| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/05/2015 03:55:35 PM · #1 |
| I swear I keep reading the title to this thread as "... losing PIRACY.... " and I just can't see that as a bad thing. |
|
|
|
07/05/2015 07:57:18 AM · #2 |
If indeed you do have evidence of police doing things that run counter to the law, then report it. I did and things changed.
Have a nice day.
Ray
Message edited by tanguera - Removed reference to Spork's post. |
|
|
|
07/05/2015 12:05:35 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
[quote=Spork99]
They probably don't have a warrant for their network of license plate cameras, their Stingray cell phone intercept system or tracking system using airborne camera systems like those from Persistent Surveillance. |
The police would need a warrant for licence plate cameras and airborne camera systems for what reason exactly? That is no more an invasion of privacy than my taking a photo of you in a public place.
It may come as a shock to you, but to track cell phones in this country one needs a warrant and there are very specific guidelines to be adhered to.
As for the rest of your comment, I will have to look up if any such situation ever occurred in this country and will let you know later. I can assure you however, that apologies would most definitely not cut it, that lawsuits would follow and that, (depending on the reasons for the occurence), someone would be held accountable.
Have a nice day,
Ray |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The Stingray has been used repeatedly in the US without a warrant. |
You are aware of the fact that there have been instances where a warrant was sought and denied and that in other instances it was granted. You do also recognize the fact that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court and that if this is the mechanism used in the first instance that all subsequent evidence collected will be thrown out of court.
Originally posted by Spork99:
The police should need a warrant for their license plate cameras and airborne surveillance systems |
Whatever for? The collection of licence place information is no more an invasion of privacy than the camera that monitor traffic.
Originally posted by Spork99:
...the NSA shouldn't be allowed to collect cell phone data en mass. |
That specific piece of legislation you allude to deals specifically with the collection of information on the communications of Americans in direct contact with foreign targets. Is it possible that they might inadvertently gather information on others that are not subject of their area of interest... most definitely, but one would assume that they cannot use this information to any practical legal end.
Ray |
I'm also aware that the police have used the stingray and later claimed that the information gathered with it came from an informant rather than acknowledge they had the technology to eavesdrop on cellphone conversations in order to preserve their evidence.
Wrong Ray, the traffic cameras only record data in the event of a violation, as I said in the part you conveniently left out, the license plate cameras and airborne camera systems aren't just taking the odd snapshots here and there, they are the front end of extensive tracking systems, capable of tracking the whereabouts of anyone, anywhere in their considerable range, an Orwellian dream. Maybe its your dream too. And the NSA wasn't just tracking cell phone calls between the the US and foreign countries, they were intentionally collecting data on everyone. The get their warrants from a secret court that is accountable to no one and you'd never know if they had a warrant or not, not even at trial.
And, in the grenade case, the outcome was that the system you hold near and dear to your heart, effectively blamed the baby for his injuries. The SWAT team gets away with injuring that baby and scarring/disabling him for life. Kinda hard to live a full rewarding life with a hole in your chest...maybe he'll recover though, kids are resilient. Either way, no police officer, no police official and no one else involved with planning or executing this raid will be held accountable for their actions and not a penny will go to the injured. That's how these "oops!" SWAT raids play out in almost every instance. People are traumatized, maimed and sometimes killed the cops say "oops!" and then there might be a press conference, but nothing changes and certainly no compensation to the victims. This kind of crap is why people distrust and dislike the cops.
Message edited by tanguera - Removed vulgar language. |
|
|
|
07/04/2015 06:52:50 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
As for privacy, that is probably more of an illusion. Though, if my cam on my laptop is hacked, I hope they enjoy the view of the keyboard. It's closed when not in use.
I have been known to refuse to give my name, address,and phone number to local merchants, when paying in cash. Not because I'm fearful that the government knows I bought batteries, more because I have issues with authority, and I'm a jerk. |
I keep a piece of electrical tape over my laptop camera (with a small piece of paper over the optics to keep it from getting gunky) because it is so easy to hack into and possibly steal passwords ect. Uncover it when you want to use it, keep it covered the other 99% of the time so no one else can use it.
