Wisconsin News wrote:

Hoping to deter crime by expanding the use of surveillance cameras, Aberdeen passed a measure that empowers the city government and police to require cameras in new developments.

The Police Department, the Department of Planning and Community Development, and the Department of Public Works will decide whether a new residential, commercial or industrial development must install cameras at "strategic locations" before a development permit is issued.

Cameras installed at new developments will be connected to a watch room at the police station.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/harford/bal-ha.camera07oct07,0,1394895.story

typemismatch wrote:

re:"are being abused to jail citizens" - can you back that up?

harumscarum wrote:

I think you are being a reactionist and Paranoid but someone has to. 

phreaks wrote:



harumscarum wrote: I think you are being a reactionist and Paranoid but someone has to.

So you think it's good for the State to install cameras outside your home and monitored at the Police station?

Wow.

phreaks wrote:



harumscarum wrote: I think you are being a reactionist and Paranoid but someone has to.

So you think it's good for the State to install cameras outside your home and monitored at the Police station?

Wow.

raymond wrote:

Vote the public officials who put in the cameras out of office and replace them with elected officials that will pull the cameras out.

Sometimes I wish there was an option for 'I don't want any of them, they are all idiots!'

PerfectPhase wrote:



Sometimes I wish there was an option for 'I don't want any of them, they are all idiots!'

W3bbo wrote:



We've had this in the UK for a looooong time now. I simply don't see the issue.

It's public property, what happens on public property is the responsibility of the state, and if the cameras provide a deterrent effect and/or make it easier to identify & aprehend purpetrators then I see nothing wrong (but there was an article that got Dugg last month about some report which said the cameras have a neglibile effect, I never read it, but you know how Digg is the new rallying ground for Ron Paul fanboys).

harumscarum wrote:



phreaks wrote:  harumscarum wrote: I think you are being a reactionist and Paranoid but someone has to.  So you think it's good for the State to install cameras outside your home and monitored at the Police station? Wow.

That would be great. I just got new neighbors and their lawn mower was stolen from their carport. I always leave my stuff out in my car port so I would be able to catch who did it. I also have some critter that keeps getting into my trash at night so I could get it arrested too.

ScanIAm wrote:

Why do people expect that there would be privacy outside?

ScanIAm wrote:



harumscarum wrote:  phreaks wrote:  harumscarum wrote: I think you are being a reactionist and Paranoid but someone has to.  So you think it's good for the State to install cameras outside your home and monitored at the Police station? Wow. That would be great. I just got new neighbors and their lawn mower was stolen from their carport. I always leave my stuff out in my car port so I would be able to catch who did it. I also have some critter that keeps getting into my trash at night so I could get it arrested too.

One or more of my neighbors has desided that the miniscule patch of green in my front yard (a rarity with a townhouse) is a wonderful spot for letting their dog take a dump.

So, I'm going to fight back by installing a camera so I can figure out who did it and drop the offending dookie on their car.

Why do people expect that there would be privacy outside?

dahat wrote:



ScanIAm wrote: Why do people expect that there would be privacy outside?

I think the bigger beef here (my only in this case) is that the government is forcing private groups to install security cameras rather than allowing and/or encouraging them to do it on their own.

I'm all for state owned and run cameras in public (and publicly owned) places... however see it as the responsibility of the private property owners to decide if they want to spend the money on a security camera system, let alone network it with the police.

ScanIAm wrote:



dahat wrote:  ScanIAm wrote: Why do people expect that there would be privacy outside? I think the bigger beef here (my only in this case) is that the government is forcing private groups to install security cameras rather than allowing and/or encouraging them to do it on their own. I'm all for state owned and run cameras in public (and publicly owned) places... however see it as the responsibility of the private property owners to decide if they want to spend the money on a security camera system, let alone network it with the police.

The quote does mention residential properties, but there is not distiction between a house and an apartment complex when it comes to the definition of residential. 

I imagine that it would be perfectly legitimate to force them to put up cameras in common areas that are essentially public, anyway.

You have to pay for safety fences around semi-public pools in residential developments, how is that any different?

I can see in a few years (decades) that places of business will be sued if they don't start doing this due to it's perceived deterrence.  We're a pretty litigious country, and all it takes is some victim to claim that since a readily available tech could have been used to apprehend the assailant, the business is partially at fault.

I wouldn't agree with the suit, but I'll bet ya $5 (canadian) that it'll happen

Ben Franklin wrote:

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

ScanIAm wrote:

The quote does mention residential properties, but there is not distiction between a house and an apartment complex when it comes to the definition of residential.

ScanIAm wrote:

I imagine that it would be perfectly legitimate to force them to put up cameras in common areas that are essentially public, anyway.

ScanIAm wrote:

You have to pay for safety fences around semi-public pools in residential developments, how is that any different?

ScanIAm wrote:

I can see in a few years (decades) that places of business will be sued if they don't start doing this due to it's perceived deterrence.

ScanIAm wrote:

I wouldn't agree with the suit, but I'll bet ya $5 (canadian) that it'll happen

phreaks wrote:

Wow, Great. The People want an Orwellian Society.

phreaks wrote:

Don't forget that 2008 will be the end of the State ID and Drivers license.

Don't forget to get your Federal ID card in advance to illustrate what a good little citizen we all are.

Wo Ihre Papiere sind

JeremyJ wrote:

I for one like the idea of cameras everywhere. 

People get the mistaken impression that someone is going to be watching their house 24/7.  There are not enough police officers to be able to do that.  If a crime happens in an area then they look at the tapes.  Otherwise they just get erased after a certain amount of time.  If it helps catch the bad guys then great!

SaraJo wrote:



JeremyJ wrote: I for one like the idea of cameras everywhere.  People get the mistaken impression that someone is going to be watching their house 24/7.  There are not enough police officers to be able to do that.  If a crime happens in an area then they look at the tapes.  Otherwise they just get erased after a certain amount of time.  If it helps catch the bad guys then great!

the fact that they are watching me at all is extremely disturbing.


In theory "If you're not doing anything wrong than why do you care" is a great idea. Just like communism is a great idea (in theory) unfortunately, it doesn't account for the level of corruptness in our government. This fact makes me want to keep my rights and privacy as much as possible.

W3bbo wrote:



phreaks wrote: Wow, Great. The People want an Orwellian Society.

Straw Man. Please don't misrepresent my points.

If by "Orwellian Society" you mean "widespread installation of public/police surveilance cameras" then I'm guilty as charged.

But where have I, or anyone else, said they support the encroachment of our freedoms and rights in this thread?

phreaks wrote: Don't forget that 2008 will be the end of the State ID and Drivers license. Don't forget to get your Federal ID card in advance to illustrate what a good little citizen we all are. Wo Ihre Papiere sind

It's all well and good to decry this, but besides posting on a forum on THE INTERNET!, what other proactive steps have you taken to get your voice heard by people who actually have power and juristiction over you? Like say.... your congressman?

ScanIAm wrote:



SaraJo wrote:  JeremyJ wrote: I for one like the idea of cameras everywhere.  People get the mistaken impression that someone is going to be watching their house 24/7.  There are not enough police officers to be able to do that.  If a crime happens in an area then they look at the tapes.  Otherwise they just get erased after a certain amount of time.  If it helps catch the bad guys then great! the fact that they are watching me at all is extremely disturbing. In theory "If you're not doing anything wrong than why do you care" is a great idea. Just like communism is a great idea (in theory) unfortunately, it doesn't account for the level of corruptness in our government. This fact makes me want to keep my rights and privacy as much as possible.

They aren't watching you, per se, they are automating the process of watching an open area of publicly accessable space.  If you don't walk through this public area, then you aren't being watched.  It's no different than having a security guard on duty or hiring a cop to walk a beat. 

He can eyeball you as you walk down a public street, but that isn't Orwellian in any way.  I think the "big brother is watching you part was taken a bit to literally.  The point of 1984 was that the government was constantly watching you and there was no privacy at all. 

If you want privacy, you have to work for it, it's not going to happen for free. 

SaraJo wrote:

the fact that they are watching me at all is extremely disturbing.

In theory "If you're not doing anything wrong than why do you care" is a great idea. Just like communism is a great idea (in theory) unfortunately, it doesn't account for the level of corruptness in our government. This fact makes me want to keep my rights and privacy as much as possible.

phreaks wrote:



Bah. I've sent numerous e-mail's to my Congressman. Not all about this topic, but a few. I have never received a single reply, not once.

Patrick Kennedy is my Rep, and he knows he can do whatever he wants. If there is a Kennedy running for office in my state, they will get elected, regardless of their merit.

Yes, this is the same guy that crashed his mustang into a barrier a few months back and was driven home by police instead of being given a sobriety test, and also the same guy that got drunk at a restaraunt last year and started jumping on tables yelling, "I've never worked a day in my life, and I'm proud of that!".

So yeah, I've tried it, it's fruitless.

phreaks wrote:

And What the heck do you mean by "straw man"?

ScanIAm wrote:

Kennedy's are a mixed bag.  We have some that appear to be worth a crap and some that aren't, but don't give up bugging your representatives.  They likely won't respond to you, individually, but if they get 100 letters/emails a day about a topic, they can't really ignore it.

phreaks wrote:

If you believe that's truely where this will end, I think you are a bit naive.

This will likely morph into something much more pervasive over the years. Is this really the type of society you strive for?

phreaks wrote:



W3bbo wrote:  phreaks wrote: Wow, Great. The People want an Orwellian Society. Straw Man. Please don't misrepresent my point.

And What the heck do you mean by "straw man"?

phreaks wrote:

Bah. I've sent numerous e-mail's to my Congressman. Not all about this topic, but a few. I have never received a single reply, not once.

There's your problem... you're lazy!

Get off your rear!

I've got my the phone #'s of my senators and congresswoman Washington DC offices on speed dial on my cell phone and when I've got a gripe with something they do... I let em know and a week or so later... I get a nice postage free dead tree response from them, something I use to either call or write them again and guess what I get then... another response!

You need to remind your elected officials that they work for you and if you don't get a response... increase the pressure.

If you don't think it works... you must not be paying attention to the news for the last few months as it was just that sort of thing that helped lead to the comprehensive immigration reform bill getting killed as well as the annoyance in the offices of Harry Reid on the Rush Limbaugh matter.

U.S. Open Fields Doctrine wrote:

While open fields are not be protected by the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage, or outdoor area immediately surrounding the home, is. Courts have treated this area as an extension of the house and as such subject to all the privacy protections afforded a person’s home (unlike a person's open fields) under the Fourth Amendment.

