1 A grid-down crisis won't be 100% bad. Close, but not 100%.

2 I am shocked beyond belief that this is happening in Massachusetts. Shocked, I tell you.

3 I've got nothing to hide, but I tend to agree , they are going a tad overboard

4 Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be demagoguing you

5 Haven't the LAPD been using this system for 10 years already?

6

"We need a comprehensive privacy statute that covers both our digital lives and meatspace"

You already have one - it's called the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

If we can't enforce the Constitution - then what good are additional "written" statutes and limitations?

7 Won't be long until they cross-reference databases and can tell which vehicles are owned by citizens with concealed-carry permits. 

They get special attention already.....

8 Does anyone else here get ragged out reading Ace's movie reviews?

9 One of the few times I have agreed with the ACLU. Why do people not get angry of this kind of thing? My hometown has cameras at almost every major street intersection. Strictly for "safety", you see. It creeps me out.

10

I'm fine with that as long as it goes both ways.

(I'll throw this out there to get the ball rolling: I won't say a word about this or try to interfere in any way. In return, any cop who tells someone to stop recording them at work pays damages to the person to the tune of $100,000 and the cop is personally subject to a one-year jail sentence.)

11 Don't worry, we will have a strict policy of retraining anyone caught abusing their power!

12 You will do as you are told until the rights to you are sold.

13

Anyone that has seen Parking Wars would know Detroit uses this already to catch parking ticket scofflaws. They drive by and when the laptop beeps, the camera caught a offending license plate. Put the boot on and argue with the owner = the show.

14 Shocked that Google isn't already doing it -for- them really.

The 'update' to the mileage standards pushed through by the Dems has some provisions for -mandatory- black boxes as well, IIRC.

15

OT

I just saw the last harry potter movie. That Snape is kind of a boss.

16 That's what we really need, a way to track legal citizens.
Who needs to know where the wetbacks are? Might hurt their feelings if the law snooped on them.

What good is such an incomplete data base that doesn't include illegal or unlicensed drivers?

I'm beginning to think that the government isn't really here to help.

_{...just a nagging suspicion}

17

Don't worry, we will have a strict policy of retraining anyone caught abusing their power themselves!

FIFY

18

This is just another in a long line of monitoring technology.  Here's a couple more:

Car black boxes - they now monitor most every function in a vehicle, including when you brake, your speed, if your seatbelt was on, rate of decelleration, etc.  You don't own the data.

Mobile phone location - gps or tower tracking of your location. 

When you try to thwart these things, some law will be passed to stop you.

In many places, clear plastic covers over your license plate are illegal. Radar detectors are illegal in many states.

It needs to stop.

19 O/T Tammy Bruce is just skewering C*ntessa "Stupid Cow" Brewer with her least favorite strap-on sans lubrication.

20 Slightly OT, but...

http://tinyurl.com/3vy8thx

21 Mmmm, Meatspace.

22

O/T Tammy Bruce is just skewering C*ntessa "Stupid Cow" Brewer with her least favorite strap-on sans lubrication.

Hopefully it's barbed...for her pleasure.

23 If this had happened several years ago, every newspaper would have the headline "Bush Spies on Your Every Move." The tv pundits would have debated endlessly.

But with Obama?

Crickets.

Also... remember all those things the libtards accused Bush of wanting? Police state, Fema camps, etc? I'm pretty sure that they're also Obama's goals.

24 20 Still get you banned from AoS.

25

(I'll throw this out there to get the ball rolling: I won't say a word about this or try to interfere in any way. In return, any cop who tells someone to stop recording them at work pays damages to the person to the tune of $100,000 and the cop is personally subject to a one-year jail sentence.)

I agree with Insty's position on the rulings that cops don't need a warrant to slap a GPS tracker on a car.  Fine.  That means I get to put one of any and every cop car I want. 

I just saw the last harry potter movie. That Snape is kind of a boss.

Snape is the Biggest Damn Hero of them all.   Well, him and Neville. 

 

 

26

So police are horribly outmanned and undergunned. We can't even think of enforcing any of our immigration laws. But we can set up a system where this crap just tracks and rolls up data, requiring contracts and staffs and offices to 'manage' and disseminate the data. And cops who now can't bother to wade through outstanding lists of warrants or complaints can now troll for easy ticket revenue (cop billets safer than following up on violent parolees or felons). Or someone they don't like can literally be backtracked to see if they visited a House of Whoopee or whatnot.

 

Yeah, this is a great idea.

27 And cops who now can't bother to wade through outstanding lists of warrants or complaints can now troll for easy ticket revenue Well done sir, that is the whole fucking powdered donut right there.

28 We have to turn off the endless spigot of money to govt and some law enforcement agencies. They can't or won't enforce speed limits nor ticket dopes who text while driving but they always have time for the latest techno fad.

29 24
Not saying I was going to indulge, just found it interesting that "intent" made the difference. Still. Today.

30 Never mind the fact the checks whiz by at the rate of about 100 per second. We'll just forget all about that. And, heck, maybe they have super-speed-readers working at these banks anyway. Bet you never thought of that, huh, smarty? Posted by: rdbrewer at 03:20 PM

If that makes you feel better, that's fine.  However, the speed by which they pass by a casual observer has no impact whatsoever on the filters, searches, and triggers set up to scan the bank's databases.

This is the key issue, the data is there to be parsed and used by the bank for banking purposes and that you have entered into a private, limited, and voluntary agreement with the bank which can be terminated by either party.

31 I bet these cops got SCMODS.

32 /muppet

33

Snape is the Biggest Damn Hero of them all.   Well, him and Neville. 

