Coffeehouse Thread

201 posts

Police State - It's Coming?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    phreaks

    Why do I believe this isn't where it will end...

    Look at the history of any legislation, why would this one be any different from the hundreds of thousands passed historically?

    Gun laws originated from the days of separatism and were enacted solely to deny non-white citizens the right to bear arms.

    Same thing with drug laws, they were initially only meant to make it illegal for 'non-civilized' races (AKA any race that isn't white) from consuming drugs.

    Look at how 'privacy' has been eroding over the past 15 years, there is a trend, and assuming it will stop here is naive, IMHO.


    Now, on to the issue of privacy itself and what are you're 'rights' as a citizen.

    Ever heard of Chief Justice Louis Brandeis, the guy Brandeis University was named after? He once said something to the effect of, "Man has the right to be left alone, it is implicitly guaranteed by the 4th amendment". I forget the exact quote, but it was something very close to that.

    Take a read of Katz v. United States

    You are all aware of the "Open Fields Doctrine and the Expectation of Privacy", right?

    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."



    The challenge here is that the clause defines the privacy in the form of societies reasonable expectation of privacy, which has greatly changed over the decades. What was once reasonably expected to be private, may not now.

    That is part of the problem and illustrates the point, the entire notion of privacy is erroding, and if it continues, there will be no such expectation of privacy anywhere.

    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.

  • User profile image
    prndll

    I find it rather interesting that only one aspect of this is ever discussed. Having state run cameras everywhere is no differant from the powers/capabilities of the NSA. When people talk about the NSA, wiretapping is all that's ever discussed. When people talk about cameras, "big brother" is all that is ever discussed. The truth is that it's all the same thing. How many people have stopped to consider all the ways that we ALL show the leaders of the world that the masses want this kind of thing. Yet, when things like this happen, people complain. Yes, we are being watched and listened to. People want to complain about it but never want to make the decisions that keep these things from happening. Too many people actually want all this. These cameras and NSA issues are no differant from what actually takes place on Myspace.com or what actually happens as a result of using legit Microsoft or Apple products and software. There are so many ways we all actually demand to be watched and very few people seem to even care. There are those things that are beyond one persons control, such as what one company does to do their own financial reports. But then, when every company is forced by federal mandate to use software that basicly puts personal and private data in places that can be so easily abused...only sometimes do some companies get attention when something breaks (like Radio Shack). How many red light cameras have you driven through as they watch you make a complete stop before turning right (legal in some states)? How many times have you freely given various pieces of personal data to the auto parts store for something? How much of your life is being watched just by your use of Myspace? How much of your life is being watched by your ISP or cable tv provider? How many of your phone numbers have been varified as legit and working numbers simply because it's part of the "Do Not Call List"? How much of your life does Microsoft see and know becuase of your use of Windows and all manner of Microsoft products that all kinds of companies use when they ask for your social security numbers? Even though that number was never intended to be used for any form of identification. How many people are completely willing to allow companies to watch/track online movement due to simply not cleaning out cookies and history files? How much of your life is being watched by Sony due to the purchase and registration of their products? How much of your life is being watched because of the record keeping practices of furniture stores, grocery stores, and hospitals? You have to know that the federal government has regulations in place for tapping into those particular repositories. Especially when it comes to health records in hospitals. None of this is even to mention how we are being watched, listened in on, and followed by the devices in our cars. There are many more examples of this all over the place.

    So, if your going to get upset of Big Brother and his cameras, just take a good hard look at the bigger picture here.

    We are doing so much of this to ourselves in the choices we make every day. The things we agree to do and the things we are so ready to buy and use.

    Yes we are being watched. It's not just in the US or the UK. This is happening all over the world in every civilized nation.

  • User profile image
    pepper

    I wonder if now would be a good time to buy stock in surveillance equipment companies?

  • User profile image
    Dharma Punk

    I take it no one here is familiar with David Brin's The Transparent Society?

