whatever the politicians they serve tell them to do. Just look at Chicago for one tiny example"

Bad cops are a problem. Duh. What does this have to do with whether or not taping people in public is legal? It is. You proved it is with your own examples. End of debate, no?

"I'd rather not have to go through the trauma of being falsely arrested by a fascist thug."

Who would? What's your point?

Should I hide in my apartment and give up ALL my rights until all policemen are perfect and there is no such thing as false arrest?

If a drunken cop claims that sneezing is "disturbing the peace" and arrests you for it, does that mean that sneezing is illegal and you should stop doing it?

The Latin term for your style of argument here is "non sequitur". You might want to look that up.
__________________
"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 08-10-2007, 05:09 PM   #32
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42
Default

The point eluding you is that we are slowly losing our freedom. The police are getting more and more invasive. Public cameras are just another example of an all intrusive government.
Taxpayer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 06:56 PM   #33
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 "Intrusive" by what conceivable standard?!?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxpayer View Post
The point eluding you is that we are slowly losing our freedom. The police are getting more and more invasive. Public cameras are just another example of an all intrusive government.
A camera in my kitchen would be "intrusive". Even a camera placed on public property in front of my house, aimed at my front door, would be "intrusive".

But a camera placed on a public street corner that's directed at no one in particular is not, by any rational standard, "intrusive". If that camera is violating your privacy, then so is every person you pass on the street.

More to the point, how do you plan to prevent it? Pass a law prohibiting taking pictures in public? Gee, THAT would be great. Do you suppose the people who have videotaped out-of-control cops (not to mention those who have documented violent crimes in progress) might regard that law as a violation of their civil liberties? Hmmm?

As I've said, a little paranoia has its place in today's world. But this isn't it. I get excited about the gun confiscations in New Orleans after Katrina, or the BATF campaign to shut down gun shops for trivial violations (in progress as we speak), or about lenient judges who let violent criminals and child molesters off with light sentences; but a camera that films me leaving the Wal-Mart, and five minutes later films a guy who kidnapped a murdered a young girl and is later arrested because of that very tape--well, forgive me if I don't see a problem.

Here's a compromise offer: if you can document a single case, in the past or the future, of an innocent, law-abiding private citizen genuinely having his rights violated and suffering injury of any kind (that holds up in a court of law) because of a camera in a public place, I'll agree with you and join any campaign you wish to start or endorse against public surveillance cameras. Absent any such cases, in my opinion nothing here is broken, and I see no need to fix it.

Be careful in your efforts to find such a case. The citations I saw attempting to prove that public videotaping by private citizens is against the law backfired rather badly...
__________________
"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 08-10-2007, 08:15 PM   #34
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

My concern is not with the cameras, per se, but with the potential path it leads us down. It establishes a precedent where government officials have the capability to monitor you as you go about your business.

It is possible for a municipality to assign a cop to each and every one of us to keep tabs on us. That is impractical. But 100 years ago, that would have been the only way to track us as we moved around. Today, with networked cameras, it's easy.

What can we expect as technology evolves? And how does this activity fit into the scope of government?
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 08:54 PM   #35
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
A camera in my kitchen would be "intrusive". Even a camera placed on public property in front of my house, aimed at my front door, would be "intrusive".

But a camera placed on a public street corner that's directed at no one in particular is not, by any rational standard, "intrusive". If that camera is violating your privacy, then so is every person you pass on the street.

More to the point, how do you plan to prevent it? Pass a law prohibiting taking pictures in public? Gee, THAT would be great. Do you suppose the people who have videotaped out-of-control cops (not to mention those who have documented violent crimes in progress) might regard that law as a violation of their civil liberties? Hmmm?

As I've said, a little paranoia has its place in today's world. But this isn't it. I get excited about the gun confiscations in New Orleans after Katrina, or the BATF campaign to shut down gun shops for trivial violations (in progress as we speak), or about lenient judges who let violent criminals and child molesters off with light sentences; but a camera that films me leaving the Wal-Mart, and five minutes later films a guy who kidnapped a murdered a young girl and is later arrested because of that very tape--well, forgive me if I don't see a problem.

Here's a compromise offer: if you can document a single case, in the past or the future, of an innocent, law-abiding private citizen genuinely having his rights violated and suffering injury of any kind (that holds up in a court of law) because of a camera in a public place, I'll agree with you and join any campaign you wish to start or endorse against public surveillance cameras. Absent any such cases, in my opinion nothing here is broken, and I see no need to fix it.

Be careful in your efforts to find such a case. The citations I saw attempting to prove that public videotaping by private citizens is against the law backfired rather badly...

I'll try to explain, if possible. I have never said video taping in public by private citizens is against the law. That's what you are saying, in an attempt to cloud the issue, and you are very good at twisting things believe me. I've seen better though.