 

 

Posted by: alexthechick at July 21, 2011 03:33 PM (VtjlW)

I do say Harry's father was a ass.

34

Anyone that has seen Parking Wars would know Detroit uses this already to catch parking ticket scofflaws. They drive by and when the laptop beeps, the camera caught a offending license plate. Put the boot on and argue with the owner = the show.

Doesn't England have a van that drives by houses and scans them with a heat censor to see if they have multiple TV's because you have to pay a tax per tv there?

35 The best part about this country is we pay for our own repression

36 Hey, London is the most video-recorded city in the world, and now they don't have any crime anymore!

37 When will these people understand that I wrote these books as cautionary tales, not as playbooks...

38 We lost our privacy more than 10 years ago when they started using tracking cookies to up-sell us. It was a question of time until it became necessary for all organizations to to know all about us---for our own good. Now, the police can scan your house or car using RFID technology. There's no putting the paste back into the tube. It's over.

39 This is America, not Oceania.

Hey, dude, you missed an election.

40 The computerized scanners, known as Autocratic Liberty Principle Repression devices, instantly check for police alerts, donations to Republicans, warrants, derogatory statements about the local political hacks, traffic violations and parking tickets, which cops say could be an invaluable tool in thwarting attempts to overturn Taxachusetts' glorious one party regime.

A few items did not get past the censors when this article was submitted.

41 We need a comprehensive privacy statute

We have one. It's called the 4th Amendment. It reads, in part: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

They didn't exactly have cars back then- but it basically means we don't get to spy on our own citizenry.

Why is this hard to understand?

42 So they want to record out every movements? Hum, but I guess they are still gonna strip search granny at the Airport?

43

Hopefully it's barbed...for her pleasure.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at July 21, 2011 03:32 PM (sbV1u)

Hopefully, it will be You-tubed.  For mine.

44 This has been going for years on highways anywhere near the Mexican border. At the BP checkpoints ALL cars are stopped and dog-sniffed, and all drivers are questioned, and there are batteries of cameras. Also, at night, the highway patrol will use any flimsy excuse to pull you over just to see who you are. It's because of the drug traffic--they like to know who's cruising around at night.

I'm not talking about checkpoints crossing the border--these are checkpoints miles north of the border, on US highways.

45 Suddenly "he knows if you've been sleeping, he knows if you're awake; he knows if you've been bad or good," no longer applies just to Santa Claus.

46

Roads are public (generally).  Anyone can write down your license number, find out who owns the car since it's public information, and just like that they know who you are and where you were (well, if you're the registered owner).  Obviously this Robocop program makes it about a billion times easier, but I don't think it makes it any more of a privacy violation just because it boosts "efficiency".

 

47

Here's another thought: A cop can track a person's every move. Obviously, we can't track every move of police. So instead, record all of those psychological tests police officers periodically take, and post them on the Internet, unedited.

If police may need to know certain things about me, then I may need to know certain things about police.

48 Did you guys see the story on the cop bullying and threatening the guy who had a concealed carry?  Fortunately, it was all on video tape that the guy tried to inform the officer but was unable to because the cop kept telling him to shut up.  Then, once he was informed, the cop verbally assaulted and threatened the guy.  Here's the link. 

49 Frankly, I'm more upset by the fact that in my jurisdictions you're not allowed to tape law enforcement in public.

50 True privacy can only be achieved when all your personal data is publicly available.

My data, however, is off limits because of the sensitive position I hold so that I can look out for you, dear citizen.

51 Just another reason not to live in or visit the large urban centers.

52 Eh, it's a city thing, out here everybody knows everyone's business without using electronic license plate scanners, and everyone knows which run down motel all the meth heads stay at and everyone knows the cops regularly drive thru and run the license plates of any unfamiliar cars parked there.

53 Frankly, I'm more upset by the fact that in my jurisdictions you're not allowed to tape law enforcement in public.

Posted by: Pres. Obama at July 21, 2011 03:46 PM (dZ756)

Awww, c'mon.  You're the Messiah.  Messiah don't give a shit about jurisdiction.

54

There's a technology that the govt is trying to implement, a device is attached to your car and records your every move, every mile, and then charges you based on your use of the roads.  I thought we already pay through the wazoo for the roads with taxes on gasoline.

I was hearing spots on the radio for this gadget last summer, the University of Iowa was looking for volunteers for this, who would volunteer for this?

55 Under the current system, the next logical step is to give anyone access to those things in which you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.  F/x, I should be able to look at your checking account too.  I mean, if you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, having a checking account is like announcing your finances to the world...  Isn't it?

If you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your emails, why can't I look at them too?

56 Posted by: yinzer at July 21, 2011 03:45 PM (/Mla1)

Not convinced.  There is an "expectation of privacy" when you're just running around minding your own business.  Certainly someone could just sit and write down as many license plate numbers as they could, but why would you expect them to?

And the cops aren't "someone" they're The Government.  I don't think the government should get to know anything more about me than it can prove (instance by instance, no less) that it needs to know.

57

Only Jon Huntsman can save us.

 

58 Photocopiers have been stealing your data for years. I pretty much shy away from conspiracy crap, but: well, I mean, it's not strictly proof of any particular monitoring. Yet. Also, your color printer/copier probably Isn't the best thing to use to print off that ransom note. Anyway, the upshot is, this technology is out there. All it takes is a few clever souls to put it to use.

59 This Makes Us Look Busy.

60 Posted by: rdbrewer at July 21, 2011 03:48 PM (fG/b/)

What makes you think we aren't already doing that citizen?

