DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> is losing PRIVACY worse than losing guns & speech?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 37 of 37, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/02/2015 01:24:19 PM · #26
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 04:39:16 PM · #27
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 09:01:54 PM · #28
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 11:08:18 PM · #29
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.
07/03/2015 12:31:35 AM · #30
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.
07/03/2015 06:03:45 AM · #31
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
07/04/2015 12:32:52 AM · #32
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?

07/04/2015 02:13:23 PM · #33
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 06:52:50 PM · #34
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.
07/05/2015 12:05:35 AM · #35
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.
07/05/2015 07:57:18 AM · #36
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 03:55:35 PM · #37
I swear I keep reading the title to this thread as "... losing PIRACY.... " and I just can't see that as a bad thing.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 05:20:13 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 05:20:13 AM EDT.