An area is curtilage if it "harbors the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."

Katz v. USA wrote:

In the decision the Supreme Court sided with Katz, holding that the Fourth Amendment protects his right to privacy, wherever he may be. Justice Stewart wrote, "No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment." The thrust of the Court's argument was that the Amendment protects people and not just places. This ruling also extended the protection of the Fourth Amendment to include private conversation in addition to corporal objects.

dahat wrote:



phreaks wrote: Bah. I've sent numerous e-mail's to my Congressman. Not all about this topic, but a few. I have never received a single reply, not once.

Emails?

There's your problem... you're lazy!

Get off your rear!

I've got my the phone #'s of my senators and congresswoman Washington DC offices on speed dial on my cell phone and when I've got a gripe with something they do... I let em know and a week or so later... I get a nice postage free dead tree response from them, something I use to either call or write them again and guess what I get then... another response!

You need to remind your elected officials that they work for you and if you don't get a response... increase the pressure.

If you don't think it works... you must not be paying attention to the news for the last few months as it was just that sort of thing that helped lead to the comprehensive immigration reform bill getting killed as well as the annoyance in the offices of Harry Reid on the Rush Limbaugh matter.

ScanIAm wrote:



Back to phreaks assumption that I'm naive because I'm not concerned about public cameras:  I'm trying to understand how public cameras translate into invasion of privacy.  I'm further trying to figure out why you should assume privacy in a field?  

You might get lucky and if nobody is around, you'll have privacy in a field, but there is no guarantee.  And if I happen to be walking by that field, am I required to pluck my eyes out so that I don't infringe on your privacy?

No.

In fact, while I wish it were different, there is no 'right to privacy' anywhere in the constitution.  Further, the "ZOMFG, Cameras in the streets" crowd are distracting from the real issues such as warrantless wiretapping.  That isn't a slippery slope, guy, that's an outright violation of the 4th amendment.

TimP wrote:

And security cameras have what to do with exchange rates?

W3bbo wrote:



SaraJo wrote: the fact that they are watching me at all is extremely disturbing. In theory "If you're not doing anything wrong than why do you care" is a great idea. Just like communism is a great idea (in theory) unfortunately, it doesn't account for the level of corruptness in our government. This fact makes me want to keep my rights and privacy as much as possible.

...and I feel totally free-market economy systems with companies taking on the role of government services ignores corport corruption and monopoly.

No systems' perfect, but how are these cameras infringing on your rights? And if so, specifically what rights?

phreaks wrote:



ScanIAm wrote:  Back to phreaks assumption that I'm naive because I'm not concerned about public cameras:  I'm trying to understand how public cameras translate into invasion of privacy.  I'm further trying to figure out why you should assume privacy in a field?   You might get lucky and if nobody is around, you'll have privacy in a field, but there is no guarantee.  And if I happen to be walking by that field, am I required to pluck my eyes out so that I don't infringe on your privacy? No. In fact, while I wish it were different, there is no 'right to privacy' anywhere in the constitution.  Further, the "ZOMFG, Cameras in the streets" crowd are distracting from the real issues such as warrantless wiretapping.  That isn't a slippery slope, guy, that's an outright violation of the 4th amendment.

Read my reply 7 posts up.

There is precedent that says the 4th amendment does protect privacy.

phreaks wrote:

If you have the right to privacy in a phone booth or taxi cab, as the supreme court ruled, then yes; we do have actual recognized rights to be private even in public areas.

phreaks wrote:

Obviously, there is no right to privacy in a subway station, but camera's pointed at my house, are clearly subverting my expectation of privacy as protected under the 4th amendment.

phreaks wrote:

I think it's interesting that the court choose places like taxi-cabs and 'public' phone booths to illustrate their point on privacy.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Yes. Its coming to a city near you.

The US economy is collapsing, and the bankers want a way to lock in your money. That is why they are letting the police teaser people and show force.

You might as well walk naked in the streets, because they are using high tech imaging devices that can show you without clothes.

The patriot act did rape people's privacy, and its antithetical to democratic way of life, and to the Constitution of USA.

I think that as the top people get more disparate, they will become more ruthless and will ask more from the people, including but not limited to their privacy.

I fear the constitution will be suspended, and we as the people will be at the mercy of people like Mr GW BUSh.

unless..

The people revolt and a new American revolution happens to reclaim people's constitutional rights.

Its 1984, and George Orwell was correct.



My 2 cents.

RoyalSchrubber wrote:



(No.  I'm a psychic...)

SecretSoftware wrote:

Yes. Its coming to a city near you.

SecretSoftware wrote:

The US economy is collapsing, and the bankers want a way to lock in your money. That is why they are letting the police teaser people and show force.

SecretSoftware wrote:

You might as well walk naked in the streets, because they are using high tech imaging devices that can show you without clothes.

SecretSoftware wrote:

 
The patriot act did rape people's privacy, and its antithetical to democratic way of life, and to the Constitution of USA.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I think that as the top people get more disparate, they will become more ruthless and will ask more from the people, including but not limited to their privacy.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I fear the constitution will be suspended, and we as the people will be at the mercy of people like Mr GW BUSh.

unless..

The people revolt and a new American revolution happens to reclaim people's constitutional rights.

Its 1984, and George Orwell was correct.

My 2 cents.

phreaks wrote:

Scan,

Just out of curiosity, what (if any) are your thoughts on Bentley California passing legislation that makes it illegal to smoke in your own home (if that home is a condo or apartment).

phreaks wrote:

/others can chime in as well, I 'm rather interested in learning what the group consensus is on this.

PaoloM wrote:



phreaks wrote: Scan, Just out of curiosity, what (if any) are your thoughts on Bentley California passing legislation that makes it illegal to smoke in your own home (if that home is a condo or apartment).

Sounds good to me. You do remember the old libertarian adage "your freedom ends where my freedom begins", right?

phreaks wrote:

Please point me to even a single piece of evidence that clearly proves (or even hints) that second hand smoke can travel through walls and ceilings.

phreaks wrote:

Regardless, legislating what you may and may not do (within reason) in the confines of your own home is absurd and neo-fascist.

phreaks wrote:

Isn't that a very similar tactic employed by the Gestapo

phreaks wrote:

You guys are kidding me right?

Please point me to even a single piece of evidence that clearly proves (or even hints) that second hand smoke can travel through walls and ceilings.

phreaks wrote:

and remember, that (at least in my state), condos and apartment units are separated by concrete or cinderblock reinforced firewalls.

phreaks wrote:

Regardless, legislating what you may and may not do (within reason) in the confines of your own home is absurd and neo-fascist.

Bas wrote:

While I agree that banning smoking in homes is pushing it a bit far, I'm all for it in places where it intrudes on others. If that includes peoples homes, then ban it there, too.

phreaks wrote: Regardless, legislating what you may and may not do (within reason) in the confines of your own home is absurd and neo-fascist.

I like the fact that I can't be legally murdered when I'm in my murderer's home. I guess that makes me a neo-fascist.

Bas wrote:

phreaks wrote: Isn't that a very similar tactic employed by the Gestapo

Godwin's Law! You win.

phreaks wrote:

You guys are kidding me right?

Please point me to even a single piece of evidence that clearly proves (or even hints) that second hand smoke can travel through walls and ceilings.

and remember, that (at least in my state), condos and apartment units are separated by concrete or cinderblock reinforced firewalls.

Ya, second-hand smoke is clearly going to effect you.

Regardless, legislating what you may and may not do (within reason) in the confines of your own home is absurd and neo-fascist.

If the landlord or condo association only wants to exclusively rent to non-smokers, great.

Legislating a legal activity to make it illegal if practiced inside your own home is pushing it too far. And they law was written so that it is only enforced if someone complains...

Isn't that a very similar tactic employed by the Gestapo in Germany?
The smell of your meat cooking bothers me, should it be legistlated that vegans can have you meat eaters arrested for cooking?

PaoloM wrote:



phreaks wrote: You guys are kidding me right? Please point me to even a single piece of evidence that clearly proves (or even hints) that second hand smoke can travel through walls and ceilings.

In my old apartment, I could smell people smoking in the apartment nearby. There, point proven.

phreaks wrote: and remember, that (at least in my state), condos and apartment units are separated by concrete or cinderblock reinforced firewalls.

Do you live in California, by any chance?

phreaks wrote: Regardless, legislating what you may and may not do (within reason) in the confines of your own home is absurd and neo-fascist.

You cannot have a meth lab in your home. You cannot kill people in your home.

But yes, these are illegal activities, so let's look at legal activities that you cannot do in your home: you cannot place a 120dB driver the wall dividing my apartment from yours and blast german techno all night.


Rather, you could and I would be perfectly in my right to call the police and have you arrested. Yet, listening to music is not illegal, but trumping other people's freedom is.

The rest of your post is unsubstantiated rambling.

phreaks wrote:



Bas wrote: While I agree that banning smoking in homes is pushing it a bit far, I'm all for it in places where it intrudes on others. If that includes peoples homes, then ban it there, too. phreaks wrote: Regardless, legislating what you may and may not do (within reason) in the confines of your own home is absurd and neo-fascist. I like the fact that I can't be legally murdered when I'm in my murderer's home. I guess that makes me a neo-fascist.

No, murder is illegal, regardless of where it takes place. So it makes you a fool, not a facist.

phreaks wrote:


What does make you a facist, is the idea fact that you endorse the ideology of collectivism and removing personal liberties from a citizen in the confines of their private home.

Bas wrote:



phreaks wrote:  Bas wrote: While I agree that banning smoking in homes is pushing it a bit far, I'm all for it in places where it intrudes on others. If that includes peoples homes, then ban it there, too. phreaks wrote: Regardless, legislating what you may and may not do (within reason) in the confines of your own home is absurd and neo-fascist. I like the fact that I can't be legally murdered when I'm in my murderer's home. I guess that makes me a neo-fascist. No, murder is illegal, regardless of where it takes place. So it makes you a fool, not a facist.

I love you too.

Bas wrote:



phreaks wrote:  What does make you a facist, is the idea fact that you endorse the ideology of collectivism and removing personal liberties from a citizen in the confines of their private home.

Fine. Then I'm a fascist. I'm all for the idea.