Nice IRA/401k you had there!

61 Doesn't England have a van that drives by houses and scans them with a heat censor to see if they have multiple TV's because you have to pay a tax per tv there?

Correct, but it's not heat the van detects, it's specific frequencies generated and radiated by the TV's circuitry.  Although I suspect it doesn't work as well on modern all-digital TVs.

62 "Obviously, we can't track every move of police."

In most places, you have the same right to track the movements of squad cars as they have to watch yours. If someone's standing in public, they can't say you can't look at them. The police can write down license numbers, locations, and times for the same reason you can record them when they pull you over. It's simply not private information.

63

Or: Grant recall power to the citizens. Police, after all, are keepers of the public trust. If a petition to recall an officer gets enough signatures, said cop is suspended until the referendum vote. If the cop loses, he's summarily fired.

(Now that I think about it, I wonder why this isn't already in place everywhere.)

64 There's no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution. At least that's what I've read from conservatives in the past.

65 Not convinced.  There is an "expectation of privacy" when you're just running around minding your own business.  Certainly someone could just sit and write down as many license plate numbers as they could, but why would you expect them to?

And the cops aren't "someone" they're The Government.  I don't think the government should get to know anything more about me than it can prove (instance by instance, no less) that it needs to know.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 21, 2011 03:48 PM (8y9MW)

I'm not saying I like the idea.  But cops now have the ability to run any license plate they see, they don't need cause.  This is the same thing, but there's a computer doing it for them.  You want to make this a rights issue, you have to get to the root of the perceived problem and say that cops shouldn't be able to run plates without cause.  But since license plates are state property, and public information, how can you do that?

66 Only Jon Huntsman can save us.

You mean Charlie Crist?

67 Doesn't England have a van that drives by houses and scans them with a heat censor to see if they have multiple TV's because you have to pay a tax per tv there?
I think you're thinking of the Ministry of Housinj's cat detector vans.

68 I can see the scanning technology used to search for wants and warrants.

But no info should be saved unless something pops. Otherwise, it should be scan only, not scan and save.

69 First they put the cookies in my browser and I said nothing.

70 It's you people we're worried about.

71 Posted by: FireHorse at July 21, 2011 03:51 PM (gTGz3)
Police unions?

72 Next, your gf will want to install one on your penis.

73 Won't be long until they cross-reference databases and can tell which vehicles are owned by citizens with concealed-carry permits. 

They get special attention already.....

Posted by: TXMarko at July 21, 2011 03:25 PM (5y3XA)

NC concealed permits already have driver's license numbers on them, and you are required to inform LEO's (at checkpoints fr'instance) if you have a permit and if you are carrying.

Radar detectors are illegal in many states.

Posted by: goindown at July 21, 2011 03:30 PM (TE1kh)

I thought that was only in VA and Washington, District Of. Where else are they banned?

74 There's no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution. At least that's what I've read from conservatives in the past.
Posted by: JEA at July 21, 2011 03:51 PM

There is a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.  Fourth Amendment.

75 The upgraded version can tell if you have been smoking in your car.

76

I submit, for your terror, the concept of the "Internet of Things" whereby every single thing you own (and potentially your own body) has little chips which are capable of communicating to the internet their status and location information.

You to buy into the concept with the fluffy ideas, like "imagine when your milk can transmit that it is spoiled to the refrigerator which can in turn transmit to the online grocery store that a milk delivery is needed"

But, once the technology is in place it can be used for less fluffy tracking--like say the fat content of items in your refrigerator (or beers etc.), to report back to the insurance company (govt) in order to determine if you still qualify for health care.

Welcome to the future. Suckers.

77 The computerized scanners, known as Automatic License Plate Recognition devices, instantly check for police alerts, warrants, traffic violations and parking tickets, which cops say could be an invaluable tool in thwarting crime. meeting ticket quotas

78 The upgraded version can tell if you have been smoking in your car.

Posted by: cherry π at July 21, 2011 03:54 PM (OhYCU)

Can they tell if I'm fapping?

79 There is a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.  Fourth Amendment.

You're replying to JEA.  A simple STFU, dunce will suffice.

80

72: Police unions?

That's my guess.

81 The computerized scanners, known as Automatic License Plate Recognition devices, instantly check for police alerts, warrants, traffic violations and parking tickets, which cops say could be an invaluable tool in thwarting crime. avoiding pulling over illegals and wasting valuable time we could spend writing tickets since we can't ask them questions we can ask citizens

82 Can they tell if I'm fapping?

You can order the optional Chakra counter

83 Posted by: ParanoidLaundryGirlinSeattle at July 21, 2011 03:55 PM (RZ8pf)
And just wait at how much we will be able to do for to you when we get the smart grid fully implemented.

84 Commerce Clause, bitchez !!!

85

Welcome to the future. Suckers.

Posted by: ParanoidLaundryGirlinSeattle at July 21, 2011 03:55 PM (RZ8pf)

Gee, paranoid much?  oh...nevermind...

86 Wake up, Jimmy. It looks like we've got a major pussy at #65.

87 This is inevitable. And every instance of crime, terrorism, etc just ratchets it up. Moore's Law is also not our friend here.

Right now the Feds track:
every plane in America.
every ship over a certain tonnage.
every train (I think, not sure)

In the near future (<10 years) it will be easy technologically to track:
every plane
every ship and boat
every train
every truck
every car.

Tracking tens of millions of vehicles in real time ... just isn't that hard of a task computationally. And every year, thanks to Moore's Law, it gets easier and easier.