    If not, the basic premise is that yes, it is a little scary to see all these cameras in public or databases collecting every tidbit they can on shoppers or pizza customers or whoever. The best thing, though, is for folks to demand access to that information so that we can watch the watchers.

    Here's a rundown by the author to get you started.

    Here's a sample chapter.

    And here's four reviews:

    * Wired

    * Business Week

    * Technology and Society

    * Future Salon

  • User profile image
    lubian

    Hi phreaks,
    for most part I agree with you about our "stolen" privacy and I'm concerned as much as you are. On the other hand I must say that video monitoring does help to deter the crime or, in some cases, tracking down the criminals, specially in some "sensitive" neighborhoods.
    The questions would be how much privacy are we ready to give up in exchange of "safety"? And do we really have a choice other than blogging about it? Perhaps all users who replied to this post might have been already located by ip addess. Can we really do anything about it?

    Home surveillance cameras? I'm not really bothered by other people's cameras around their own homes. But been watched by "the big brother"...that scaries me. State of Police coming? I don't think we have to wait for any longer.

    Your political/laws statements fly above my head so I stay out of any comment, but i think I got your point though.

    If you have any ideas on how we can/should get our privacy back, please share it with us. Thanks!

    Lubian

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    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.



    On the other hand, annoying the crap out of your representatives over something as stupid as what rush limbaugh thinks is a good way to abuse your relationship with your representative.  Yes, they do 'work for you', but they also work for me, and people who monopolize their time over trivial matters are the main reason that I get ignored.

    I'm not implying that you, personally, do this, but much of the recent 'outrage' over newspaper ads and radio talk-show hosts big mouths has a lot to do with nothing.  It's a distraction from the real issues and a way to avoid facing real problems.

    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.

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    TimP wrote:
    And security cameras have what to do with exchange rates?


    Crime comes from having a sh!tty economy. Up here in B.C. crime is dropping and at the same time our economy is flourishing(almost too much, have labour shortages now). They are connected.

  • User profile image
    SaraJo

    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?


    my right to pee without people watching.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    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.

    Agreed, but there is no explicit "right to privacy" ever mentioned.
    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.

    Your privacy in a phone booth or taxi extend to a conversation that you might have in either the phone booth or the taxi.  If I can see that you are inside either object, then your visual privacy doesn't exist and there is NO precedent on that.  You cannot enter either one and commit a crime under the idea that someone seeing you do this would violate the 4th amendment.
    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.

    No, they aren't.  If I walk by your house and I see you commit a crime in your front yard, you are not protected by the 4th.  Same goes if I see you commit a crime through the window.  If you don't have the curtains closed, and I can see through, then you are out of luck.
    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.

    In fact, in both cases, you are behind 'closed doors' so they aren't actually 'public'.  The problem is, they also have windows.

  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    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.[A]

    Its 1984, and George Orwell was correct.



    My 2 cents.

  • User profile image
    Royal​Schrubber

    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.


    I saw you had last reply for this topic in coffeehouse topic list, I imagined how it would look like, opened darn thread and my expectations came true.

    Coincidence?




    (No.  I'm a psychic...)

  • User profile image
    Dharma Punk

    You're all wrong. See, the military industrial complex is conducting secret genetic experiments right now as we speak. They want to combine the healing powers of a salamander with the ferocity of twelve tigers and the venom of a king cobra.

    They'll release these chimeras on the citizenry, killing anyone who stands in their way and crushing the human spirit.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    RoyalSchrubber wrote:
    

    (No.  I'm a psychic...)


    No, you're a mind-reading Reptilian! Get him!

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

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

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

    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.

    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.

  • User profile image
    phreaks

    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).

    Do you think that infringes on the 4th amendment or on the expectation of privacy as defined in Katz v. USA?

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

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    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?

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

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

    One more thing, there is no "group consensus". There is a multitude of opinions.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.