I also use different spellings of my first and middle names on affinity cards and subscriptions to watch who is selling their list to whom. Being a jerk to those who wish to have authority over you and information about you is a good exercise. |
|
|
|
07/04/2015 02:13:23 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
[quote=Spork99]
They probably don't have a warrant for their network of license plate cameras, their Stingray cell phone intercept system or tracking system using airborne camera systems like those from Persistent Surveillance. |
The police would need a warrant for licence plate cameras and airborne camera systems for what reason exactly? That is no more an invasion of privacy than my taking a photo of you in a public place.
It may come as a shock to you, but to track cell phones in this country one needs a warrant and there are very specific guidelines to be adhered to.
As for the rest of your comment, I will have to look up if any such situation ever occurred in this country and will let you know later. I can assure you however, that apologies would most definitely not cut it, that lawsuits would follow and that, (depending on the reasons for the occurence), someone would be held accountable.
Have a nice day,
Ray |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The Stingray has been used repeatedly in the US without a warrant. |
You are aware of the fact that there have been instances where a warrant was sought and denied and that in other instances it was granted. You do also recognize the fact that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court and that if this is the mechanism used in the first instance that all subsequent evidence collected will be thrown out of court.
Originally posted by Spork99:
The police should need a warrant for their license plate cameras and airborne surveillance systems |
Whatever for? The collection of licence place information is no more an invasion of privacy than the camera that monitor traffic.
Originally posted by Spork99:
...the NSA shouldn't be allowed to collect cell phone data en mass. |
That specific piece of legislation you allude to deals specifically with the collection of information on the communications of Americans in direct contact with foreign targets. Is it possible that they might inadvertently gather information on others that are not subject of their area of interest... most definitely, but one would assume that they cannot use this information to any practical legal end.
Originally posted by Spork99:
Let me help you out with the grenade case: |
I read the information and there is no doubt that the police had terrible information and over-reacted in this handling of this situation. I have no idea if you have a review process in such matters, but can assure you that there is an independent review done of such situations in this country, and that the parties involved could be held accountable.
Have a Happy 4th.
Ray
|
|
|
|
07/04/2015 12:32:52 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
They probably don't have a warrant for their network of license plate cameras, their Stingray cell phone intercept system or tracking system using airborne camera systems like those from Persistent Surveillance. |
The police would need a warrant for licence plate cameras and airborne camera systems for what reason exactly? That is no more an invasion of privacy than my taking a photo of you in a public place.
It may come as a shock to you, but to track cell phones in this country one needs a warrant and there are very specific guidelines to be adhered to.
As for the rest of your comment, I will have to look up if any such situation ever occurred in this country and will let you know later. I can assure you however, that apologies would most definitely not cut it, that lawsuits would follow and that, (depending on the reasons for the occurence), someone would be held accountable.
Have a nice day,
Ray |
The Stingray has been used repeatedly in the US without a warrant. The police should need a warrant for their license plate cameras and airborne surveillance systems for the same reason the NSA shouldn't be allowed to collect cell phone data en mass. It's not just taking a picture of a license plate here and there, or a picture from the sky every once in a while, they're both means to track anyone and everyone anytime. Maybe the idea that Big Brother is always watching gives you a woody, but it gives me, and plenty of others, the creeps.
Let me help you out with the grenade case: //www.salon.com/2014/06/24/a_swat_team_blew_a_hole_in_my_2_year_old_son/ Other sites have picture, if you'd care to see up close what the "boys in blue" have done to a baby, the kid will have facial scarring forever and the last I heard, he was out of his coma, but still has a gaping hole in his chest that won't close. But hey, it's his fault, right?
|
|
|
|
07/03/2015 06:03:45 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
They probably don't have a warrant for their network of license plate cameras, their Stingray cell phone intercept system or tracking system using airborne camera systems like those from Persistent Surveillance. |
The police would need a warrant for licence plate cameras and airborne camera systems for what reason exactly? That is no more an invasion of privacy than my taking a photo of you in a public place.
It may come as a shock to you, but to track cell phones in this country one needs a warrant and there are very specific guidelines to be adhered to.
As for the rest of your comment, I will have to look up if any such situation ever occurred in this country and will let you know later. I can assure you however, that apologies would most definitely not cut it, that lawsuits would follow and that, (depending on the reasons for the occurence), someone would be held accountable.
Have a nice day,
Ray |
|
|
|
07/03/2015 12:31:35 AM · #8 |
I find it easier to guard the rest of my freedoms, with the freedom of speech.