It will be easy to monitor and track every moving vehicle in the country. And to build a model of it's "normal" behavior so it gets flagged when it behaves out of the norm.

This is what credit card companies already do for tens of millions of credit cards. It's not hard.

Simplest thing is to require a transmitter on each vehicle. And eventually each person.

The only thing that can or will stop these developments are very tough privacy laws. Wal-mart tracks hundreds of millions of inventory items.

To the Feds, people and cars are just inventory items. This is just logistics and supply chain management.

88 73 Next, your gf will want to install one on your penis. Posted by: cherry π at July 21, 2011 03:53 PM (OhYCU) If anything that would just piss my wife off.

89

Can they tell if I'm fapping?

The Police Ghosts take care of that data.

90

Can they tell if I'm fapping?

Posted by: eastvalleyphx at July 21, 2011 03:55 PM (qiOph)

For you they just assume that you are. It's easier that way.

91 Get over it. They have been using these for years. When they see a car that looks suspicious they just flip a switch in the patrol car and it checks to see if the driver has a warrant or the vehicle is stolen.

92 Commerce Clause, bitchez !!!
Posted by: Big Sis Napolitano at July 21, 2011 03:58 PM (so1xa)

The gas in your car came across state lines, so suck it up--we have you on unassailable Constitutional grounds.

93 These are the same people that tell us that we can't have a border fence.

94 I should say the registered owner has a warrant...

95 But since license plates are state property, and public information, how can you do that? Posted by: yinzer at July 21, 2011 03:52 PM

If license plates are state property, then why do we have to pay for the registration renewal every year?

Oh, COMMERCE CLAUSE, that's why

96 Call now for your optional Sperm Tracker!

Whip those lazy ones into shape. 

97 If they drive by my bunker and see smoke could they tell if I was burning a hobo or a steak? Of course the tip off would be sandbags to the eaves around my bunker and wooden shutters w/cutout crosses for firing lanes, other than that I'm just the friendly neighborhood grunt that flies Old Glory 24/7.

98 Get over it. They have been using these for years. When they see a car that looks suspicious they just flip a switch in the patrol car and it checks to see if the driver has a warrant or the vehicle is stolen. Posted by: mike at July 21, 2011 03:59 PM (CweQG) Yup. And being in the Military I've given up most of those rights anyway. Every time I go thru a Gate and they swipe my Military ID, they are checking for warrants and tracking my movements

99 You can order the optional Chakra counter
It's called a Charles Johnson device.

100 In our quest to feel safer, it's we, the people, who've caused this.  Remember, tyranny gains momentum when people are willing to start giving up their freedoms for their "security".

101 apropos of nothing, ZeroHedge is a strange site.

102 Get over it. They have been using these for years.

No.  I will not "get over it."  Just because they've been doing it that long doesn't mean I knew about it.  If I had, I would have been yelling then.

And, even your statement is different from what we're talking about here.  If a police officer sees a car deemed suspicious, they certainly have "reasonable suspicion" to do some basic checks on that car.  They do not have "reasonable suspicion," let alone "probable cause," just because you're driving at all.

103 They can do all this shit, but they can't ask a car full of gangbangers loaded till the shocks break their immigration status.

If they want to please Mexicans, let them run for fuckin' President of Mexico

104 Simplest thing is to require a transmitter on each vehicle. And eventually each person. Posted by: Clubber Lang at July 21, 2011 03:58 PM (QcFbt) If they were smart, they'd realize this isn't needed. You can track people pretty effectively without tagging them with some device they can "lose" or attach to the North end of a Southbound mule. This is where companies like Google come in: it's virtually impossible to disguise yourself enough to fool a good search engine company. And the fact that you're trying to means that they have a good reason to keep an eye on you.

105 Of course, the scanner system will not be able to pick up or trace license plates on vehicles driven by terrorists or illegal immigrants.

106 Right now the Feds track:
every plane in America. Commercial, not so much light civil aviation. A Piper Cub, for instance, doesn't have the onboard equipment needed to track it.
every ship over a certain tonnage. I think that's only if they are inbound or outbound from/to an American port of call, I believe Interpol takes care of the rest of them.  I could be wrong.
every train (I think, not sure)  CSX or BNSF or NS or UP will certainly track them if the .gov does not, so the info is out there.

107 There's no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution. At least that's what I've read from conservatives in the past.
Posted by: JEA at July 21, 2011 03:51 PM

There is a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Fourth Amendment.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 21, 2011 03:53 PM (fG/b/)

See, JEA, the courts had to make up a "privacy right" to protect abortion, but right there in the actual written constitution (the dead document, not the "living breathing" one) is a right that prevents the authorities from unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of law-abiding citizens.

Now do you understand the difference?

108 Because fuck you, that's why Commerce Clause!!

109 There is a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.  Fourth Amendment.

Posted by: rdbrewer at July 21, 2011 03:53 PM (fG/b/)

Looking at something sitting in public searching anything, and even if a search occurred it wouldn't be an unreasonable one. It's public. The police don't need to wear blindfolds while walking down the street. 

A law is required to block the database itself. As for cops running plates as they drive by, news flash: they've been doing that for years.

110 Yup. And being in the Military I've given up most of those rights anyway. Every time I go thru a Gate and they swipe my Military ID, they are checking for warrants and tracking my movements


When I worked for the state lottery, I was shocked to discover that anyone who submits information to the agency, be they job applicants or lottery winners, is subject to a wants and warrants search.

People would show up for a job interview or to collect their winnings and end up being cuffed and stuffed.

111 If they only check cars they stop for probable cause, okay, but to scan everyone passing by the donut shop? No way! They are going to assert the TSA Defense: we have to take off every sick lady's diapers or we will offend someone in a privileged class.

