Last edited by Henrin; 07-18-13 at 08:54 PM.
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.
Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger. ― Ron Paul
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. Thomas Jefferson
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?
corrupts absolutelybrings absolute trustworthiness."
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.
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.
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.Why is the exception of privacy actually important when talking about government power?
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.
Domestic "spying" is fully justifiable, under selected circumstances -- notably law enforcement.How is the government spying on American citizens ever justifiable?
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.
They know practice rights? Geez..it's getting worse than I thought.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? 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.Domestic "spying" is fully justifiable, under selected circumstances -- notably law enforcement.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)