I am a gun owner, however I do not feel the "need" to own a gun. I like to target shoot, and we have copperheads and water moccasins in the are near our pond, from time to time. I have no fear of home invasion, nor do I have the delusion that a 100 year old Winchester, or a pistol, will bring down some tyrannical government.
As for privacy, that is probably more of an illusion. Though, if my cam on my laptop is hacked, I hope they enjoy the view of the keyboard. It's closed when not in use.
I have been known to refuse to give my name, address,and phone number to local merchants, when paying in cash. Not because I'm fearful that the government knows I bought batteries, more because I have issues with authority, and I'm a jerk. |
|
|
|
07/02/2015 11:08:18 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
Sorta laughable, coming from a LEO.
I read the first part as a reference to supposedly guaranteed protection against unreasonable search, of course, we already know that in reality enforcement can just make up a bullsnot excuse to raid any home they'd like to raid. |
Maybe where you live my friend, but not in this country. You want to conduct a search, you best have a warrant or you are SOL when you get to court.
By the way, I no longer am a LEO... I retired in 1996, but still have operational ties to the judicial system.
Ray |
Sure, they'll have a warrant for a physical search, it'll even be signed by a judge, but the information can be fabricated by anyone. "our informant identified this address as where they bought the heroin"...They'll destroy your house, shoot your dog, scare the crap out of your family, maybe even cuff your kids while they interrogate you and maybe even burn your baby with a flashbang. Then when they leave after realizing a mistake was made, they won't even apologize...just leave you with the mess. Oh, and your burned baby? It's the infant's fault for being in their crib when the grenade went off.
They probably don't have a warrant for their network of license plate cameras, their Stingray cell phone intercept system or tracking system using airborne camera systems like those from Persistent Surveillance.
Message edited by author 2015-07-02 23:21:10. |
|
|
|
07/02/2015 09:01:54 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Skip:
While there has been a lot to celebrate and debate recently, I really believe those issues pale in comparison to our disappearing privacy. You can go around and around and around over the constitutionality of gun ownership, flag-flying, and marriage, but the attacks on our privacy will affect nearly everyone.
I'm not talking about the NSA or government. I'm talking about something you have no control over. Read these two article.
Facial Recognition
God View
Getting off the grid never looked so appealing... |
I agree totally, this is scary stuff and believe me when I say I take this very seriously. Everyone needs to be preparing for the future now. |
|
|
|
07/02/2015 04:39:16 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Sorta laughable, coming from a LEO.
I read the first part as a reference to supposedly guaranteed protection against unreasonable search, of course, we already know that in reality enforcement can just make up a bullsnot excuse to raid any home they'd like to raid. |
Maybe where you live my friend, but not in this country. You want to conduct a search, you best have a warrant or you are SOL when you get to court.
By the way, I no longer am a LEO... I retired in 1996, but still have operational ties to the judicial system.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/02/2015 01:24:19 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Good topic. Right to privacy is, to me, the reasonable expectation that nobody can come into my house without my permission. Or take my stuff. To me, the work of controlling information about me is mostly my responsibility. Making more laws in the hope of finding a way to control information about me that eases the burden off my shoulders is doomed to failure. I know people who seem to go out of their way to put more and more information about themselves right out in the public. It's as if it feels a little bit like being famous. You can't make enough laws to protect people from themselves. |
Can't say that I agree with this premise.
The first part of your comment has nothing to do with invasion of privacy but rather deals with matters that are covered in the laws of the land dealing with B&E and theft.
It would be downright simple thing strengthen privacy laws. Simply make it mandatory that if any entity wants to access the information that they be required to demonstrate before a court of law that they need the information for "Legal" purposes.
As things stand now, a bevy of information is collected on every individual and in many instances without their knowledge or consent and then is transmitted to a myriad of government and private interests... and therein lies the rub for me.
Ray |
Sorta laughable, coming from a LEO.
I read the first part as a reference to supposedly guaranteed protection against unreasonable search, of course, we already know that in reality enforcement can just make up a bullsnot excuse to raid any home they'd like to raid. |
|
|
|
07/02/2015 12:58:35 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Good topic. Right to privacy is, to me, the reasonable expectation that nobody can come into my house without my permission. Or take my stuff. To me, the work of controlling information about me is mostly my responsibility. Making more laws in the hope of finding a way to control information about me that eases the burden off my shoulders is doomed to failure. I know people who seem to go out of their way to put more and more information about themselves right out in the public. It's as if it feels a little bit like being famous. You can't make enough laws to protect people from themselves. |
Can't say that I agree with this premise.