If they questioned all the people with stolen shopping carts or people tagging or any gang member who got money from Janice Hahn & Company, they would get rid of at least half the violent crime in CA.

But they won't will they? And you know why...

112 This is also kinda creepy when you think about the surveillance implications.

113 And the fact that you're trying to means that they have a good reason to keep an eye on you.

No.  The fact you're trying to just means you don't want people to know who you are or what you're looking for.  That does not, in and of itself, mean you're a suspicious person who needs to be monitored.

114 They've been using something much like this in Texas for some time.  One thing the databases have is if the registered owner of the car carries insurance.

This will be abused.

115 A PA state police car was cruising the local Target parking lot with this tech last year. I had to walk down several rows of cars to figure out what he was doing. With all the laser scanners and cameras on the car, you'd think it would drive itself. If you have an accident in the Target parking lot, the police will not respond because it is private property. Can the state police harvest license plate data on private property?

116 And the fact that you're trying to means that they have a good reason to keep an eye on you. Posted by: Fake Ace at July 21, 2011 04:03 PM

I find your views fascinating and wish to subscribe to your newsletter

117
if zerohedge is right, then it strikes me that John Boehner is the type you can tickle into submission

/deep voice

hee hee stop that! hoo heh hee hoo! stop tickling me Mr President! hee hee haa hah hoo oooh ahhh heee!

118 It's in the good and welfare clause.

119 other than that I'm just the friendly neighborhood grunt that flies Old Glory 24/7.

Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at July 21, 2011 04:01 PM (M5A8b)

You don't think the searchlights, machine gun emplacements and razor wire tips them off at all?

120 When I worked for the state lottery, I was shocked to discover that anyone who submits information to the agency, be they job applicants or lottery winners, is subject to a wants and warrants search. People would show up for a job interview or to collect their winnings and end up being cuffed and stuffed. Posted by: mpurinTexas supports Rick Perry, bitch at July 21, 2011 04:04 PM (OonVm) Good. And if they had done a jihadi search, 12 good soldiers and civilians would still be alive today at Ft Hood.

121 124,

Shhhhhhhh, M-60's are illegal.

122 Looking at something sitting in public searching anything, and even if a search occurred it wouldn't be an unreasonable one. It's public. The police don't need to wear blindfolds while walking down the street.

It's really frustrating dealing with this level of thick-headedness.

123 I wonder if this device can be modified to track the comings and goings of mosque visitors in TN?

124 "Looking at something sitting in public searching anything, and even if a search occurred it wouldn't be an unreasonable one. It's public. The police don't need to wear blindfolds while walking down the street. "

Do they walk up and down the street recording every place everyone in town is at all times, saving that database forever?

I don't want the government to know where I am all the time.  I don't want every Obama fanboy to be able to pull up my name and know every single place I've been and thing I've done.  It's none of the government's business.

Sure, when it was just in the cop's head, it wasn't so bad that he could remember what cars he's seen and where.  Technology has improved to where this is just too much for a common sense citizen to tolerate.  It's not so much the search aspect as the privacy aspect.

Why is it that people have the privacy to kill their unborn kids, but not the privacy to travel the country?  It's as though the concept of privacy is utterly insincere and ad hoc.

125 129,

In a word Kennnedy's!

126 What the hell happened?

The Kennedy's?

127 132, Heh.

128 This is America, not Oceania.

But with a Democrat President, a Democrat media, and Democrat judges, it is damned well heading there!

But hey, not to worry... just elect a Republican President, and suddenly the courts and the media will be all over it!

129
the fine institutions such as Harvard and MIT were taken over by the radical Left

and then they took over public education

130 (rant)Officer notification by CCW holders is BULLSHIT. They say it is because of the number of officers who found their way into early graves, but the argument does not hold water since those officers were gunned down by CRIMINALS who would not be legally carrying in the first gods-dammed place, much less have a CCW. (/rant)

131 I don't want the government to know where I am all the time.

And, just as importantly (imho), I don't want to fucking pay for it!  What part of "broke" do these liberals not understand?  We can't afford to have government everywhere. 

132

If you're not a cop, you're little people.

133 No. The fact you're trying to just means you don't want people to know who you are or what you're looking for. That does not, in and of itself, mean you're a suspicious person who needs to be monitored. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 21, 2011 04:05 PM (8y9MW) Legally, I am wholly in agreement with you here. In a more practical sense, though, if you're trying to hide, they will know it and that's only going to make them want to know why. And since it's a private company, they don't have the fetters of the 4th amendment to keep them from digging. Especially if you've clicked those TOUs they provided when you signed up for your free e-mail account.

134 Good. And if they had done a jihadi search, 12 good soldiers and civilians would still be alive today at Ft Hood.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 21, 2011 04:06 PM (i6RpT)

But that would be profiling, and profiling is...

well, you know.

135 "It's really frustrating dealing with this level of thick-headedness."

It's not thick-headedness. It's the simple fact of what the word means.

Search:
1. To look over or through for the purpose of finding something; to explore; to examine by inspection; as, to search the house for a book; to search the wood for a thief.
Webster's Dictionary, 1828 edition.

136 Posted by: Fake Ace at July 21, 2011 04:13 PM (lT0LC)

Well, yes, for the private companies, this is true.  Though, even then, I'd like a law forbidding them from looking unless specifically requested (backed by a warrant) by law enforcement.

137 36 The best part about this country is we pay for our own repression Posted by: Ben at July 21, 2011 03:38 PM

I think it was Saddam Hussein who used to force the families of those he executed to pay for the bullets.