ScanIAm wrote:

Your whole argument falls apart when you consider that smoking in an apartment, condo (or townhouse, probably) does not constitute an action being taken in your own home.  You don't own the entire dwelling, and therefor you must cooperate with the other owners. 

phreaks wrote:



ScanIAm wrote: Your whole argument falls apart when you consider that smoking in an apartment, condo (or townhouse, probably) does not constitute an action being taken in your own home.  You don't own the entire dwelling, and therefor you must cooperate with the other owners.

Home is defined as where a person lives, not their rental/ownership status.

You can do what you want in terms of legal activities within your own unit/apartment/house/etc... the issue he is raising (as Paulo did as well earlier) is that activities you conduct within your own property/rental can affect others on/within their property/rental.

phreaks wrote:



ScanIAm wrote: Your whole argument falls apart when you consider that smoking in an apartment, condo (or townhouse, probably) does not constitute an action being taken in your own home.  You don't own the entire dwelling, and therefor you must cooperate with the other owners.

Home is defined as where a person lives, not their rental/ownership status.

phreaks wrote:



PaoloM wrote:  phreaks wrote:  ScanIAm wrote: Your whole argument falls apart when you consider that smoking in an apartment, condo (or townhouse, probably) does not constitute an action being taken in your own home.  You don't own the entire dwelling, and therefor you must cooperate with the other owners.  Home is defined as where a person lives, not their rental/ownership status. Actually no. In your own words: "makes it illegal to smoke in your own home (if that home is a condo or apartment)." (emphasis added). If home is simply "where a person lives", why the need to qualify it?

home    ">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/home"> /hoʊm/ - [hohm noun, adjective, adverb, verb, homed, hom·ing.

–noun

1.	a house, apartment, or other shelter that is the usual residence of a person, family, or household.

2.	the place in which one's domestic affections are centered.

3.	an institution for the homeless, sick, etc.: a nursing home.

4.	the dwelling place or retreat of an animal.

5.	the place or region where something is native or most common.

phreaks wrote:

I'll reiterate, this is not a decision for the legistlators.

phreaks wrote:

What about the rights of the owners of the building? What if they smoke or want to allow smokers to rent from them?

phreaks wrote:

You are effectively removing the civil liberties of them based entirely on your values.

phreaks wrote:

Where is the equal protection here?

PaoloM wrote:



phreaks wrote:  ScanIAm wrote: Your whole argument falls apart when you consider that smoking in an apartment, condo (or townhouse, probably) does not constitute an action being taken in your own home.  You don't own the entire dwelling, and therefor you must cooperate with the other owners.  Home is defined as where a person lives, not their rental/ownership status.

Actually no. In your own words: "makes it illegal to smoke in your own home (if that home is a condo or apartment)." (emphasis added).

If home is simply "where a person lives", why the need to qualify it?

   /hoʊm/ - [hohm noun, adjective, adverb, verb, homed, hom·ing.

–noun

1.	a house, apartment, or other shelter that is the usual residence of a person, family, or household.

2.	the place in which one's domestic affections are centered.

3.	an institution for the homeless, sick, etc.: a nursing home.

4.	the dwelling place or retreat of an animal.

5.	the place or region where something is native or most common.

6.	any place of residence or refuge: a heavenly home.

phreaks wrote:

Paolm,

you're missing the point.

If I own a home, and want to rent it out to someone, I should be allowed to rent it to smokers only or those that don't mind me smoking.

phreaks wrote:

There is absolutely No conclusive evidence that support the idea that 2nd hand smoke is anything more than an irritant, just like the smell of meat cooking is to me.

phreaks wrote:

You protect yourself, by not moving into a place that rents to smokers, you have the freedom of choice, no one is forcing you to make a decision (unless you're a smoker in this case)

phreaks wrote:

It isn't the governments responsibility to protect you from those things.

phreaks wrote:

You can't legislate my civil liberties and be a constitutionalist.

phreaks wrote:

Paolm,

you're missing the point.

If I own a home, and want to rent it out to someone, I should be allowed to rent it to smokers only or those that don't mind me smoking.

phreaks wrote:

 
There is absolutely No conclusive evidence that support the idea that 2nd hand smoke is anything more than an irritant, just like the smell of meat cooking is to me.

phreaks wrote:

You protect yourself, by not moving into a place that rents to smokers, you have the freedom of choice, no one is forcing you to make a decision (unless you're a smoker in this case)

phreaks wrote:

It isn't the governments responsibility to protect you from those things.

You can't legislate my civil liberties and be a constitutionalist.

ScanIAm wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: Yes. Its coming to a city near you.

Probably, but it isn't an invasion of privacy.

ScanIAm wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: The US economy is collapsing, and the bankers want a way to lock in your money. That is why they are letting the police teaser people and show force.

Sounds like a nice story.  Bankers aren't any more able to coordinate such a plan than they are to figure out that sub-prime mortgages are moronic.  Bankers don't set police regulations, either.

ScanIAm wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: You might as well walk naked in the streets, because they are using high tech imaging devices that can show you without clothes.

No.  They aren't.  You don't have one shred of evidence this is happening.

Airport X-ray machine 'shows nude bodies'

Digital PenetrationInvasion of the naked body scanners

ScanIAm wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:   The patriot act did rape people's privacy, and its antithetical to democratic way of life, and to the Constitution of USA.

The patriot act is going to get torn apart slowly in the courts.  This is how democracy works, and as people challenge more and more of it's provisions it will eventually be toothless. 

It certainly didn't 'rape' anything, and since it passed congress, the house, and the president, it WAS passed democratically and via the constitution.  Democracy doen't eliminate stupidity.

ScanIAm wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: I think that as the top people get more disparate, they will become more ruthless and will ask more from the people, including but not limited to their privacy.

At the last illuminati meeting I went to, we were discussing just that...oh, wait...did I say illuminati?  I meant group therapy session.

The longer I live, the more I'm convince that the people in power got there through sheer randomness and coincidence.  None of them wield enough power or common sense to pull off the kind of conspiracies you are alluding to.

ScanIAm wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: I fear the constitution will be suspended, and we as the people will be at the mercy of people like Mr GW BUSh. unless.. The people revolt and a new American revolution happens to reclaim people's constitutional rights. Its 1984, and George Orwell was correct. My 2 cents.

Hardly.  Reread the book.

ScanIAm wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote:   The patriot act did rape people's privacy, and its antithetical to democratic way of life, and to the Constitution of USA. The patriot act is going to get torn apart slowly in the courts.  This is how democracy works, and as people challenge more and more of it's provisions it will eventually be toothless.  It certainly didn't 'rape' anything, and since it passed congress, the house, and the president, it WAS passed democratically and via the constitution.  Democracy doen't eliminate stupidity.

SecretSoftware wrote:



If you thought the teasering of the Student in the University campus was bad, look at what the DoD is preparing for Law enforcement to use as crowd control measure. Basically they will burn the people standing with micro-wave directed pulses. They deployed these energy directed weapons at the last GOP national convention in NY (see The film Rise of the Police state by Alex jones)

PaoloM wrote:



phreaks wrote: Paolm, you're missing the point. If I own a home, and want to rent it out to someone, I should be allowed to rent it to smokers only or those that don't mind me smoking.

I agree, let's put aside renting for the moment, as it muddles the discussion a bit.

phreaks wrote: There is absolutely No conclusive evidence that support the idea that 2nd hand smoke is anything more than an irritant, just like the smell of meat cooking is to me.

So? Is there a "discretionary level of freedom infringment"? Can I kill someone "just a bit"?

PaoloM wrote:



phreaks wrote: You protect yourself, by not moving into a place that rents to smokers, you have the freedom of choice, no one is forcing you to make a decision (unless you're a smoker in this case)

But, I already made my choice. It's my home. I own it. And yet you (not you, "you" ) buy your own condo attached to mine and start polluting the air IN MY HOME.

PaoloM wrote:



phreaks wrote: It isn't the governments responsibility to protect you from those things.

Oh yes, it is. You can do whatever you want in your home unless it infringes on my freedom of doing whatever I want in my home.

Instead of making it illegal, California could require you to seal your home with teflon. At your expenses. Would you prefer that?

PaoloM wrote:



phreaks wrote: You can't legislate my civil liberties and be a constitutionalist.

You civil liberties are such only because they are legislated.

Dharma Punk wrote:



ScanIAm wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote:   The patriot act did rape people's privacy, and its antithetical to democratic way of life, and to the Constitution of USA. The patriot act is going to get torn apart slowly in the courts.  This is how democracy works, and as people challenge more and more of it's provisions it will eventually be toothless.  It certainly didn't 'rape' anything, and since it passed congress, the house, and the president, it WAS passed democratically and via the constitution.  Democracy doen't eliminate stupidity.

However, a federal judge in Oregon did declare parts of it unconstitutional. The latest I could find is here

Dharma Punk wrote:

SecretSoftware wrote:  If you thought the teasering of the Student in the University campus was bad, look at what the DoD is preparing for Law enforcement to use as crowd control measure. Basically they will burn the people standing with micro-wave directed pulses. They deployed these energy directed weapons at the last GOP national convention in NY (see The film Rise of the Police state by Alex jones)

'Cos you know, when I think journalistic integrity, I think of Alex Jones.

ScanIAm wrote:



Dharma Punk wrote:  ScanIAm wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote:   The patriot act did rape people's privacy, and its antithetical to democratic way of life, and to the Constitution of USA. The patriot act is going to get torn apart slowly in the courts.  This is how democracy works, and as people challenge more and more of it's provisions it will eventually be toothless.  It certainly didn't 'rape' anything, and since it passed congress, the house, and the president, it WAS passed democratically and via the constitution.  Democracy doen't eliminate stupidity. However, a federal judge in Oregon did declare parts of it unconstitutional. The latest I could find is here

Exactly.  Over time, more of it will be found unconstitutional, but the constitutionality of a law is only determined after the law is passed using the democratic process. 

JeremyJ wrote:

I for one like the idea of cameras everywhere. 

<snip>

If it helps catch the bad guys then great!

eblonk wrote:


Let´s see... there were the guys in London that used the cameras to watch a woman in an apparment undressing and their chief did..... nothing. Oh, and not so much a camera issue but indeed a ´surveillance everywhere´ thriumph, the lad in Homeland Security that stalked his ex with the means available.
[/quotes]

A couple of isolated cases of abuse of the system should not be enough to condemn the system entirely.

