Driving somewhere? There's a gov't record of that

[Henrin]

Joko...I posted a thread apology for hitting Henrin for that comment in this thread....and I sent him a PM making another apology for bringing up the issue in really what is an inappropriate thread. He didn't respond so....??? I tried to be a gentleman about it. Oh well. :roll:

I really did think that he support the issue. Apparently I was wrong. But again, this was not the forum to hit him with my comment.

I honestly don't respond to PMs all that often and when I do it's because it's a continuation of a conversion I was already in. I accept your apology, but it's not really needed. In my eyes you really didn't do anything wrong by pointing out a inconsistency in views that you thought I had. In fact, I welcome people pointing out such things even if they are wrong about my views.

 

[Removable Mind]

I honestly don't respond to PMs all that often and when I do it's because it's a continuation of a conversion I was already in. I accept your apology, but it's not really needed. In my eyes you really didn't do anything wrong by pointing out a inconsistency in views that you thought I had. In fact, I welcome people pointing out such things even if they are wrong about my views.

I see...well my apology was as much for me as it was for you. I do try to keep my side of the street clean when possible even though I know, and don't expect other folks to do the same.

But thanks...

 

[Henrin]

I don't really think that's the case here. I've seen most people on this thread at least arguing that if you have something to hide, then you shouldn't be doing it in public. It's not like the NSA and cell phones. Unless you're in a public place you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when talking on your phone. Even though it wouldn't affect me because I don't have something to hide, it still isn't justified because I could reasonably expect privacy there. On the other hand I shouldn't have an expectation of privacy when I drive around in public.

Again, why are people arguing that it's fine for the government to spy and gather information on American citizens in public areas? Why is the exception of privacy actually important when talking about government power? I'm sorry, but I consider it a really bizarre argument.

How is the government spying on American citizens ever justifiable?

 

[Anagram]

Again, why are people arguing that it's fine for the government to spy and gather information on American citizens in public areas? Why is the exception of privacy actually important when talking about government power? I'm sorry, but I consider it a really bizarre argument.

How is the government spying on American citizens ever justifiable?

If the government wants to catch lawbreakers by gathering public information I think they should be allowed to. I don't consider it a bizarre argument at all about why this is acceptable but gathering private information would not be.

 

[douglas]

Most people seem to miss the issue; it's not what the government is doing, it's what they might do.
They have been using the data for good (according to them), but how could we possibly know if they weren't? How can we trust them when they've lied to us so many times?
We are afraid because this could turn on us really, REALLY quick, and set up any sort of dictatorship or similar fascist state. That might sound a little paranoid, and it is, but they're making it really easy to be paranoid.

 

[Henrin]

If the government wants to catch lawbreakers by gathering public information I think they should be allowed to. I don't consider it a bizarre argument at all about why this is acceptable but gathering private information would not be.

They can catch lawbreakers without gathering information about all their citizens or spying on us. I don't see why everything is permissible because "it might catch lawbreakers", sorry. Assuming of course they are doing whatever they want in the affairs of things happening in the public because apparently I'm supposed to consider it an important distinction..

 

[MarineTpartier]

Do it for the children, the other most used reason for giving in. The data does not support a massive benefit. It shows that by collection gazillions of bits of data, we've apprehended virtually a handful of people. And you're right, trusting the government is difficult and should be.

Giving in to what? Driving in public? I'm not grasping what you guys are protesting here. We all drive our vehicles in public. No matter if its a cop entering your license plate into a system or a camera taking a picture of it, it still happens. So you, with the lean of conservative, would rather we spend more money on more cops to do this duty rather than have a camera do it? It's the most fiscally responsible way to do what is going to be done anyway.
Also, that data not supporting a massive benefit would definitely be worth it if it were YOUR child bro. I would bet my life on it that if your child was abducted you wouldn't be willing to sacrifice he/she just so a few paranoid looney's felt good about driving around with their picture taken (IN PUBLIC!!).
As I said earlier, there is a massive difference between the gov't compiling and storing private data like financial records, phone calls, etc as opposed to taking a picture of something you do in public. If you don't want a picture taken of what you're doing, do it in your own home or don't do it at all.

 

[ChunkySalsa]

I, for one, have absolutely no qualms about our government's quest for omniscience. They're just so benevolent and honorable in everything they do, why ever should we worry?

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely brings absolute trustworthiness."

 

[Anagram]

I, for one, have absolutely no qualms about our government's quest for omniscience. They're just so benevolent and honorable in everything they do, why ever should we worry?