138 Legally, I am wholly in agreement with you here. In a more practical sense, though, if you're trying to hide, they will know it and that's only going to make them want to know why.

Posted by: Fake Ace at July 21, 2011 04:13 PM (lT0LC)

Oh hell, I got this shit covered, yo!

139

Forget "expectation of privacy" - that's old meatspace crap for when towns were 100 people and states were 10,000.

In a nation of 300,000,000 people we need an established, legal, "expectation of anonymity."

Oh they can see your checks physically? Sure! Who CARES. You expect to be ANONYMOUS.

 

Driving down the road - you're in public! Who CARES. You expect to be ANONYMOUS.

 

Expectation of anonymity. That's what should be enabled via statute if need be.

140 No, sayyid412, it's pure thick-headedness.  And in your case, it's obtuse squared.

141 One question. If the police do these searches, can we put everyone who owes me money in a debtors prison, because that would be great!

142

@5: "Haven't the LAPD been using this system for 10 years already?"

It helps us treat ever man like a King!

143 When the us against them begins all this shit won't matter will it?

144

Expectation of anonymity. That's what should be enabled via statute if need be.

Posted by: BoB at July 21, 2011 04:15 PM (eniev)

Intrigued, views, newsletter?

145 Posted by: sayyid412 at July 21, 2011 04:14 PM (j3Jmb)

The point is that a cop, sitting at a corner cafe, idly running plate numbers is not problem (as you say- they don't have to wear a blindfold).  That is an entirely different issue (just because if scope {no, not the mouth-wash} if nothing else) from an automated system that checks thousands upon thousands of license plates every minute.

Especially if said system then stores that information and shares it with other organizations.

Our cop at his cafe may realize he sees the same car at that intersection almost every day, but that's a far cry from a "profile," and he's not allowed just to follow your car without reason.

This, however, is specifically designed to profile your movements.

146 Remember, we work for you! To protect you! If you had nothing to hide, this wouldn't worry you! Oops, gotta go; the sniffer we installed outside of Krispy Kreme tells me that fresh donuts just came out of the oven! I have the app on my government-issue IPhone! I'm gonna need some extra energy for the no-knock warrant we're serving on that house with the three babes in it that we are going to 'mistake' for Rodney the meth dealer. I bet if we crash in around 3am they ain't gonna be wearing much! Later, citizens! And remember what we always say: ASSUME THE POSITION!

147 The next budget crisis in your state where the governor says he'll have to lay off cops if you don't agree to your taxes, call his bluff.

Cops are there to protect those in power from those they rule over. The only reason they bother with street crime at all is to keep it away from the homes and businesses of the powerful

That's another reason they ignore illegals. Can't keep them from watering the lawns of big money donors, can we

148 'Nam Grunt:

Guess it depends on who "them" turns out to be.

149 Off, foul burka!

150 Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at July 21, 2011 04:17 PM (M5A8b)

Of course it will.  There are more of them (and they're better armed, since we're not allowed to own machine guns, let alone tanks) and now they'll know- not only where you are, but all the places you're likely to be.

151 Well, yes, for the private companies, this is true. Though, even then, I'd like a law forbidding them from looking unless specifically requested (backed by a warrant) by law enforcement. Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 21, 2011 04:14 PM (8y9MW) Or you sign that right away. I mean, how is google.com going to know what sort of spatula its shopping partner/affiliate will be able to sell you unless they can get you to sign away your right to keep them from archiving, tracking, and (most importantly) comparing your data?

152 Can't keep them from watering the lawns of big money donors, can we

Posted by: kbdabear at July 21, 2011 04:18 PM (so1xa)

I'll water their lawns.  Free of charge.

153 Or you sign that right away.

Nope, not even then.  I want it to be illegal for them even to ask you to do that.

154 155,

Well sir that doesn't matter who them are, I do know that we are well armed in the south and on my block "Come and get some" is well rehearsed.

155 Our cop at his cafe may realize he sees the same car at that intersection almost every day, but that's a far cry from a "profile," and he's not allowed just to follow your car without reason.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at July 21, 2011 04:17 PM

Your taillights are a little dusty, that's why I pulled you over

156 I'll water their lawns.  Free of charge.

Make sure to use Brawndo. It's got electrolytes!

157 The transmitter in the vehicle, at least an RFID tag, I expect soon. Right now we license plates required to be easily read from a distance by automated scanners. But you have to have line of sight -- which only works from the front and back and works for crap from the sides or overhead.

The argument will be that the principle is the same and just makes fighting crime easier. Which it will.

Transmitters on people, yeah there are a lot of barriers to implementing that. Although I could see active transmitter badges on college campuses.

Of course, Moore's Law plus facial and gait recognition renders this less necessary. I imagine that in, say, 2020+ if you wander on a college campus to visit the library or something, the campus cops will be notified and if anything about your appearance, behavior, etc, is out of the ordinary they will come have a talk. The camera system will recognize an unfamiliar person and notify security. Same for many gated communities. These systems will be super cheap and turnkey by the 20s. Will hugely cut down crime.

Active badges are already used in many government and corporate settings where security is high.

The future will be a very safe place. As long as you comply with the authorities. Upside: fewer rapes, robberies, and murders. Downside: all the bullshit laws that most people ignore will become vastly easier to enforce -  recycling laws, energy usage laws, water usage.

The world of the future is a world where a petty bureaucrat's whim gets enforced with no leniency by Skynet. No wiggle room. No sliding. Rigid law and order. From major crime to rules on lawn care. Lawn to high? Used pesticides 10% more than the legal limit this month?