[quote user="eblonk"]
And the times cameras give no conclusive evidence. I sometimes watch these programs where they ask the public to help ´Do you recognize the person on the camera´? No, idiots, most of the time I can hardly see if it would be me or not.

eblonk wrote:


Lets throw in the ´If you have nothing to hide´argument. I don´t have to hide how often I do the humpty dance with my wife.

eblonk wrote:


Or if, and if yes, how many times I talk about it over the phone with her.

eblonk wrote:


It´s not a matter if they do that or not, they should explicitely be denied the right.

Bas wrote:



eblonk wrote:  It´s not a matter if they do that or not, they should explicitely be denied the right.

Why?

Bas wrote:




Sorry, I still don't see any arguments against the "If you have nothing to hide, why do you care?" argument.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

phreaks wrote:



ScanIAm wrote:  Dharma Punk wrote:  ScanIAm wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote:   The patriot act did rape people's privacy, and its antithetical to democratic way of life, and to the Constitution of USA. The patriot act is going to get torn apart slowly in the courts.  This is how democracy works, and as people challenge more and more of it's provisions it will eventually be toothless.  It certainly didn't 'rape' anything, and since it passed congress, the house, and the president, it WAS passed democratically and via the constitution.  Democracy doen't eliminate stupidity. However, a federal judge in Oregon did declare parts of it unconstitutional. The latest I could find is here Exactly.  Over time, more of it will be found unconstitutional, but the constitutionality of a law is only determined after the law is passed using the democratic process.

wtf?

phreaks wrote:



Bas wrote:  eblonk wrote:  It´s not a matter if they do that or not, they should explicitely be denied the right. Why?

Because that is a principle on which this country was founded.

I really have a hard time understanding the rationale of those that don't find anything inherintly objectionable with the government keeping such close tabs on citizens.

Personally, I enjoy my freedoms and liberties and take offense to the idea of being controlled and manipulated by government entities.

phreaks wrote:


Nothing to hide, what exactly does that even mean?

It's a subjective interpretation at best and the context and meaning will change over time depending on the agenda's of the government.

phreaks wrote:


I'm guessing you are also all for mandatory DNA sampling, and fingerprinting?

Bas wrote:



phreaks wrote:  I'm guessing you are also all for mandatory DNA sampling, and fingerprinting?

I really couldn't care less about it. Who is going to grab my DNA from somewhere, and then look it up in a government database? For what reason? Why should I be afraid of something like that happening?

ScanIAm wrote:



Bas wrote:  phreaks wrote:  I'm guessing you are also all for mandatory DNA sampling, and fingerprinting? I really couldn't care less about it. Who is going to grab my DNA from somewhere, and then look it up in a government database? For what reason? Why should I be afraid of something like that happening?

For a couple of reasons that may not bother you the same way that privacy would.

If your DNA predisposes you to some disease, you could be taxed more based on your expected cost to healthcare.  It's more likely that commercial entities would like this info, but if it's determined that DNA gives you a predisposition to violence, it's possible that this could be used against you.  It's not likely though.  At least not yet.

But that is not to say that you should expect your DNA to be private, either.

The point that uber-privacy advocates miss is that there is no right to privacy.  There is, instead, a couple of rights that attempt to allow a citizen to avoid incriminating themselves (or being incriminated based on an unreasonable search).

That is not the same as privacy.  The gov't can force you to give DNA or fingerprints for a number of reasons.  It could be argued that since you leave DNA everywhere you go and leave fingerprints on everything you touch, then you have no reason to expect that this wouldn't be used to prosecute you for a crime you committed.

Other than that, what is the problem?  So what if the Gov't has your DNA.  So what if the Gov't has your fingerprints.  I've not yet heard how this information could be abused in a way that conflicts with the constitution.

phreaks wrote:



Jeesh...

Obtaining DNA without a warrant does violate the 4th Amendment.

phreaks wrote:

Seriously, what are you thinking?

Just because technology makes things available, it doesn't anitquate the principles of the Consitution and the Bill of Rights.

And yes, there is a right to privacy, as defined in the Bill of Rights under the 3rd and 4th amendments.

Bill of Rights wrote:

Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

---

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

ScanIAm wrote:



phreaks wrote:  Jeesh... Obtaining DNA without a warrant does violate the 4th Amendment.

Off a cigarette butt?  Off an item you touched/breathed on/sneezed on/shat in/etc.?

ScanIAm wrote:



phreaks wrote: Seriously, what are you thinking? Just because technology makes things available, it doesn't anitquate the principles of the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. And yes, there is a right to privacy, as defined in the Bill of Rights under the 3rd and 4th amendments.

Bill of Rights wrote: Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Where?

phreaks wrote:



ScanIAm wrote:  phreaks wrote:  Jeesh... Obtaining DNA without a warrant does violate the 4th Amendment. Off a cigarette butt?  Off an item you touched/breathed on/sneezed on/shat in/etc.?

Depends on where the physical item was seized, but generally No.

However, the government cannot force you to voluntarily submit to arbitrary DNA sampling. That however isn't the circumstance we are discussing.

phreaks wrote:

ScanIAm wrote:  phreaks wrote: Seriously, what are you thinking? Just because technology makes things available, it doesn't anitquate the principles of the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. And yes, there is a right to privacy, as defined in the Bill of Rights under the 3rd and 4th amendments. Bill of Rights wrote: Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Where?

Are you kidding me?

A search by definition, is an invasion of privacy.

phreaks wrote:

If there was no expectation or right to privacy; there would be no 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments, since they would be moot in principle and theory anyhow.

phreaks wrote:

Is Privacy not a product of Liberty?

phreaks wrote:

Can you expect liberty without privacy?  These are rudimentary questions that any 100 level law class would teach.

phreaks wrote:

To argue that there is no right to privacy is borderline retarded, seriously. There is precedence and fact that clearly refute your assertion, yet you keep asserting the contrary.

phreaks wrote:

Furthermore, all states have enacted a "Right to Privacy" in either their charter, general laws or state constitution that does explicitly guarantee a citizen the right to privacy. In my state the statue is:

RI 9-1-28.1 Right to privacy -- Action for deprivation of right.

phreaks wrote:

I don't understand what you're arguing for, do you really believe that I can walk into the Social Security Office and request your SS#, or the DMV and request your Driving Records?

phreaks wrote:

Of course you don't; because you have the RIGHT to PRIVACY and the expectation of it.


How about you take a gander over to findlaw.com and search under the 4th amendment. The courts have consistently upheld the notion of privacy. Why do you think they need warrants? If there was no right to privacy, there would be no need for warrants.

phreaks wrote:

Here's one for now, but perhaps you should think about taking a Constitutional law class.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html

But, read this

the article wrote:

  The question whether a warrantless search of a home is reasonable and hence constitutional must be answered no in most instances, but the antecedent question whether a Fourth Amendment “search” has occurred is not so simple. This Court has approved warrantless visual surveillance of a home, see California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 213, ruling that visual observation is no “search” at all, see Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 234—235, 239. In assessing when a search is not a search, the Court has adapted a principle first enunciated in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361: A “search” does not occur–even when its object is a house explicitly protected by the Fourth Amendment–unless the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the searched object, and society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable, see, e.g., California v. Ciraolo, supra, at 211. Pp. 3—5.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

James Madison wrote:

It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.

Tom Servo wrote:

Any system that monitors the activities of citizens and maintains extensive data records about them would require it to be in control of 100% honest and objective people. The whole hierarchy up. And since there are no such people, I sure as hell don't want my life to be monitored. Data is ultimately going to missapropriated. And it doesn't help if shady entities like the CIA and NSA have access to the data.

So don't give me that "Nothing to hide" crap.

As far as monitoring public places go, I don't really want this, but in some places, it may have benefits (where there's a lot of crime). But only there. It however goes too far when there are PAs attached to them. It doesn't help against any real crime ("Dear Sir Bankrobber, will you kindly hand the money back to the teller? Pwetty pwease?"), but annoys the (I need to watch my language) out of everyone in the place, because some self-righteous moron is japping all day in a microphone for the slightest petty offenses, requiring you to listen to this while some kiddo across the place spat on the ground.

If you want to live in a society like this, or one a la Scanner Darkly, where 1/5 of the population monitors the other 4/5, be my guest, as long that happens in your country and not mine.

ScanIAm wrote:

Satellites can currently take photos of any public place down to at least the 1cm resolution (probably higher). 

Is this something to fear?

ScanIAm wrote:


Many busy intersections have been camera monitored for decades so that traffic can be routed more efficiently.  These cameras are actively monitored during rush hour and in many cases, decisions are made based on near realtime images coming back. 

Is this what you fear?

Tom Servo wrote:



ScanIAm wrote:  Many busy intersections have been camera monitored for decades so that traffic can be routed more efficiently.  These cameras are actively monitored during rush hour and in many cases, decisions are made based on near realtime images coming back.  Is this what you fear?

I'm not talking about traffic cams, but those that monitor public plazas.

Also, 1cm and less resolution spy satelites are a myth.

prndll wrote:

That right there is the point though. Everyone being watched and monitored like that. Life was not always like that. Now it is. This is the reality we have now. Your saying it doesn't mean a police state. Well, if constant monitoring of everyone isn't a big aspect of "police state", then what is? You tell us....what do you think a "police state" means?

phreaks wrote:



The big question is:

Had 9/11 not existed, would our society be as 'watched' as it is now?

ScanIAm wrote:



phreaks wrote:  The big question is: Had 9/11 not existed, would our society be as 'watched' as it is now?

I'm not attempting to start a flame war, but the answer to this is yes.

The current administration was in negotiations with phone companies to monitor our calls (a.k.a the AT&T thing) PRIOR to 9/11.

phreaks wrote:



ScanIAm wrote:  phreaks wrote:  The big question is: Had 9/11 not existed, would our society be as 'watched' as it is now? I'm not attempting to start a flame war, but the answer to this is yes. The current administration was in negotiations with phone companies to monitor our calls (a.k.a the AT&T thing) PRIOR to 9/11.

How would that have been possible without the Patriot Act?

prndll wrote:

yep...
Blame Bush.....let's just blame Bush for everything....why not

Never mind that much of what has people so upset actually began with Clinton. Alot of it long before that.

prndll wrote:

I'm not trying to dodge you here. I just don't keep records of specific data like I should. Maybe that makes me "look" like I don't know what I'm talking about on the surface. I'll give ya that. However, I think that very few people were (and still are) unable to get beyond the titelating nature of Clinton's sexual behaviors. He did alot of things that of things that hurt the tech industry and other things that began the building blocks for things like the NSA wiretapping that exist now. No one was paying any attention. That is one of the things that Clinton did best. Redirecting peoples attention. Things take time to do and a great deal of money. Yes, Bush might of signed into law things that ended up making things happen. But, those things were possible in the first place because of laws that caused communications companies to build into their equiptment certain functions. When Bush took office, much of what he and the NSA needed was already in place. To be honest though, this does go further than Clinton. I do remember reading about a law that Clinton passed making it basicly illegal for companies to hire what would be hackers to break into their systems for testing their own security levels (like in the movie Sneakers). This is a bad thing. People focus on Bush but Clinton gave Bush many of the tools he needed. In many ways, they worked together on this. It's just that most of the attention Clinton got was on the subject of bj's. That's pretty sad of you ask me.

