Reply With Quote
fwiw, I don't think anyone is spying on me.
it's the lack of oversight and cons utionally guaranteed due process that bothers me.
Cops have been known to abuse databases to find things out about spouses, boyfriends and girlfriends, exes, rivals, fellow policemen and people who complain. Assuming they wouldn't with high tech stuff is jejune.
Whether the people who get swept into the net are guilty or innocent, all deserve the presumption of innocence and due process of law, wouldn't you agree?
fwiw, I don't think anyone is spying on me.
it's the lack of oversight and cons utionally guaranteed due process that bothers me.
So because the occasional policeman would break the law and abuse the technology, you want to deny the 99.999% of the honest police a legitimate tool to fight violent crime?
The technology doesn't convict anyone...it just provides evidence. The presumption of innocence isn't violated at trial, but the evidence could certainly be used to prove guilt after due process.
First of all we don't know if the tool works or if it has been used in a legitimate way, so you're begging the question there. Second of all, you're purposely distorting my point -- I already said that it's the lack of oversight and probable due process problems that bother me.So because the occasional policeman would break the law and abuse the technology, you want to deny the 99.999% of the honest police a legitimate tool to fight violent crime?
We do know this was done without telling elected officials -- the secrecy is troublesome, since the whole city is being surveilled.
I dunno. You might want to ask the mosques in NY that the NYPD spied on for 14 years without generating a single lead, or catching any bad guys.
Much of that was due process free. Rights of citizens brazenly violated for years on end without any corresponding benefit to public safety.
do you want to deny the victims of police corruption, rare as they may be, due process for the sake of mere expediency?So because the occasional policeman would break the law and abuse the technology, you want to deny the 99.999% of the honest police a legitimate tool to fight violent crime?
police that break the law should be prosecuted.
I do not believe in denying honest police valid tools to fight crime because of a statistically insignificant potential for abuse.
or you know, the cons ution
Cosmic I sent you a PM...It took me almost 15 minutes to remember how to do that…
Best Wishes…
And saving them for farther study.
They have some pretty high resolution stuff out there. Did you see an article someplace that said a person is only one pixel?
Then increase the number of public cameras that don't peek in peoples back yards.
The essential, eternal assumption is that ALL power will be abused, and that's true of surveillance powers.
And we know some, many?, police are corrupt, for sale (to PIs, BigCorp, etc).
A TX racist billionaire to pay for surveillance on Baltimore knitters should never have been accepted by the cops, who don't even try, or ing worry about appearances anymore. They live and work above for themselves and against the citizenry.
The militarized cops, the police/surveillance state, are out of control, immune, untouchable, unstoppable.
Typical rightwingnut assholes here who HATE govt have no problem supporting the police state in all its crimes.
How is it uncons utional? Be specific.
Did you actually read the article being discussed? It was in there.
He never reads anything before commenting on it.
I proved it to him once and it was pretty funny (to me)
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5489020
Now he won't talk to me anymore
He is not using equipment to aid him being about to see over like optics and airplanes then sure.
City councils approve that type of thing.
Well if your complaint is just that the PD didn't go to the city council before testing/evaluating the technology then I agree they should have. Then again it they haven't been doing for long and they did tell the mayor at some point before the public found out. I don't think the PD intended for it to be some super secret program that the public never found out about.
that is some naive bull .
that is some paranoid bull
when it comes to undemocratic secret government action you bet your ass.
how you personally feel is irrelevant when it comes to potentially impeding other people's 4th amendment rights
Seriously?
Good luck making a 4th amendment case.
didnt say it necessarily was, i said potentially. there are also potential due process issues. generally, though, courts have ruled that low flying aircraft/surveillance aren't 4th amendment searches as long as there isn't something like thermal imaging. if the camera used on the surveillance drones are particularly advanced, it could enter a grey area
Seriously?
Good luck making a 4th amendment case.
the way you personally feel about it doesn't really change the public policy issues surrounding it
the same way somebody might have "no issue" with the government looking into bank records as they please. you're ok with it? oh, good for you then
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