The first part of your comment has nothing to do with invasion of privacy but rather deals with matters that are covered in the laws of the land dealing with B&E and theft.
It would be downright simple thing strengthen privacy laws. Simply make it mandatory that if any entity wants to access the information that they be required to demonstrate before a court of law that they need the information for "Legal" purposes.
As things stand now, a bevy of information is collected on every individual and in many instances without their knowledge or consent and then is transmitted to a myriad of government and private interests... and therein lies the rub for me.
Ray
|
|
|
|
07/02/2015 11:22:48 AM · #14 |
| Good topic. Right to privacy is, to me, the reasonable expectation that nobody can come into my house without my permission. Or take my stuff. To me, the work of controlling information about me is mostly my responsibility. Making more laws in the hope of finding a way to control information about me that eases the burden off my shoulders is doomed to failure. I know people who seem to go out of their way to put more and more information about themselves right out in the public. It's as if it feels a little bit like being famous. You can't make enough laws to protect people from themselves. |
|
|
|
07/02/2015 11:10:43 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Regarding loss of privacy via advancing technology, Arthur C. Clarke left a synopsis for a novel, which Stephen Baxter finished, called The Light of Other Days which is quite fascinating... |
LOVE this book, and the premise is remarkably similar to today's "privacy" concerns - where "wormholes" are the digital connections of today. His view of their existance (wormholes) was much more positive: the resulting completely loss of privacy (anyone could navigate to any moment in time to view actual incidents) was accompanied by complete peace, as crimes could no longer be carried out surrepticiously. The involved parties would just navigate to the point in time and see what actually happened.
You concern about identity, however, is quite well founded. |
|
|
|
07/02/2015 10:43:13 AM · #16 |
| Regarding loss of privacy via advancing technology, Arthur C. Clarke left a synopsis for a novel, which Stephen Baxter finished, called The Light of Other Days which is quite fascinating... |
|
|
|
07/02/2015 03:29:18 AM · #17 |
Brennan, these are excellent points!
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
...You can try to hide from data collection these days, but the lack of a digital footprint can be as damning as a bad footprint... |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Careful management of those footprints are important, and laws could be better to avoid gross abuses... |
this is awesome, ann! thanks!
-----------------------------------------------------
there are a couple things that concern me the most, and the discussion so far has lightly touched on them. for years i've been describing social media to my children as being a digital tattoo, something that can never be erased once sent or posted. the over-arching problem is that there is no control and no protection. when anthem, target, american express, sony, or the US gov't can keep people out of their data, what hope is there for anyone else? consider all those data collectors and aggregators who seek to remove all shreds of anonymity from digital life: what happens when they get hacked or lose control of their data?
the other issue is one i was discussing with my son yesterday morning, and that has to do with accountability. even if it is superficial and subject to debate, we do have means to at least attempt to hold our government accountable for their actions. unfortunately, that same accountability is not there when it comes to the private sector (other than thin slivers covered by the likes of HIPAA). as evidenced by the first article i referenced in my OP, it is highly unlikely that they will ever willingly give in to oversight or accountability.
that leaves me a little torn over paul's observation:
Originally posted by ubique:
In answer to your topical question Skip, I say no. Freedom of speech is the only one of these that is fundamental. Your privacy can be invaded, your guns can be taken away, and you are still you. Less free, but still you nonetheless. But without freedom of speech you are enslaved not just in expression, but also in thought. All other freedoms are subordinate to that one fundamental freedom and derive from it. |
while i can agree with it, i'm starting to see what i and others have referred to as "privacy" as something much broader. i think i'm starting to see it as my right to my identity... |
|
|
|
07/01/2015 05:07:05 PM · #18 |
The simple fact is that with the rise of the internet and that availability of very cheap storage of data, our notion of privacy has undergone a radical shift in our lifetimes. Teenagers have a very different and vastly more savy idea of privacy than their parent's do. In the day's of Daniel Boone privacy meant moving your house when you could see the smoke of another house. You can try to hide from data collection these days, but the lack of a digital footprint can be as damning as a bad footprint. The fact is that good actors are expected to be available on the web if you want customers or are trying to be a public citizen. Making that image be what you wish it to be takes work.