I'm sorry, I just simply have too many things to think about in life to give you lists of thing that happened in history and I am be no means defending Bush. But, I do try my best to keep up. In those efforts I run accross things that suggest that Bush is not the only problem here. To focus so much on him is a mistake. But, when ya think about it, now that Bush has put certain things into place....What do you think Hillary Clinton will do with it if she wins the White House? This whole thing doesn't begin and end with Bush.

1.  99% of all politicians have no integrity regardless of their politics. (yes, I just made that statistic up, but it's prolly pretty accurate)
   
2. Neither Guiliani nor Clinton have secured thier parties nominations yet, So...
   
3. "Al Gore was a better pick anyways" - for you
   
4. Conservatives likely won't vote for Guiliani, because well, he isn't a conservative. Look for Romney to take the the Republican Primaries.
   
5. "I think its the next step to a more open society" not sure what this even means, nor how any of this relates to the trend of marginalized civil libterties.

prndll wrote:

I'm not trying to dodge you here. I just don't keep records of specific data like I should. Maybe that makes me "look" like I don't know what I'm talking about on the surface. I'll give ya that.

prndll wrote:

However, I think that very few people were (and still are) unable to get beyond the titelating nature of Clinton's sexual behaviors. He did alot of things that of things that hurt the tech industry and other things that began the building blocks for things like the NSA wiretapping that exist now.

prndll wrote:

No one was paying any attention. That is one of the things that Clinton did best. Redirecting peoples attention.

prndll wrote:

Things take time to do and a great deal of money. Yes, Bush might of signed into law things that ended up making things happen. But, those things were possible in the first place because of laws that caused communications companies to build into their equiptment certain functions. When Bush took office, much of what he and the NSA needed was already in place.

prndll wrote:

To be honest though, this does go further than Clinton. I do remember reading about a law that Clinton passed making it basicly illegal for companies to hire what would be hackers to break into their systems for testing their own security levels (like in the movie Sneakers). This is a bad thing. People focus on Bush but Clinton gave Bush many of the tools he needed. In many ways, they worked together on this. It's just that most of the attention Clinton got was on the subject of bj's. That's pretty sad of you ask me.

prndll wrote:

I'm sorry, I just simply have too many things to think about in life to give you lists of thing that happened in history and I am be no means defending Bush. But, I do try my best to keep up. In those efforts I run accross things that suggest that Bush is not the only problem here. To focus so much on him is a mistake. But, when ya think about it, now that Bush has put certain things into place....What do you think Hillary Clinton will do with it if she wins the White House? This whole thing doesn't begin and end with Bush.

Clinton's Wiretap-Heavy Budget

Death Penalty Sought for Fourth Amendment

prndll wrote:

I'm sorry, I just couldn't remember the names. I did some web searching on what I was talking about....

CALEA:

Clinton's Wiretap-Heavy Budget

Death Penalty Sought for Fourth Amendment

CALEA: Prepare for the Worst, Hope for the Best

Carnivore:

How Carnivore Worked

The FBI's Plan for Digital Wiretaps Raises More Questions ThanIt Answers

FBI retires its Carnivore

Now, I understand that carnivore isn't such a variable anymore. But that doesn't change what the effects of it ended up being. Calea was signed into law by Clinton and both of these things began under him. This was BEFORE Bush jr. These were tools given to Bush and simply evolved into bigger things like FISA and the foundations for the Patriot Act.

phreaks wrote:



My understanding is that Carnivore was used without warrants.

Although, no one really knows for certain because there was no transparency with it or how it was being used.

Let's get off the politics, because in the end we know that regardless of what we want to believe and who we like as a politician over the others, they are all just as guilty as the next.

Partisan infighting solves little in these debates.

ScanIAm wrote:



phreaks wrote:  My understanding is that Carnivore was used without warrants. Although, no one really knows for certain because there was no transparency with it or how it was being used. Let's get off the politics, because in the end we know that regardless of what we want to believe and who we like as a politician over the others, they are all just as guilty as the next. Partisan infighting solves little in these debates.

Fine by me. 

It seems, though, that this issue isn't going away.

The phone companies will be given immunity for anything they did.  As long as they can prove that the action was 'pursuant to a legal directive' whatever that means.  Oh, and they get to demonstrate this in a private court.

Yeah, I'll take outdoor cameras in public places any day.

phreaks wrote:



And eventually it will be gps devices on your car, and then cameras in space, and then cameras in space that can see through walls.

Where exactly do you prepose this ends?

ScanIAm wrote:



phreaks wrote:  And eventually it will be gps devices on your car, and then cameras in space, and then cameras in space that can see through walls. Where exactly do you prepose this ends?

GPS devices do not broadcast.  Phones with gps devices might, but GPS is a receiver technology.  The space cameras already exist, but they've got less resolution than public cameras in public areas.

I've never heard of a camera that can see through walls in the visible spectrum.  Maybe infrared?

And, ultimately, why the hell can't they just get a warrant?  Depending on the warrant, they could legally videotape you in your house.  Even the FISA warrants could be obtained 72 hours AFTER the wiretapping was done.

phreaks wrote:



ScanIAm wrote:  phreaks wrote:  And eventually it will be gps devices on your car, and then cameras in space, and then cameras in space that can see through walls. Where exactly do you prepose this ends? GPS devices do not broadcast.  Phones with gps devices might, but GPS is a receiver technology.  The space cameras already exist, but they've got less resolution than public cameras in public areas. I've never heard of a camera that can see through walls in the visible spectrum.  Maybe infrared? And, ultimately, why the hell can't they just get a warrant?  Depending on the warrant, they could legally videotape you in your house.  Even the FISA warrants could be obtained 72 hours AFTER the wiretapping was done.

I'm not speaking in the context of warrants, if you're a suspect, and the officials have gone through the proper channels, then fine, pretty much anything goes.

You haven't heard of that camera today, but in 10 years you may.

As for the GPS, whatever, doesn't matter, the government can use it to track you're every move.

Isn't that being tossed around in the senate now? Installing cars with GPS transponders so the Government can keep track of how many miles you go, so they can tax you on it.

How about public cameras that can detect possible mental health issues? Or public cameras that can detect deviant thoughts?

Much like facial recognition cameras now, but modified to detect electrical signals that are recognized as mentally unsound?

You're in the public domain, so why should you expect privacy?

Isshou wrote:

Actually I was more talking about the hidden device under your hood that doesn't need on-star:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/10/24/blackbox031024.html

In-Car Black Box

USA TODAY: 30 million cars

Data recorded in a "car black box" is admissable evidence in court

EDN Article

Isn't limited to GM. As to OnStar, I was under the impression you had to initiate communication with the OnStar personel...

This world is filled with double-standards, that's life.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Do you agree that these 10 steps are happening in USA?

RoyalSchrubber wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: Do you agree that these 10 steps are happening in USA?

lol, categorically no.

SecretSoftware wrote:



RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Do you agree that these 10 steps are happening in USA? lol, categorically no.

Mrs Wolf, disagrees with you:


Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America [YouTube Video]

I guess, the "Experiment of Democrasy", codenamed, "The American Dream", is ending?


Hey its a dream, and you have be asleep to be in it. That what Bush wants you to be, a sleeping dreamer of the American Dream.

RoyalSchrubber wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Do you agree that these 10 steps are happening in USA? lol, categorically no. Mrs Wolf, disagrees with you: Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America [YouTube Video] I guess, the "Experiment of Democrasy", codenamed, "The American Dream", is ending? Hey its a dream, and you have be asleep to be in it. That what Bush wants you to be, a sleeping dreamer of the American Dream.

I'm sorry but I don't see US abolishing democracy anytime soon.

He's obviously doing it for money - if I don't succeed in IT, I might even consider career in this business of scaring people with conspiracy theories.  It sad thing you ppl buy it.

SecretSoftware wrote:



RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Do you agree that these 10 steps are happening in USA? lol, categorically no.

Mrs Wolf, disagrees with you:


Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America [YouTube Video]

I guess, the "Experiment of Democrasy", codenamed, "The American Dream", is ending?


Hey its a dream, and you have be asleep to be in it. That what Bush wants you to be, a sleeping dreamer of the American Dream.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Did you even see the video?

Apparently not, because its a SHE, and not a He.

RoyalSchrubber wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: Did you even see the video? Apparently not, because its a SHE, and not a He.

Typo, sorry. I make a lot of typos.

And, no I haven't watched 47mins video (yet), but I saw few videos of her and I roughly know what she is talking about (usual conspiracy theories material without any hard evidence or with faulty reasoning made in sensational fashion all in order to sell her products).

Dharma Punk wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Do you agree that these 10 steps are happening in USA? lol, categorically no. Mrs Wolf, disagrees with you: Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America [YouTube Video] I guess, the "Experiment of Democrasy", codenamed, "The American Dream", is ending? Hey its a dream, and you have be asleep to be in it. That what Bush wants you to be, a sleeping dreamer of the American Dream.

She's selling a book, right? Fear, mistrust, all those nice, sunshiny things are big sellers, right?

After all, what's a more compelling story: that everything is a-ok or that everything is going to hell in a handbasket?

That and you're too fixated on Bush. I heard somebody on the left side of the political spectrum basically say Liberals aren't opposed to American Empire, just opposed to Conservatives at the reins.

Take you a big ol' tube of gray paint and smear that on your canvas.

SecretSoftware wrote:



Dharma Punk wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote:  RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Do you agree that these 10 steps are happening in USA? lol, categorically no. Mrs Wolf, disagrees with you: Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America [YouTube Video] I guess, the "Experiment of Democrasy", codenamed, "The American Dream", is ending? Hey its a dream, and you have be asleep to be in it. That what Bush wants you to be, a sleeping dreamer of the American Dream. She's selling a book, right? Fear, mistrust, all those nice, sunshiny things are big sellers, right? After all, what's a more compelling story: that everything is a-ok or that everything is going to hell in a handbasket? That and you're too fixated on Bush. I heard somebody on the left side of the political spectrum basically say Liberals aren't opposed to American Empire, just opposed to Conservatives at the reins. Take you a big ol' tube of gray paint and smear that on your canvas.