All I am saying is the government is getting more and more intrusive and out of control and cameras in public is just another step down the slope.
Taxpayer is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2007, 10:18 PM   #36
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

"I have never said video taping in public by private citizens is against the law."

Really? Let's see:

Me: "ANYBODY can take pictures of you in public."

You: "Tell that line to the people that have been arrested and had their cameras taken while trying to photograph police and other people."

You then posted three (3) links in an attempt to prove that videotaping people in public is illegal. All three proved that it is not. Still, you persisted:

"It's ok for the government to surveil us, but if we do it, it's not."

And: "If [videotaping people in public is] perfectly legal, why were they arrested?"

After spending so much time and energy making that claim and repeating it and trying to back it up, it seems odd to deny now that you ever said it. You clearly did.

I think we're done with that point, so let's move on.

I DO understand the point you're trying to make--that cameras in public places are an erosion of our freedoms. I don't agree, for reasons I've stated rather clearly, but i'l try again here.

Parenthetically: I'm "twisting" nothing, and I resent the implication of that charge. The fact that YOU went off on an erroneous tangent and couldn't back up your claim, and that YOU can't find a coherent argument to counter mine, does NOT mean that I'm "twisting" anything. Try to prove otherwise. I dare you.

Now: I'll give you one more chance, and then I'm giving up. Explain to me, in real-life, practical terms or with real-life examples, how any free citizen is harmed by being filmed or videotaped in a public place.

I've given several examples of how we are HELPED and made SAFER by public surveillance, and I've pointed out that those examples are NOT mere theory; murders and kidnappings have ALREADY been solved by this technology. You haven't even mentioned that fact, let alone explained how your undefined fears outweigh real results.

If all you've got is some vague "principle" on the order of " the government shouldn't watch us"--well, sorry, but you're just wrong. Watching some one, particular person without some good reason WOULD be a problem--but watching EVERYBODY AT ONCE is exactly what we pay cops to do. If you can't explain to me why having a camera on the corner watching everyone that passes is materially different from having a real, live cop--who is equipped with handcuffs, nightstick, and gun, unlike the camera--doing the very same thing, either walking his beat or cruising in his patrol car, I think you'd better give it up.

If you object to the cameras, then you MUST be MUCH MORE opposed to a police presence in public places.

Tell me why I'm wrong, or drop it.
__________________
"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 08-10-2007, 10:32 PM   #37
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

Those are my questions exactly--or, put more simply, what's the point?

Even if I granted that our government is trending toward a fascist tyranny--which I most emphatically don't--how could the government, even if it had ten times the resources and people it does now, possibly track 300 million individuals? More to the point, why would it want to?

Honestly, all I'm seeing here is a sort of vague sense that "the government shouldn't watch us". I don't think that's enough reason to drop a technology that's already being used to solve heinous crimes that would otherwise have remained unsolved, and appears to have no other practical use. See my last post to Taxpayer for a more detailed argument.
__________________
"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 08-12-2007, 05:49 PM   #38
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 OK, I was wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnorman18 View Post
....how could the government, even if it had ten times the resources and people it does now, possibly track 300 million individuals?
Wrong again.

Check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/business/worldbusiness/12security.html?ei=5065&en=2d7edb61ed14cb4d&ex=118 7496000&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&ad xnnlx=1186938690-HDBw8LWXEM3E13+odYz7Rg

I didn't think it was possible. I was wrong.

I still think cameras ALONE are OK--but I'llNe keeping a sharp eye out for a national ID card. See the new thead on this subject.

Just wanted to admit I was full of sh*t here, too...
__________________
"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 10-05-2007, 07:58 AM   #39
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
rickrem700's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 225
Default Big brother

All I've got to say keep your friends close and your enemies closer, there is so much truth to that, As far as gov't goes the best you can do is pick the lesser of the two evil's Left or right I would not trust them any ferther than I could through them, they all have alterior motives!!! and it's not your best intrest, follow the money, just follow the money!!!.
__________________
If you run your just going to die tired!!!
rickrem700 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2007, 11:30 AM   #40
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
allmons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Athens
Posts: 363
Default The problem is we allow this nonsense

Someone keeps electing Democrats and Republicans who do not value the whole constitution and want total control.

So your only option is to MOVE. Vote with your feet and your tax dollars.

If people would tell these arrogant politicians "NO" at the ballot box or with their tax dollars, this kind of crap would end quickly.

It may be too late - our only option may be more radical.

__________________
Fire everyone in Congress NOW.
allmons 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 02:22 PM
RIP my brother hillbilly68 The Club House 22 03-15-2009 01:42 PM
While I was watching Burn Notice repeats... supergus General Handgun Discussion 4 10-09-2008 02:51 PM
Obama brother to Fidel Castro? hkusp45 Politics, Religion and Controversy 9 06-26-2008 06:33 AM
Worth Watching PAGLOCK23 Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 3 02-10-2008 06:52 PM



Newest Threads