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely brings absolute trustworthiness."

Yes its obviously true that there is a great deal of information that the government shouldn't have. Nobody here is arguing that the government should be able to access any information they want. It obviously cannot be trusted with everything. I think its just as obvious that the government shouldn't be omni-ignorant either. I happen to think this falls under the allowable category.

 

[Henrin]

Yes its obviously true that there is a great deal of information that the government shouldn't have. Nobody here is arguing that the government should be able to access any information they want. It obviously cannot be trusted with everything. I think its just as obvious that the government shouldn't be omni-ignorant either. I happen to think this falls under the allowable category.

The government has all it needs to solve crime without knowing anything that I'm doing day to day. It is best that the government is ignorant of what I'm doing at all times. When it's found I committed a crime they can investigate the crime like usual without any material they gained before such point.

 

[Anagram]

Reading more about it I will say that a few things about this does have me concerned. At least in Minneapolis these records are available to be disclosed to anyone asking for them. Apparently the Minnesota Star Tribune was able to find out the Mayor was tracked 41 times in the past year as well as that a reporter was tracked 7 times. There seems to be lots of potential for trouble there.

Also apparently any individual police officer can just enter a license plate number of anyone they want and get the whole history. I had figured it would only pop up with the information if the car was on some sort of hot list. They shouldn't be able to just look up information from supposedly innocent people.

I still don't disapprove of this program as a whole, but there should be some safeguards.

 

[Visbek]

Again, why are people arguing that it's fine for the government to spy and gather information on American citizens in public areas?

Arguing that it is legal is not necessarily the same as arguing that it is harmless or beneficial.

Unless a state or municipal government outlaws it, it's legal. If you are in public, and you pass somewhere with a camera, it's legal.

Why is the exception of privacy actually important when talking about government power?

It's "expectation." If you are in public, your actions are also public, and thus you have no basis to assume your actions are private. Same thing if you are sitting on your porch smoking a blunt, or standing at your window with the blinds up and strangling your spouse. Your actions are in plain sight.

I.e. governments do have the legal right to stick a camera on a bridge, and record license plates of anyone who drives across the bridge.

How is the government spying on American citizens ever justifiable?

Domestic "spying" is fully justifiable, under selected circumstances -- notably law enforcement.

If the task involves tapping phones or accessing computers, the government will need a warrant. If it involves following someone as they drive around, no warrant is required. Same for a camera on a bridge.

 

[Henrin]

It's "expectation." If you are in public, your actions are also public, and thus you have no basis to assume your actions are private. Same thing if you are sitting on your porch smoking a blunt, or standing at your window with the blinds up and strangling your spouse. Your actions are in plain sight.

I don't expect my actions are private, nor do I expect no one will "see" my actions, but that simply the government will not be gathering and storing information about me through the use of means such as cameras, photo equipment or any other technology that can be used to gather information. Since you brought up the porch blunt example, yes, I have a problem with the government watching me on property or simply my property looking for violations of the law, but that is different subject for another day that involves different laws.

I.e. governments do have the legal right to stick a camera on a bridge, and record license plates of anyone who drives across the bridge.

They know practice rights? Geez..it's getting worse than I thought.

Domestic "spying" is fully justifiable, under selected circumstances -- notably law enforcement.

How? What is the legal argument besides it's happening in the public? I don't see how anyone can find "it's public" a very good argument.

 

[American]

What "data" are you looking at?

I posted a thread on this elsewhere, check there.

 

[danarhea]

Who cares if my car is outside in the public? Why does the government need to be taking pictures of it and then storing that on file??

It completely disgusts me that people are fine with being spied on if it stops crime.

Ben Franklin was right. We don't deserve either.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...plate_device_defeats_red_light_cam eras.html

 

[roguenuke]

The government has all it needs to solve crime without knowing anything that I'm doing day to day. It is best that the government is ignorant of what I'm doing at all times. When it's found I committed a crime they can investigate the crime like usual without any material they gained before such point.

If you think this, then you don't jack about what it takes to not only solve a crime, but to get enough evidence to successfully convict the person. (Go look up some called the CSI Effect) I'm studying Criminal Justice. It isn't really as easy as CSI or any of those other shows make it out to be like when it comes to solving crimes. It takes a lot of effort and a whole lot of evidence. Video/picture proof that someone was in an area at the time of a crime not only helps to make a connection to a suspect, but also can be used against that person when it comes to a conviction.

 

[Visbek]

I don't expect my actions are private...

Apparently you do.

Like it or not, when you're in public, you have very limited control of what information can be collected about you, by whom, for what purpose, and for how long it can be stored.

A private investigator can follow you for six months, hang onto the information for years, and use it later. A street photographer can take your picture, put it in her files, and display it in a gallery 20 years later.

Or: EZ-Pass is an electronic toll system used in the northeast. Unless a law stipulates otherwise, they can keep data about individuals passing through tolls for as long as they want. They can use the data to analyze traffic patterns, or locate stolen cars. A divorce attorney can subpoena records to prove that you were or weren't where you said you were.

You don't have to like it -- nor did I say anywhere that you ought to like it. As I said, there's a difference between "legal" and "beneficial/harmful." However, you do not have the option to declare that collecting this data is "illegal" solely because you don't like it.

 

[Surtr]

The Police State is on steroids, and our freedoms are on life support.

Article is here.

I'm fine with this.

 

[Henrin]

If you think this, then you don't jack about what it takes to not only solve a crime, but to get enough evidence to successfully convict the person. (Go look up some called the CSI Effect) I'm studying Criminal Justice. It isn't really as easy as CSI or any of those other shows make it out to be like when it comes to solving crimes. It takes a lot of effort and a whole lot of evidence. Video/picture proof that someone was in an area at the time of a crime not only helps to make a connection to a suspect, but also can be used against that person when it comes to a conviction.

But they don't really need the video/picture evidence to prove the crime. Sorry, but I wasn't wrong. Crying to me about how it's harder without it is not telling me anything I didn't already know.

 

[Henrin]

Apparently you do.

Like it or not, when you're in public, you have very limited control of what information can be collected about you, by whom, for what purpose, and for how long it can be stored.

A private investigator can follow you for six months, hang onto the information for years, and use it later. A street photographer can take your picture, put it in her files, and display it in a gallery 20 years later.

Or: EZ-Pass is an electronic toll system used in the northeast. Unless a law stipulates otherwise, they can keep data about individuals passing through tolls for as long as they want. They can use the data to analyze traffic patterns, or locate stolen cars. A divorce attorney can subpoena records to prove that you were or weren't where you said you were.

You don't have to like it -- nor did I say anywhere that you ought to like it. As I said, there's a difference between "legal" and "beneficial/harmful." However, you do not have the option to declare that collecting this data is "illegal" solely because you don't like it.

I have no problem with regular everyday people taking my picture. What I have a problem with is government having access to information about me and having the authority to spy on me. Access to information should not be wide open until otherwise noted, but the exact opposite away around. Where it's barred unless otherwise noted.

 

[roguenuke]

But they don't really need the video/picture evidence to prove the crime. Sorry, but I wasn't wrong. Crying to me about how it's harder without it is not telling me anything I didn't already know.

In many cases, they do, whether it is finding a suspect to begin with or providing enough evidence to prove the person actually did it.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Reading more about it I will say that a few things about this does have me concerned. At least in Minneapolis these records are available to be disclosed to anyone asking for them. Apparently the Minnesota Star Tribune was able to find out the Mayor was tracked 41 times in the past year as well as that a reporter was tracked 7 times. There seems to be lots of potential for trouble there.

Also apparently any individual police officer can just enter a license plate number of anyone they want and get the whole history. I had figured it would only pop up with the information if the car was on some sort of hot list. They shouldn't be able to just look up information from supposedly innocent people.

I still don't disapprove of this program as a whole, but there should be some safeguards.

This is exactly where I stand. I have no issue with the cameras. There just needs to be a check and balance on it. No one should have the power to access this database unless the subject of the search is the suspect in a crime.

 

[Visbek]

What I have a problem with is government having access to information about me and having the authority to spy on me.

Fine, but your dislike does not actually make it illegal.

Access to information should not be wide open until otherwise noted, but the exact opposite away around. Where it's barred unless otherwise noted.

And again: All your actions are happening out in the open, thus no constitutional stipulations bars this kind of data collection. If you don't want it collected, you'll have to convince someone to pass a law to that effect.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

I'm okay with devices that read license plates and run the registration. Police officers are free to do that already, and this allows them to pay more attention to their surroundings.

What I'm not okay with is the storage, correlation and analysis of this information. To me, the relevant question isn't whether or not I have anything to hide, but whether or not the cops need a new authority or gadget or information source to do the job they've been doing for decades. They do not need a database tracking the movements of vehicles in order to do their jobs.