Adolph Hitler was selling a book too, called "Mein Kampf" or My struggle, and it does not mean that Auschwitz did not happen.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Her telling the truth, does not mean she is lieing. Certainly , Abu Ghraib did happen.

Dharma Punk wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  Dharma Punk wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote:  RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Do you agree that these 10 steps are happening in USA? lol, categorically no. Mrs Wolf, disagrees with you: Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America [YouTube Video] I guess, the "Experiment of Democrasy", codenamed, "The American Dream", is ending? Hey its a dream, and you have be asleep to be in it. That what Bush wants you to be, a sleeping dreamer of the American Dream. She's selling a book, right? Fear, mistrust, all those nice, sunshiny things are big sellers, right? After all, what's a more compelling story: that everything is a-ok or that everything is going to hell in a handbasket? That and you're too fixated on Bush. I heard somebody on the left side of the political spectrum basically say Liberals aren't opposed to American Empire, just opposed to Conservatives at the reins. Take you a big ol' tube of gray paint and smear that on your canvas. Adolph Hitler was selling a book too, called "Mein Kampf" or My struggle, and it does not mean that Auschwitz did not happen.

So I can rule Naomi Wolf out now as a crackpot?

Dharma Punk wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: Her telling the truth, does not mean she is lieing. Certainly , Abu Ghraib did happen.

But how do you know she's telling the truth? Do you think that she has her own agenda?

SecretSoftware wrote:



Dharma Punk wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote:  Dharma Punk wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote:  RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Do you agree that these 10 steps are happening in USA? lol, categorically no. Mrs Wolf, disagrees with you: Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America [YouTube Video] I guess, the "Experiment of Democrasy", codenamed, "The American Dream", is ending? Hey its a dream, and you have be asleep to be in it. That what Bush wants you to be, a sleeping dreamer of the American Dream. She's selling a book, right? Fear, mistrust, all those nice, sunshiny things are big sellers, right? After all, what's a more compelling story: that everything is a-ok or that everything is going to hell in a handbasket? That and you're too fixated on Bush. I heard somebody on the left side of the political spectrum basically say Liberals aren't opposed to American Empire, just opposed to Conservatives at the reins. Take you a big ol' tube of gray paint and smear that on your canvas. Adolph Hitler was selling a book too, called "Mein Kampf" or My struggle, and it does not mean that Auschwitz did not happen. So I can rule Naomi Wolf out now as a crackpot?

No. She did not take over a democracy. Nor burned millions of people in concentration camps. Stop being dense.

SecretSoftware wrote:



Dharma Punk wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Her telling the truth, does not mean she is lieing. Certainly , Abu Ghraib did happen. But how do you know she's telling the truth? Do you think that she has her own agenda?

She is your average Joe

SecretSoftware wrote:

she is not running for any office.

SecretSoftware wrote:

She is your typical author who is blowing the whistles on what is going on in American Society and political system.

SecretSoftware wrote:



RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Did you even see the video? Apparently not, because its a SHE, and not a He. Typo, sorry. I make a lot of typos. And, no I haven't watched 47mins video (yet), but I saw few videos of her and I roughly know what she is talking about (usual conspiracy theories material without any hard evidence or with faulty reasoning made in sensational fashion all in order to sell her products).

You have not seen the video so how can you judge?

Every thing she says is backed up in evidence. Every ONE of them is backed up.

I guess you will not come to realize what happened to USA, unlessy your in a FEMA concentration camp, with dogs trained to sexually molest you, in accordance with their Alternative Interogation Techniques, or in a nutshell "torture interogation", for simply having a beared or if your skin color looks "brown", or if your name is of middle eastern desent.

or if bush just does not like you.

I like to compare it to Deja Vu effect - you are living your life absorbing literally billions pieces of information, but only 1 piece every 2-4 moths causes you a little Deja Vu and you think you did get it before while it's natural that some information will match previous information in your brain every now and then (it’s a lot of information there) and this is one such match.
See, anybody can easily accuse any government turning fascist - there are so many events in any country and you only have to choose which ones suit you and forget ones that don't - there are millions of events and there are some that might seem 'suspicious', but that doesn't mean your country is rotting.

Vatican did have affairs with some priests and they don't have mosque, meaning they don't support different religions - conspiracy theorist might conclude Vatican is turning fascist. It's not hard to make such premises and forget overwhelming counterevidence. In the end of story successful theorist gets $30k monthly salary because ppl don't think with their own head.

It's ok if you watch it for entertainment, but not if you absolutely believe everything they say. I am such guy and I enjoy watching such stuff, I even have tons of 'documentary films' on UFO theme - but that absolutely does not mean I believe what they say. Their evidence does not convince me and I am stuck there. You have to stay reserved because money is always likely reason for all such stories.

At the end - why don't you ask yourself - do Republicans really want dictatorship (they are supposedly villains), wouldn’t Democrats accuse them of it a long time ago if indices really existed, will would-be dictator Bush last after elections in 2008?

ScanIAm wrote:


That doesn't mean that the data they hold should be abused.  And it certainly doesn't mean that this data should be mined for new sales opportunities.  In the last week, I've had an issue with my cell phone, my mortgage company, and my insurance.  In each case, I've been asked to verify myself with a pin number.  I didn't recall ever giving these 3 separate companies a PIN, so the person on the other end of the phone offered "Well you can just give us the last 4 digits of your Social security number". 

What?  At what point did my SSN become a PIN number   And why did I have to give my SSN to these people in the first place? 

I'm not here to tell you what to do, but I spent about 20 mins yesterday writing my 2 senators and 1 representative about being unhappy about the 'free pass' the telcos (and, yes, the bush administration) are going to get.  I'd suggest that if it matters, you do the same.

RoyalSchrubber wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: Did you even see the video? Apparently not, because its a SHE, and not a He. Typo, sorry. I make a lot of typos. And, no I haven't watched 47mins video (yet), but I saw few videos of her and I roughly know what she is talking about (usual conspiracy theories material without any hard evidence or with faulty reasoning made in sensational fashion all in order to sell her products). You have not seen the video so how can you judge? Every thing she says is backed up in evidence. Every ONE of them is backed up. I guess you will not come to realize what happened to USA, unlessy your in a FEMA concentration camp, with dogs trained to sexually molest you, in accordance with their Alternative Interogation Techniques, or in a nutshell "torture interogation", for simply having a beared or if your skin color looks "brown", or if your name is of middle eastern desent. or if bush just does not like you.

Look, events usually are real (otherwise people could easily point at conspiracy theorist and say s/he  is a fraud), however logic inside it is little screwed.

I like to compare it to Deja Vu effect - you are living your life absorbing literally billions pieces of information, but only 1 piece every 2-4 moths causes you a little Deja Vu and you think you did get it before while it's natural that some information will match previous information in your brain every now and then (it’s a lot of information there) and this is one such match.
See, anybody can easily accuse any government turning fascist - there are so many events in any country and you only have to choose which ones suit you and forget ones that don't - there are millions of events and there are some that might seem 'suspicious', but that doesn't mean your country is rotting.

Vatican did have affairs with some priests and they don't have mosque, meaning they don't support different religions - conspiracy theorist might conclude Vatican is turning fascist. It's not hard to make such premises and forget overwhelming counterevidence. In the end of story successful theorist gets $30k monthly salary because ppl don't think with their own head.

It's ok if you watch it for entertainment, but not if you absolutely believe everything they say. I am such guy and I enjoy watching such stuff, I even have tons of 'documentary films' on UFO theme - but that absolutely does not mean I believe what they say. Their evidence does not convince me and I am stuck there. You have to stay reserved because money is always likely reason for all such stories.

At the end - why don't you ask yourself - do Republicans really want dictatorship (they are supposedly villains), wouldn’t Democrats accuse them of it a long time ago if indices really existed, will would-be dictator Bush last after elections in 2008?

phreaks wrote:



ScanIAm wrote:  That doesn't mean that the data they hold should be abused.  And it certainly doesn't mean that this data should be mined for new sales opportunities.  In the last week, I've had an issue with my cell phone, my mortgage company, and my insurance.  In each case, I've been asked to verify myself with a pin number.  I didn't recall ever giving these 3 separate companies a PIN, so the person on the other end of the phone offered "Well you can just give us the last 4 digits of your Social security number".  What?  At what point did my SSN become a PIN number   And why did I have to give my SSN to these people in the first place?  I'm not here to tell you what to do, but I spent about 20 mins yesterday writing my 2 senators and 1 representative about being unhappy about the 'free pass' the telcos (and, yes, the bush administration) are going to get.  I'd suggest that if it matters, you do the same.

Umm, I think you ought to research the Real ID Act of 2008 scheduled to take effect December 01, 2009.

Everyone that extends you some type of credit will have your Social Security number.

Your senators / reps aren't going to care as they likely voted for the bill this act was attached to.

Your papers for verification please.

Oh yeah, and some senators want to extend access to this database to mexico and Canada.  The original act explicitly granted Mexico access.

http://realnightmare.org/

http://no2realid.org/

ScanIAm wrote:

It doesn't look like REAL ID is going to be with us much longer.  It also isn't a national ID card, either.

phreaks wrote:



ScanIAm wrote: It doesn't look like REAL ID is going to be with us much longer.  It also isn't a national ID card, either.

Yeah! Death to Real ID!

It was only "Not" a National ID card, if you're naive and argue in semantics.

The Link wrote:

Is this a National ID card?

No. The proposed regulations establish common standards for States to issue licenses. The Federal Government is not issuing the licenses, is not collecting information about license holders, and is not requiring States to transmit license holder information to the Federal Government that the Government does not already have (such as a Social Security Number). Most States already routinely collect the information required by the Act and the proposed regulations.

AP wrote:

 WASHINGTON (AP) - A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act.

Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.

The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071111/D8SRJ1DO0.html

AP wrote:

 WASHINGTON (AP) - A top intelligence official says it is time people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguards people's private communications and financial information.

Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act.

Lawmakers hastily changed the 1978 law last summer to allow the government to eavesdrop inside the United States without court permission, so long as one end of the conversation was reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S.

