Big Brother is watching. Is that OK with you?

[Dittohead not!]

Here's an example:

[h=1]New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online[/h]

A New York woman says her family's interest in the purchase of pressure cookers and backpacks led to a home visit by six police investigators demanding information about her job, her husband's ancestry and the preparation of quinoa.

At least they didn't break down the door and shoot the dogs.
Is this sort of thing OK with you, or does it represent an over extension of government surveillance of citizens? What do you think?

 

[WCH]

Here's an example:

[h=1]New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online[/h]


At least they didn't break down the door and shoot the dogs.
Is this sort of thing OK with you, or does it represent an over extension of government surveillance of citizens? What do you think?

This is how the FedGov caught all those (54) plots against this country [while monitoring EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US!]

It's worth it, right?

 

[shrubnose]

Here's an example:

[h=1]New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online[/h]


At least they didn't break down the door and shoot the dogs.

Is this sort of thing OK with you, or does it represent an over extension of government surveillance of citizens? What do you think?[

/QUOTE]




This wasn't OK with me in the past, it isn't OK with me now, and it will never be OK with me.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Here's an example:

[h=1]New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online[/h]


At least they didn't break down the door and shoot the dogs.
Is this sort of thing OK with you, or does it represent an over extension of government surveillance of citizens? What do you think?

I can't quite make sense out of that - it seems that their former employer saw the searches, and reported that to the police.

The police didn't tap into some government-run spy-agency or something on their own accord . . . and then follow up on some random thing that came their way.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I can't quite make sense out of that - it seems that their former employer saw the searches, and reported that to the police.

The police didn't tap into some government-run spy-agency or something on their own accord . . . and then follow up on some random thing that came their way.

Apparently not.

But, they're working on it.

 

[Goshin]

I'm against it.

SCOTUS has long ago ruled there is an "implied right to privacy" in the Constitution, not to mention the EXPLICIT language of the 4th Amendment about being secure in one's person and papers against unlawful search and seizure... so absent a legitimate warrant I'm against mass-applied gov't spying on its own citizens.

Even if it increases our risk of terrorism.... freedom is NOT risk-free.

 

[iacardsfan]

This is awful. I'm not trying to be that guy, but this could have been avoided. Republicans and Democrats are all the same. Elect somebody that actually knows the Constitution and I guarantee this doesn't happen.

 

[Manc Skipper]

I'm cool with it, but then I'm big brother.

 

[Morality Games]

Here's an example:

New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online




At least they didn't break down the door and shoot the dogs.
Is this sort of thing OK with you, or does it represent an over extension of government surveillance of citizens? What do you think?

Americans are only sensitive to imagined slights from our political opponents. Police state antics are nothing to blink an eye at.

 

[jamesrage]

Here's an example:

[h=1]New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online[/h]


At least they didn't break down the door and shoot the dogs.
Is this sort of thing OK with you, or does it represent an over extension of government surveillance of citizens? What do you think?

I am against it. This is a waste of tax payer dollars and the government has no business spying on the people.Please the 4th amendment bans searches without a warrant.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I am against it. This is a waste of tax payer dollars and the government has no business spying on the people.Please the 4th amendment bans searches without a warrant.

Yes, it does.
And the fifth prohibits taking of life, liberty, or property without due process.

The problem is, some Americans don't seem to believe that those amendments, written as they were back in the 18th. Century, pertain to 21st. century America.

 

[shrubnose]

This is awful. I'm not trying to be that guy, but this could have been avoided. Republicans and Democrats are all the same.

Elect somebody that actually knows the Constitution and I guarantee this doesn't happen.

I agree that knowing what the Constitution says is a good start, but that person also needs to know what it means and be prepared to enforce and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[iacardsfan]

I agree that knowing what the Constitution says is a good start, but that person also needs to know what it means and be prepared to enforce and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Good thing we were defended from that woman's cooking. I bet her husband is thrilled.

 

[shrubnose]

Here's an example:

[h=1]New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online[/h]

At least they didn't break down the door and shoot the dogs.

Is this sort of thing OK with you, or does it represent an over extension of government surveillance of citizens? What do you think?

I went back to the link and read everything there a little more carefully. Now I am more upset about this outrageous spying than I was before.

 

[Fiddytree]

Apparently not.

But, they're working on it.

As far as I was aware, they (the NSA) are tapping into the raw bits and saving it. Then when the time comes to prosecute or go after the individual, they retrace the bits to connect the dots more clearly. Not to diminish the concern here, because as far as I believe, this is a very worrying feat for government and technology, but we are not quite *there yet* to reach "pre-crime."

 

[SMTA]

Here's an example:

[h=1]New York woman visited by police after researching pressure cookers online[/h]


At least they didn't break down the door and shoot the dogs.
Is this sort of thing OK with you, or does it represent an over extension of government surveillance of citizens? What do you think?

Never, but never, acceptable for any reason.

 

[Utility Man]

 

[tessaesque]

Apparently, if you google "pressure cooker" you can be flagged. A lot of people own weapons of mass destruction, based upon the charges in the Boston bombing...

 

[Dittohead not!]

Apparently, if you google "pressure cooker" you can be flagged. A lot of people own weapons of mass destruction, based upon the charges in the Boston bombing...

and some people use them to cook quinoa.