Big Brother watching?

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by pioneer461, Aug 7, 2007.

  1. pioneer461

    pioneer461 New Member

    938
    0
    0
    In a follow-up to my posting last week about “Airstrip One,” I noticed a similar story in today’s New York Post. Entitled “Big Brother in the Big Apple,” it tells of the efforts of NY Mayor Bloomberg to catch up with England in the use of surveillance cameras to monitor and thus control the behavior of citizens (subjects). This is the same mayor who thinks none of us should be allowed to own firearms. Coincidence? I think not.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070807/COMMENTARY/108070010
    “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    -- Benj. Franklin, 1759


    In another article, the New York Times reports the New York city council is considering legislation banning the use of the words, “bitch” and “ho.” Banned words. Banned thoughts. Enforced by who, the “Thought Police”?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/nyregion/07bword.html?ei=5090&en=8bb9b60b7da0d2ed&ex=1344139200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
     
  2. BLS33

    BLS33 New Member Supporter

    607
    0
    0
    Sounds like they are ignoring individual rights for what they think is good for the state as a whole. I think there is a word for that, oh yeah fascism.
     

  3. notdku

    notdku Administrator Staff Member

    6,288
    8
    38
    Did you see they passed law that allows wiretapping without warrants now?
     
  4. moviezombie

    moviezombie New Member

    109
    0
    0
    re the new FISA legislation: they were already doing it.....this just legalizes what was going on in the first place....and protects communications corporations from complying which they weren't during the past several years this has been going on. giving authorization to the attorney general is like asking the fox to guard the hen house: his loyalty is NOT to the US Constitution and we the people but to an ideological administration. we know this administration already goes beyond what is supposedly legal, where will they go now that they have this power? fascism has been with us for some years now....it is merely coming out of the closet. RIP 4th amendment........

    movie zombie

    ps yeah, and right, the 120 day sunset clause is going to be of big help. once the door has been opened and utilized, it won't be closed. once a freedom is given away or abandoned [and congress has certainly abandoned us] it is not easily regained. bitter?! you betcha.

    didn't mean to hijack the thread but the legislation topic was raised by a member way more senior than me.....i guess i could have resisted the temptation to vent....:)
     
  5. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    The "they" in your sentence is important: it is the very same people who have been vocally speaking out against this "illegal wiretapping scheme". So while Congress slams Bush constantly for keeping tabs on people inside the U.S. who call "Abdul's Bombs While-U-Wait" in Yemen or who receive calls from folks like Abdul, they quietly pass legislation that keeps us on exactly the same path. They probably think most American's won't be any the wiser. They're probably right.

    Bloomberg sucks and leaves a bruise. Check out the Second Amendment Foundation site and search for Bloomberg and you can read about his antics with his firearms sales "sting" that backfired in a big way.
     
  6. SabreArms

    SabreArms New Member

    82
    0
    0
    oooooh I'm telling the govment!!!!!!!












    :D
     
  7. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    Sorry, I have to (mostly) disagree with you guys.

    There have been several high-profile kidnap/murders solved lately because of surveillance cameras in public places. What's the problem? They're not putting cameras in your HOMES. They can film me in public places all they want; any 13-year-old with a cell phone can. That's why they call them "public places". I'd bet if it's YOUR daughter that gets abducted from an ATM, you'll be the first in line shouting for the cops to look at the videotape.

    Second, let's get our facts straight: the warrantless wiretaps apply ONLY to INTERNATIONAL calls to known terrorists or terror organizations. I don't have any problem with that at all. They're not interested in taping your calls to your Aunt Tillie or your girlfriend. Those still require warrants with a judge signing off on substantial probable cause (much stricter standards than in the UK, where the cops only have to show that there MIGHT be probable cause).

    On banning "bitch" and "ho," don't hold your breath. It's a stupid and unenforceable law, and it'll never happen.

    Let's see--anti-terror measures are secret plans to take away our civil liberties--effective, reasonable (and PUBLIC!) efforts to help law enforcement are fascism--Bush is an incipient Hitler--

    When did you guys turn into MoveOn.org far-left Democrats? Those are EXACTLY the kinds of hysterical horse manure being peddled by the loony left. Are THEY your friends?

    The guy that kidnapped and murdered a 14-year-old girl was caught and convicted because of a camera in a public place. Maybe you'd rather he was still walking around?

    A horrific series of terrorist attacks were foiled in the UK because of wiretaps on known terrorist sympathizers. Maybe you'd rather a few thousand more innocents were murdered?

    Whose side are you on?

    One more note:

    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. Cops put their lives on the line and walk around with targets on their backs to protect YOU and YOUR FAMILY, every damned day.

    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?
     
  8. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer New Member

    42
    0
    0
    "Those that give up freedoms for security shall have neither."
     
  9. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    Agreed. So what freedoms do you think I'm advocating that you give up?

    Sorry, if you want the freedom to call an Al Qaeda cell in Syria without being monitored, I don't think I care to agree.

    And what, exactly, would you NOT do on a public street that you're doing now if you knew there were likely to be cameras? If you want the freedom to commit crimes unobserved, I can't agree with that either. Otherwise, what's the problem? Do you not want anyone to know you shop at Wal-Mart?

    Frankly, I can't think of any way that either of these proposals affect my freedoms at all. If you can prove me wrong, go for it--but your objections better outweigh the OBVIOUS benefits.

    So what have you got?
     
  10. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    Another note, just to clarify matters: placing surveillance cameras in public places does not require the passage of any new laws nor the repeal of any old ones. It requires no court decisions. All they have to do is put them up.

    The reason is simple: In your home, you have what is called a "reasonable expectation of privacy".

    On the corner of Elm and Main, you don't; and that's not going to change.

    It really is that simple.

    ANYBODY can take pictures of you in public--the city, county, state and Federal governments, but also Joe Papparazzo (ask any celebrity) or the guy who lives across the street. You can take pictures of him, too, of course. Like I said before, that's why they call those places "public"....

    End of debate, at least on THAT subject.

    On wiretapping overseas calls to known terrorists--I've been waiting a LONG time for someone to tell me what's wrong with THAT. Personally, I think it'd be criminally negligent if they DIDN'T. But maybe that's just me.

    Really, guys. By joining in with this kind of "Bush-is-a-fascist" hysteria, you are SUPPORTING the forces that REALLY want to take away your freedoms, and your guns are at the very top of their list. Take a look at dailykos.com if you don't believe me.

    Would you have been happier with. Gore or Kerry?

    Hillary, or Obama, maybe? That's who you're working to elect now...
     
  11. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    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.
     
  12. FALPhil

    FALPhil New Member

    282
    0
    0
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  13. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    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?
     
  14. pioneer461

    pioneer461 New Member

    938
    0
    0
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    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?
     
  16. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
     
  17. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer New Member

    42
    0
    0
    Tell that line to the people that have been arrested and had their cameras taken while trying to photograph police and other people.
     
  18. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    Who, when and where?

    I know of no such cases. Can you provide examples?
     
  19. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer New Member

    42
    0
    0
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2007
  20. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    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?