The original law required a court order for any surveillance conducted on U.S. soil, to protect Americans' privacy. The White House argued that the law was obstructing intelligence gathering.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071111/D8SRJ1DO0.html

SecretSoftware wrote:

You see, the USA is bankrupt. 

RoyalSchrubber wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: You see, the USA is bankrupt.

Then how can they afford war in two countries that costs several billions each year? Thinking helps.

SecretSoftware wrote:



RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: You see, the USA is bankrupt.  Then how can they afford war in two countries that costs several billions each year? Thinking helps.

They are borrowing money from the World Bank, and other lender Governments, like the Chinese, Russians, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc..


Look at the borrowed money each year, Its more than 2 T.

Thinking Helps

RoyalSchrubber wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: You see, the USA is bankrupt.  Then how can they afford war in two countries that costs several billions each year? Thinking helps. They are borrowing money from the World Bank, and other lender Governments, like the Chinese, Russians, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.. Look at the borrowed money each year, Its more than 2 T. Thinking Helps

USA got the biggest absolute debt, however some (European) countries got much higher external debt per capita than USA - this way Germany got 1.4x, France 1.6x and UK 4.1x more debt. So are you saying EU is also about to collapse?? 

SecretSoftware wrote:



RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote:  RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: You see, the USA is bankrupt.  Then how can they afford war in two countries that costs several billions each year? Thinking helps. They are borrowing money from the World Bank, and other lender Governments, like the Chinese, Russians, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.. Look at the borrowed money each year, Its more than 2 T. Thinking Helps USA got the biggest absolute debt, however some (European) countries got much higher external debt per capita than USA - this way Germany got 1.4x, France 1.6x and UK 4.1x more debt. So are you saying EU is also about to collapse??

The Dollar is the currency of the USA. It is collapsing, hence the republic is collapsing. But the Euro is strong, and so the shift will be in favor of EU.

See this YouTube Video: The soon coming collapse of America into an economically depressed, high-powered police state won't take down the rest of the world - not economically, not militarily.

RoyalSchrubber wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote:  RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: You see, the USA is bankrupt.  Then how can they afford war in two countries that costs several billions each year? Thinking helps. They are borrowing money from the World Bank, and other lender Governments, like the Chinese, Russians, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.. Look at the borrowed money each year, Its more than 2 T. Thinking Helps USA got the biggest absolute debt, however some (European) countries got much higher external debt per capita than USA - this way Germany got 1.4x, France 1.6x and UK 4.1x more debt. So are you saying EU is also about to collapse??  The Dollar is the currency of the USA. It is collapsing, hence the republic is collapsing. But the Euro is strong, and so the shift will be in favor of EU. See this YouTube Video: The soon coming collapse of America into an economically depressed, high-powered police state won't take down the rest of the world - not economically, not militarily.

Ahem, Dollar don't have so much higher inflation than Euro (2.5% and 2.1%) while Kuwaiti Dinar has 3% and Russian Ruble 7% inflation - so I guess they are doing better than these two countries even if they are momentarily doing little worse than some other countries.

SecretSoftware wrote:

You see, the USA is bankrupt.

SecretSoftware wrote:

The only way to keep the law, in a bankrupted country, is to implement what Pres. Pervez Musharaf did, in the USA. He will declare the constitution suspended, and he will implement  Martial law, in order to keep the peace.

SecretSoftware wrote:

But with a bankrupted Republic, peace will break , because people have to live.

SecretSoftware wrote:

One of the main reasons for war on Iraq, was because Saddam dumped the Dollar, and that meant no one can buy Iraqi oil using US dollars. The US executed Saddam to protect its dollar.

It called upon world states to follow the suit, and accused the United States, in collaboration with the Zionist (Israel), of designing policies "to harm the world people and jeopardize their independence."

Care to supply even an ounce of non-anicdotal (ie not a YouTube video, but something from a credibile source) to back up this fantastical claim? And no... ratical.org does not count for such a source.

Seriously though... we've got... Iraq dumping the dollar, oil, Bush-43's enjoyment, lies, "his and cheney's offshore bank accounts" as some of the main reasons for the Iraq war according to you and folks of a similar mind set... am I missing anything?

SecretSoftware wrote:

That is why Bush is threatening World War 3.

Lets just be clear... you are claiming that he is threatening WW3 for doing nothing but predicting that someone will make good on their word if they are given the chance?

CannotResolveSymbol wrote:



RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote:  RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote:  RoyalSchrubber wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: You see, the USA is bankrupt.  Then how can they afford war in two countries that costs several billions each year? Thinking helps. They are borrowing money from the World Bank, and other lender Governments, like the Chinese, Russians, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.. Look at the borrowed money each year, Its more than 2 T. Thinking Helps USA got the biggest absolute debt, however some (European) countries got much higher external debt per capita than USA - this way Germany got 1.4x, France 1.6x and UK 4.1x more debt. So are you saying EU is also about to collapse??  The Dollar is the currency of the USA. It is collapsing, hence the republic is collapsing. But the Euro is strong, and so the shift will be in favor of EU. See this YouTube Video: The soon coming collapse of America into an economically depressed, high-powered police state won't take down the rest of the world - not economically, not militarily. Ahem, Dollar don't have so much higher inflation than Euro (2.5% and 2.1%) while Kuwaiti Dinar has 3% and Russian Ruble 7% inflation - so I guess they are doing better than these two countries even if they are momentarily doing little worse than some other countries.

But a supermodel thinks that the dollar's dying!  It must be true!  (watch the first video SecretSoftware linked dealing with the USA being bankrupt)

dahat wrote:

As always your anti-American rhetoric is so passionate... and so misinformed.

SecretSoftware wrote: You see, the USA is bankrupt.

I'm sorry but I couldn't find a video on YouTube that explains the difference between being bankrupt and having a deficit.

FYI: We have a deficit, we are spending (largely due to two wars)more money than we are taking in (despite higher tax receipts due to tax cuts)... if we hit the day that we cannot pay our bills... then maybe you can say that the us is bankrupt... until then do get your terms right.

SecretSoftware wrote: The only way to keep the law, in a bankrupted country, is to implement what Pres. Pervez Musharaf did, in the USA. He will declare the constitution suspended, and he will implement  Martial law, in order to keep the peace.

Do tell us though... what is going to happen if on January 20th, 2009 a new President is sworn in and the outgoing President Bush never declared martial law or any of the other fantastical things you say he's going to do... will you apologize to us for wasting our time and admit that maybe... just maybe you were wrong all along?

SecretSoftware wrote: But with a bankrupted Republic, peace will break , because people have to live.

Far from it. In a system based on a fiat currency model with a weak value it just means that imported goods cost more.

SecretSoftware wrote: One of the main reasons for war on Iraq, was because Saddam dumped the Dollar, and that meant no one can buy Iraqi oil using US dollars. The US executed Saddam to protect its dollar.

So... his missing WMDs were... the US dollar? Something they gave up back in 2000 where it was said:

It called upon world states to follow the suit, and accused the United States, in collaboration with the Zionist (Israel), of designing policies "to harm the world people and jeopardize their independence."

Care to supply even an ounce of non-anicdotal (ie not a YouTube video, but something from a credibile source) to back up this fantastical claim? And no... ratical.org does not count for such a source.

Seriously though... we've got... Iraq dumping the dollar, oil, Bush-43's enjoyment, lies, "his and cheney's offshore bank accounts" as some of the main reasons for the Iraq war according to you and folks of a similar mind set... am I missing anything?

SecretSoftware wrote: That is why Bush is threatening World War 3.

He did? And here I thought he was making the assumption that if Iran is successful in building an atomic weapon... that it will be used, either by them or by one of their surrogates on Israel (ie making good on their threats), an act that would demand a response... not just from the United States but from a large portion of the free world.

Lets just be clear... you are claiming that he is threatening WW3 for doing nothing but predicting that someone will make good on their word if they are given the chance?

SecretSoftware wrote:

I pity you. Because your blind.

Do your research.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I am incapable of engaging in an intelligent discussion without pointing to YouTube or other similarly weak evidence and rather than spending the time to prove what I say when challenged... I'll simply resort to ad-holmium attacks instead.

SecretSoftware wrote:

And I don't say this because I am Anti-American, I am pro-American, I am simply Anti-Republican, and Anti-Bush Policies.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Why? Because they are bad for USA.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Lastly, About Iran, Please listen to Scott Ritter, the Ex-Iraqi weapons inspector, and his view on what would happen if USA nukes Iran.

phreaks wrote:

Look, I don't want to feed the troll, and admittedly his logic and claims are super far-fetched, but there is something to be said about the state of the US budget.

Not that it has anything to do with anything that SecretSoftware is talking about, but is it possible the economic integrity of the USA is at risk? I think it is a reasonable position to have.


9 Trillion dollars of Federal debt is ALOT of debt. Especially when you consider it is almost 4 Trillion dollars higher today than it was just 3 years ago.

The US keeps borrowing more money and this number keeps growing, yet we keep giving money away to other nations and causes, does this make economic sense? <rhetorical/>

The value of the dollar is very weak and really it means alot more than the simple statement of 'imports will cost more'.

As debt-backed security troubles continue to plague large financial institutions like CITI, Bank of America and Chase; you'll see investors moving more assets into Emerging Markets and other foreign investments; which will perpetuate the further decline of the dollar and certainly won't help the stock value and American Indexes.

To put it loosely, there are a number of complicated issues surrounding the state of the American economy right now, and none of it looks good to me.

** The views and opinions expressed in this post are mine and mine alone and in no way reflect or are endorsed by my employer or any of it's affiliates or subsidiaries.

SecretSoftware wrote:


The state of the US economy is similar to the state of the former USSR economy before it disintegrated into separate states, because it was economically more sound to break off the Union.

The USA, under the leadership of Bush, is stepping in the same footsteps of Former USSR, and I am afraid that this will lead to states breaking off from the Union, and declaring independence in the same way states in the former USSR did.

SecretSoftware wrote:

   ... stuff ...

dahat wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: I pity you. Because your blind. Do your research.

Yet again you say that but really mean:
 

SecretSoftware wrote: I am incapable of engaging in an intelligent discussion without pointing to YouTube or other similarly weak evidence and rather than spending the time to prove what I say when challenged... I'll simply resort to ad-holmium attacks instead.

Bravo!

I've seriously lost count of how many times you've played that card.

SecretSoftware wrote: And I don't say this because I am Anti-American, I am pro-American, I am simply Anti-Republican, and Anti-Bush Policies.

Bull, and it's pretty clear to everyone here that that is not the case. You hate this country and dang near everything it stands for.