Careful management of those footprints are important, and laws could be better to avoid gross abuses, but at a root level, anything you do on the net is available to someone, and once it is recorded in ones and zeros, it is to some extent a public record. You can set up whatever level of security you like, if a good enough hacker wants it, they can get it. I look at it the way I look at locking my home. I buy good locks, and keep a big dog, but I know that if someone who is smart wants in and brings the right tools, they can get in. A friend who works in security at microsft has a tee shirt that read "I read your e-mails". When you live on the net, you are living out in public. If you want something to be private, keep it out of digital form.
Message edited by author 2015-07-01 17:08:10. |
|
|
|
07/01/2015 02:56:05 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Cory's not joking. Everyone, go read Future Crimes by Marc Goodman. Then think twice before you ever post anything on Farcebook or buy yet another *smart* device. |
OMG!! Facebook is incredibly scary! I think they're worse than the government regarding what they know about you |
There's even a joke out there, I think on The Onion, about the CIA congratulating special agent Zuckerman on how much easier he has made their lives by creating a website where people post all manner of personal information about themselves and their families. |
|
|
|
07/01/2015 02:26:28 PM · #20 |
| For people who are interested: https://tosdr.org/ |
|
|
|
07/01/2015 02:05:58 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
The trend is troubling, but it is clear most people value convenience over privacy. We could use cash instead of plastic. We could shop at stores rather than order online. We could write letters instead of email. We could NOT go on FB.
As long as we have the choice. ..
Also, what is privacy? Why do we need it? Covet it? Some believe that privacy is the root of all evil :) |
You may not think you have anything to hide right now, but I suspect everyone has something they don't want to get out. For example, I don't want my wife to know what I'm getting her for her birthday. I spend cash for the present, because if I use my Amex card, she immediately gets a phone notification that I just spent $45 at Dave's Flower Shop. That's pretty innocent, but what if I'm involved in a nasty divorce, hiding from domestic violence, or involved in a custody battle? All of that data is a potential path for a smart person to find out information I don't want found out.
In 2006, Netflix, quite innocently, published an anonymized data set with every movie rating every customer had done, ever. Their idea was for teams to compete to make personalized movie ratings more relevant. Researchers, however, were able to connect the anonymized users with real people, and then show a list of every movie that user had watched. Imagine if you're in a custody battle somewhere in the bible belt, and your ex finds out that in the previous six months, you watched every lesbian movie ever made.
The biggest problem isn't what the data is being used for now. I don't actually care much that my purchase data is being used to market to me. What I do care about, though, is that much of that data stays around basically forever, and eventually it will either be stolen, or sold to someone I don't want to have it, and used for some purpose I don't want it used for.
So no, I don't have a Facebook account, and I pay for things with cash.
And yes, companies can do better. That Uber example is appalling. There's no reason that Uber should keep records that long, or that so many people should have access to them. But it won't change until data privacy laws are passed.
|
|
|
|
07/01/2015 12:49:21 PM · #22 |
The trend is troubling, but it is clear most people value convenience over privacy. We could use cash instead of plastic. We could shop at stores rather than order online. We could write letters instead of email. We could NOT go on FB.
As long as we have the choice. ..
Also, what is privacy? Why do we need it? Covet it? Some believe that privacy is the root of all evil :) |
|
|
|
07/01/2015 12:39:39 PM · #23 |
| In answer to your topical question Skip, I say no. Freedom of speech is the only one of these that is fundamental. Your privacy can be invaded, your guns can be taken away, and you are still you. Less free, but still you nonetheless. But without freedom of speech you are enslaved not just in expression, but also in thought. All other freedoms are subordinate to that one fundamental freedom and derive from it. |
|
|
|
07/01/2015 11:32:28 AM · #24 |
definitely.
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Cory's not joking. Everyone, go read Future Crimes by Marc Goodman. Then think twice before you ever post anything on Farcebook or buy yet another *smart* device. |
OMG!! Facebook is incredibly scary! I think they're worse than the government regarding what they know about you |
|
|
|
|
07/01/2015 11:31:12 AM · #25 |
Recently right here in Cleveland, there were several women kept as hostages and sex slaves for years. They were in a house in an impoverished area and they were officially MISSING. It was public information that they were missing. Cops had visited the house several times and never discovered what was going on. It was a passerby that heard the screams for help that eventually freed them. It took about 10 years.
How can we live in a world where we have "no privacy", but no one finds these women?
|
|