158 The gent quoted in the article, Harvey Silverglate, has a book out, "Three Felonies a Day." Ricochet has been pimping it on their podcasts for a couple of weeks. It does sound interesting though.

159

This technology, even though it's said that it's used only for law enforcement and/or surveillence, could just as well be used to track, let's say, the forming of militias.  The government's got our number.

160 167,

Not if you say it's a BBQ gathering.

161 Not if you say it's a BBQ gathering. Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at July 21, 2011 04:24 PM (M5A8b) Meat is bad for you. If you have Government Healthcare you can't eat meat. Oh, did I accidentally nationalize Healthcare? Whoops!

162 Much ado about nothing. They've found an efficient way to catch the lawbreakers. I see no down side to this and only hear the over used cry of slippery slope.

163 The Constitutional right to privacy may only be invoked to protect unnatural or perverse behavior. After all, good behavior doesn't need privacy, does it?

164 Your taillights are a little dusty, that's why I pulled you over

Posted by: Officer Bagadonuts at July 21, 2011 04:21 PM (so1xa)

But Officer Bagadonuts had to pull me over.  He still isn't getting a profile of my movements- which would require following me over several weeks (probably).  And, let me assure you, my lawyer would have very pointed words for the (city/county/state) if the same officer pulled me over for stupid crap like that several times a week for several weeks.

With this, he doesn't have to worry about harassment charges, because he can just sit at the side of the road helping an automated system build a profile of my movements.

165 We need to accept this: THERE IS NO PRIVACY ANY MORE. The best we can hope for is the illusion of some privacy. But unless you go completely off the grid (and I mean owning no property or car and burying your money in the back yard instead of banking it), privacy is gone.

166 DHS Video Characterizes White Americans as Most Likely Terrorists

Remember, if you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear. So stop hiding your whiteness

167 " We need a comprehensive privacy statute that covers both our digital lives and meatspace, along with reform of reasonable expectation of privacy fictions that have developed in caselaw."

That is a nice thought but would you really trust the morons in Wash DC to write a law that would truly protect our rights?  I don't.  We have already Constitutional protections against this, we need to demand those be enforced.

168

Transmitters on people, yeah there are a lot of barriers to implementing that. Although I could see active transmitter badges on college campuses.

 

Does anyone use cell phones where you live?  That's our personal tag.  For now.

169 169,

That bs will be gone in 2013, so no worries.

170 We need to accept this: THERE IS NO PRIVACY ANY MORE.

B.S.  I don't "need" to accept this at all.  There is a huge difference between private companies tracking my information to make an extra buck off of me (not that I like that, either) and the government tracking my information... you know, just 'cause I might, perhaps, one day, if the circumstances are right, commit a crime.

171 170 Much ado about nothing. They've found an efficient way to catch the lawbreakers. I see no down side to this and only hear the over used cry of slippery slope. Posted by: Alabaster Jones at July 21, 2011 04:27 PM

You are 1/2 pound overweight and we have concluded that you are hoarding your rationed chocolate. Report to your district camp at once

172 @11: "Don't worry, we will have a strict policy of retraining anyone caught abusing their power!"

Posted by: 'Your' Unionized Police at July 21, 2011 03:28 PM (FcR7P)

----------------------------------------------

Please correct the typographical error in the 10th word.  There is only 1 "r" in retaining.

173 I hear the government just ordered a dozen more black helicopters just to keep an eye on AllenG.

174 "No, sayyid412, it's pure thick-headedness.  And in your case, it's obtuse squared. Posted by: rdbrewer at July 21, 2011 04:15 PM (fG/b/)"

Incorrect. It's a simple and straightforward read of the words of the Fourth Amendment as they were written and without the changed meanings that have since piled onto the word over the last two hundred years.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

For the Fourth Amendment to prohibit the government action, someone must identify that something has been searched/seized, that the search/seizure was unreasonable, and that the thing searched is protected. And notice the interplay of the word "secure" with the original meaning of the word "search." You aren't "secure" in your home when a search occurs because searches involve physically bursting upon people's houses, rifling through their stuff, etc.

Even under a loose definition of the word "search" -- what was searched when a cop writes down your license plate number? How was that unreasonable? And how did it interfere with security in your effects? After answering those, it's quite clear that running someone's plates is not a problem.

Which we already knew, because it has happened thousands of times per day for the last two decades at least.

175 You don't think all these high tech toys are there to catch gangbangers, drug dealers, and peaceful muslims working at a nuclear plant, do you?

BWAH HAH HAH HAHH HAAAHHHHH!!!!!!

176 and now they'll know- not only where you are, but all the places you're likely to be.


There's all kinds of applications here.

"Yes, ma'am", said the IRS agent, "we see here that you claim to be unemployed, but our database shows that you leave your home at 7:30 a.m. every weekday, arrive at this address at 8 a.m. and then leave there at 5 p.m. and return home. Can you explain this?"

177 "See, JEA, the courts had to make up a "privacy right" to protect abortion, but right there in the actual written constitution (the dead document, not the "living breathing" one) is a right that prevents the authorities from unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of law-abiding citizens."

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If one seriously intends to deny that privacy is one of the other rights retained by the people, then one ought now explain to the class this little bit of long-standing common law jurisprudence:

""The poorest man may in his cottage,
bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown.
It may be frail, its roof may shake;
the wind may blow through it;
the storm may enter; the rain may enter;
but the King of England may not enter;
all his force dares not cross the threshold
of the ruined tenement."

I know that nowadays all they have to say is, "I thought I smelled marijuana," but as Alan Gura said, "...States may have become accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something constitutional."

As for it being hard to determine which rights are retained by the people, that's the gorram point. The State is supposed to have a really good reason (like an existential-level reason: the convenience -- or for that matter the safety, gomen nasai -- of the enforcer does not rise to that level) for violating the rights of the citizen.

178 You may bend over a 6 year old boy over the fusball table, but don't let us catching you actually drinking in a San Francisco bar!!

These San Francisco Bars Are Streaming Online Footage of You Getting Drunk

179

Down here, the Expressway Authority has detectors for their Autopay system in places nowhere near an expressway. They started out being placed at the big intersections that were close to the on- and off-ramps, and now they're all over town. Which makes me reluctant to get one of those little boxes, as you might imagine.

And while we're on the subject, we do have a right to privacy in the Constitution. It's not mentioned specifically because of the 4th Amendment which states that we shall be secure in our persons and belongings from illegal search and seizure. The meaning is lost on too many judges, and what it means is that police have no right to gather any information on me at all unless and until I break a law.

I'd like to see President Perry pack the court with strict Constitutionalists myself, and have someone like the Heritage Foundation start preparing one test case after another and straighten this bullshit out once and for all.

180 This is making me consider buying a handheld RFID readers, just to walk around and see what my stuff is telling people.

Cheapest self contained unit I have found using Evil® is 200 clams, but just a reader that you attach to a laptop is cheaper at around 40 bucks.

181 explain to the class this little bit of long-standing common law jurisprudence:

He did.  It's called the 4th Amendment.

More to your point, though, is that "privacy" is (virtually) always a code-word for "abortion."  Sometimes for "smoking pot."  The "right to privacy" doesn't exist because it's not necessary: your right from unreasonable government intrusion was already protected by the 4th Amendment.

182 You have nothing to fear from the police unless you are doing something wrong. Your very freedom is wrong

Video: Police officer threatens concealed-carry driver with execution, beating; Update: Officer relieved of duty, under investigation

183 The more they overtech the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain

184 We're here about your ducts.

185 Here's a question? Are the police depatments today more honest, ethical and less abusive and more accountable than the police departments pre 1990? Actually that's a rhetorical question because we all know the correct answer.

186 Thank god for the ACLU. Nice to see you righties on the side of the angels for once.

187 We are the angels, dicklick.

188 Good thing you used the appropriate lowercase "g" in that word for the imaginary man in the sky, else you might draw the ire of your sainted ACLU.

189 AllenG (Dedicated Tenther): Then don't get over it. Your tantrum will not change things.

190 This is America, not Oceania. See, RD, supposedly "straight A" students in prestigious private college prep schools are no longer given 1984 as assigned reading, and think Big Brother is just a TV show. Your statement is utterly lost on them. Which is the way Big Brother Liberals Want It.

191

@113: "As for cops running plates as they drive by, news flash: they've been doing that for years."

So? They've been taking bribes; stealing money, evidence, etc., harassing common folk, and even committing murder for years, too.  Doesn't mean they ARE ALLOWED do it.

But then again, trying to debate any such point with you is useless - you basically just appear on any thread dealing with privacy issues and repeatedly say that nothing is private.

192 Posted by: Police Union Steward at July 21, 2011 05:30 PM (xy9wk) One problem with your argument: Police are legally allowed to run your license plate number. The idea that they somehow can't based off of a faulty interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is absurd. You really mean that they can't track a number issued to you by the government for the purpose of, well, you know, tracking you? It isn't private. I could write down your number and report it for a traffic violation if I wanted to.

193 This is pathetic. We need a comprehensive privacy statute that covers both our digital lives and meatspace, along with reform of reasonable expectation of privacy fictions that have developed in caselaw.* At the rate technology is growing, we need to clarify limits on police power. They will use any tool they can get their hands on as long as it's legal. That's their job. And for the first time, the state of technology is such that the government can keep tabs on everybody all the time--if we let that happen. Without a comprehensive statute, there is little to keep them from "just doing their job," and reform is not going to happen in the courts.
What we need is a mechanism for enforcing the Bill of Rights against our police forces.  What we need is to figure out how to create a law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over all civilian government employees and start prosecuting Bill of Rights violations as felonies, possibly even treason for particularly egregious cases.

194 Police are legally allowed to run your license plate number. The idea that they somehow can't based off of a faulty interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is absurd. You really mean that they can't track a number issued to yo

I have no problem with them running a plate.  But storing the information and compiling it into a map of your whereabouts is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

195 "This is America, not Oceania."

Are you sure?

196

Liberty and equality are not compatible.  We have had our liberties stripped away or given up in return for "equality."  Freedom of association and contracting no longer exists except within the governments approved parameters.  So why shouldn't we expect this.

 

You let the camel's nose in the tent.  What did you expect?

 

But lets hear it for legalize drugs now, the really important stuff.

197

This is America, not Oceania.

We have always been at war with Eur-asia!

In another generation, the sacarasm will never be understood.

198 183 "No, sayyid412, it's pure thick-headedness.  And in your case, it's obtuse squared. Posted by: rdbrewer at July 21, 2011 04:15 PM (fG/b/)"

Incorrect. It's a simple and straightforward read of the words of the Fourth Amendment as they were written and without the changed meanings that have since piled onto the word over the last two hundred years.

That is the stupidest shit in this thread. Look, genius, what if johnny Law spends all his time running the plates of every hot chick he sees. what the fuck is he searching? He is looking her up, she is not secure in her possessions.

Note to AllenG. I got your back on this one, dude.