Reply With Quote
That's awesome.
I don't see why law abiding citizens would not want that.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2...-surveillance/Since the beginning of the year, the Baltimore Police Department had been using the plane to investigate all sorts of crimes, from property thefts to shootings. The Cessna sometimes flew above the city for as many as 10 hours a day, and the public had no idea it was there.
A company called Persistent Surveillance Systems, based in Dayton, Ohio, provided the service to the police, and the funding came from a private donor. No public disclosure of the program had ever been made.
That's awesome.
I don't see why law abiding citizens would not want that.
i'm pretty sure the funding of this project cost quite a bit of coin. i wonder if the benefactor has donated as much into community programs for these communities as well.
Why is that relevant?
why isn't it?
Because there is no rational connection between the two. Why is it relevant what other charities or causes the donor supported? He chose to support that one which seems to have a great benefit to the community.
I would think you would support a completely colorblind enforcement tool.
okay i see your point.
Why is Winehole is always so worried that someone might be watching him?
Yeah guys. It's just big brother watching over...er out for us.
today's conservatives
Not at all.
I'm a man of the 21st century, but I can remember the 20th. It was not always the case that privacy was a chimera or that concern to preserve it was naive.
Vive la difference.
Conservatives used to tend the altar liberty and the individual; now their credo is collective security under the panoptic, all-protecting eye of the police.
It's a symptom of the withering of freedom and individuality that posters like CC see privacy as not worth saving and indeed, as something completely insubstantial and whimsical.
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/01/...to-u-s-police/“By design, these devices are indiscriminate and operate across a wide area where many people may be present,” said Richard Tynan, a technologist at Privacy International, of the gear in the Cobham catalogue. Such “indiscriminate surveillance systems that are not targeted in any way based on prior su ion” are “the essence of mass surveillance,” he added.
4th Amendment?
investigation based on particularized su ion?
or cringing submission to the police power and a paternalistic state?
it's not a "pick your own adventure" book. you have to speak up for the one you want and try to convince people it's important. hence the OP.
I think a credible tool to catch murderers and criminals is a good thing.
i'm not scared of being a single pixel on a screen as I go about my legal business.
the ends justify the means.
moral relativism, contempt for the US Cons ution.
it's like you've assumed the justice system only catches bad guys.
how naive.
you like the police power as a proxy for racial vendetta.
when you say "murderers" and "criminals," you mean black people, right?
the modern constabulary has its roots in the slave patrol. how little things change.
Not to mention who controls what information gets swept under the rug... I get the feeling some of those tapes will get lost when it's convenient to the PD...
go yourself, asshole.
did I hit a nerve?
you need to take a look in the mirror, CC.
you've shown your ass many times here, on a public bulletin board.
I can only imagine what kind of opinions you feel comfortable airing in private.
or the police union...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