You cannot be pro-American and also be pro-terrorist as they are I am afraid... mutually exclusive.

Now being anti-Republican is possible... however you go beyond that, you go the point of blind hatred of anything remotely resembling Republicanism or related to it (or even following the orders of a certain one (ie the military)) and instead of rationally discussing the issues, you go on these wild tangents, vilifying those you disagree by spouting baseless assertions and using ad-holmium attacks... rather than dealing with real and concrete (and reputable) facts.

It's a very predicable pattern you've got there.

You can deny it all you want, however your posts here say otherwise... or do you really want me to break out some of your more telling quotes?

SecretSoftware wrote: Why? Because they are bad for USA.

So... every single Republican is bad for the USA? Wow... I honestly can't say there is a single group with such numbers that I would paint with such an absolute brush with regards to their badness towards... any country.

Or is it every single Bush policy is bad for America... again... that's a pretty broad brush to paint with.

SecretSoftware wrote: Lastly, About Iran, Please listen to Scott Ritter, the Ex-Iraqi weapons inspector, and his view on what would happen if USA nukes Iran.

Again you try to put words in my mouth, another tactic you often attempt to use when you are slipping when faced with my factual arguments.

At no time did I discuss or even hint at the US nuking Iran... if Iran or one of its surrogates were to detonate a nuclear device in Israel... the Israelis would be the ones nuking Iran, not the US.

CannotResolveSymbol wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote:  The state of the US economy is similar to the state of the former USSR economy before it disintegrated into separate states, because it was economically more sound to break off the Union. The USA, under the leadership of Bush, is stepping in the same footsteps of Former USSR, and I am afraid that this will lead to states breaking off from the Union, and declaring independence in the same way states in the former USSR did.

Well, aside from that little communism bit...  bad analogy.

SecretSoftware wrote:

OK. Because your putting words and associating it with my name,

SecretSoftware wrote:

I submit to you that 911 was an inside job carried by the US Government on its own citizens, just like the attack on USS Liberty was allowed to happen by the Pentagon.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I will not reply to any of your future points.

SecretSoftware wrote:

You have lost credibility.

SecretSoftware wrote:

You can think that I hate USA, but the fact of the matter is that I do not hate USA. You are free to think what ever you want. Its a free country.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Its important to make a distinction between USA, the country, and Bush's America. I don't like Bush's vision for America. I liked Bill Clinton's vision for America.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Secondly, I believe that The US, and all those who ganged up with her "Coalition of the willing", are going to be in the same back to back chapter in the history books with N4Z1 Germany, in the block called "History dumpster". This is so, because of the value system of the USA.

SecretSoftware wrote:

Again, your opinion about my opinions about the state of political affairs in the USA under Bush's leadership, are yours to make, and they are not that important.

SecretSoftware wrote:

That said, This will be the last reply between me and you.

SecretSoftware wrote:

This is your final warning on this matter, and There will be no further discussion between me and you from now on.

SecretSoftware wrote:

This YT Video Is interesting.

Also this one.

Besides... this one is far better and more relevant... or if you prefer... a remix.

dahat wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: This YT Video Is interesting. Also this one.

Is there any point to your random spamming?

Besides... this one is far better and more relevant... or if you prefer... a remix.

Dharma Punk wrote:



dahat wrote:  SecretSoftware wrote: This YT Video Is interesting. Also this one. Is there any point to your random spamming? Besides... this one is far better and more relevant... or if you prefer... a remix.

I love Stuck Mojo!!

Dharma Punk wrote:

I love Stuck Mojo!!

SecretSoftware wrote:

What is the point of spreading propaganda to defame Islam?

SecretSoftware wrote:

I mean we are talking politics of USA here not Religion.

SecretSoftware wrote:

But from the person who does not know if he/she is living in a democrasy, I would say, shame ... shame.

dahat wrote:



SecretSoftware wrote: What is the point of spreading propaganda to defame Islam?

 
Once again... you brought religion into this thread.

Care to point out the EXACT defamation that you think is occurring? ie specific lines/phrases in my comments, those of Dharma or what I linked to?

If not... it does go a long way to prove the baselessness of much of what you say here.

SecretSoftware wrote: I mean we are talking politics of USA here not Religion.

The first video is a response to terrorists. Period.

The second is in response to a group of terrorist enablers. Period.

SecretSoftware wrote: But from the person who does not know if he/she is living in a democrasy, I would say, shame ... shame.

You'll have to be more specific.

SecretSoftware wrote:

I will not reply to any of your future points.

...

That said, This will be the last reply between me and you.

SecretSoftware wrote:

What does that have to do with the subject matter of this thread?

SecretSoftware wrote:

What does Islam have to do with Terrorists?

Red5 wrote:

If they don't crack down on terrorist acts, they are the first to blame when another skyscraper is knocked down in the name of Islam. "You didn't do enough to prevent this from happening!"

MikeeeG wrote:

I think you may be right. But, it still remains a close attenuation towards balance. If you think about it, Islamists more closely resemble communism albeit in a religious sort of way. Under the circumstances, it is best to be aware of the social climate "globally" and be prepared to make some sacrifices.
In countries that have extreme islamic law -"Sharia law" , would you be better of there or here? I prefer to have someone or some laws be stricter to protect , to a point, to weed out the extreme attitude of the few.

SecretSoftware wrote:

And how does that argue against the subject matter of this thread?

SecretSoftware wrote:

Also, will defaming Islam going to save the dollar?

SecretSoftware wrote:

Feel free to go into technical details.

dahat wrote:



Wow... that was quick. At 7:35 you said:

SecretSoftware wrote: I will not reply to any of your future points. ... That said, This will be the last reply between me and you.

And here now at 11:26 you are replying. Couldn't even make it 4 hours eh?

Now then...

SecretSoftware wrote: What does that have to do with the subject matter of this thread?

Just the same as your comment here... random YouTube videos.

SecretSoftware wrote: What does Islam have to do with Terrorists?

Do you really want to ask me that question? Really? Are you sure? Bad news... I'm not going to answer you here... why? Because I've already made that rather lengthy (and eliquant if I do say so) post that answers that question... back in December.

Like then...I will remind you that this is the second time you've brought Islam into this thread, not me. In fact it was used twice earlier (1)(2) by people other than me:

Red5 wrote: If they don't crack down on terrorist acts, they are the first to blame when another skyscraper is knocked down in the name of Islam. "You didn't do enough to prevent this from happening!"

MikeeeG wrote: I think you may be right. But, it still remains a close attenuation towards balance. If you think about it, Islamists more closely resemble communism albeit in a religious sort of way. Under the circumstances, it is best to be aware of the social climate "globally" and be prepared to make some sacrifices. In countries that have extreme islamic law -"Sharia law" , would you be better of there or here? I prefer to have someone or some laws be stricter to protect , to a point, to weed out the extreme attitude of the few.

So as far as I can tell I haven't mentioned it in except in direct response to your use of it... and yet you let those two earlier and overt references go unchallenged... and yet you think I'm hinting at something and you become offended?

Interesting selective moral outrage you've got there.

SecretSoftware wrote: And how does that argue against the subject matter of this thread?

You tell me, you brought Islam into it... or at least this portion of it.

SecretSoftware wrote: Also, will defaming Islam going to save the dollar?

Your words, not mine.

SecretSoftware wrote: Feel free to go into technical details.

I'm going to hold off... because if I do you'll accuse me of defaming Islam again.

Once again I support my assertions and point to demonstrable, quality sources and you... hurl insults, put words into my mouth and try to change the subject.

Pretty normal on both sides really.

But I just want you to know, in case you did not know, that that video, had cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, that depicted him in deragatory way.

SecretSoftware wrote:

1) You attacked my religion. Could not resist.

SecretSoftware wrote:

2) I did not bring islam into it.

SecretSoftware wrote:

But I just want you to know, in case you did not know, that that video, had cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed, that depicted him in deragatory way.

Its interesting though that you equated the weak dollar to defaming Islam... because it was people acting in the name of Islam (or defaming it if you will) who caused the events (9/11 and others) which lead to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq... the two principal reasons for the deficit this country is currently running which has lead to the weakness in the dollar.

So the argument could actually be made (thanks for bringing the subjects into play) that it was internal defamation of Islam that has lead to the weak dollar... if only more defamation (internal or external) was a solution as it would be so much easier than total victory. But alas, victory on the battlefield and political, social and economic stability in the region is the only fix... short of massive expansionism... which we aren't going to see.

That being said... you really need to work on your selective moral outrage as simply linking to content where a minor part of it can be perceived as a slight against Islam does not mean that the entire content is so... at least according to fair and impartial minds because as you've demonstrated so many times here... running around and screaming about perceived slights against Islam gets you nowhere but thought of even more poorly and less credibly.

And now... to do what you've shown yourself incapable of and given the hole you've now dug yourself into (my favorite pose of yours), I'm done posting in (just) this thread and will let you continue to try to change the subject, rant about what ever you'd like and continue to overall embarrass yourself here this evening.

phreaks wrote:

9 Trillion dollars of Federal debt is ALOT of debt. Especially when you consider it is almost 4 Trillion dollars higher today than it was just 3 years ago.

phreaks wrote:

The US keeps borrowing more money and this number keeps growing, yet we keep giving money away to other nations and causes, does this make economic sense? <rhetorical/>

phreaks wrote:

The value of the dollar is very weak and really it means alot more than the simple statement of 'imports will cost more'.

phreaks wrote:

As debt-backed security troubles continue to plague large financial institutions like CITI, Bank of America and Chase; you'll see investors moving more assets into Emerging Markets and other foreign investments; which will perpetuate the further decline of the dollar and certainly won't help the stock value and American Indexes.

dahat wrote:

SecretSoftware wrote: That is why Bush is threatening World War 3.

He did? And here I thought he was making the assumption that if Iran is successful in building an atomic weapon... that it will be used, either by them or by one of their surrogates on Israel (ie making good on their threats), an act that would demand a response... not just from the United States but from a large portion of the free world.

Lets just be clear... you are claiming that he is threatening WW3 for doing nothing but predicting that someone will make good on their word if they are given the chance?

ScanIAm wrote:



phreaks wrote: 9 Trillion dollars of Federal debt is ALOT of debt. Especially when you consider it is almost 4 Trillion dollars higher today than it was just 3 years ago.

It's also a pretty meaningless number out of context.  There isn't a collection agency that can call us up and demand repayment. 

China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales