• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Facebook friend turns into Big Brother

it's kind of stupid to put incriminating photos of yourself on the internet. what was even more stupid was to plead no contest to the charges. they should have challenged the police to prove they were actually drinking.

mtm1963
 
Um, you did get the point that the internet was created by the government, just like Medicare, right?

Dude, I'm a web designer..I know the history. You are missing MY point because you keep taking my post out of context. Like I said, I do not want police (law enforcement) to surf social networking sites for under aged teens drinking a beer or trying to catch petty criminals... That's all.

So? Why shouldn't they use it as a tool? As long as what they are doing is legal and constitutional, why shouldn't they?

Examples:

1) People create Photoshopped pictures all the time, and police do not always know the difference. I wouldn't want to find myself in court over something like this.

2) Police find Marijuana activism sites and use that as "probable cause" to raid houses. It happened last year to a 19 year old college student. The police raided his house in the night and shot him because he had a flashlight in his hand.

3) Kids fight with their friends as games, but find themselves in court because the police found videos on YouTube and it looked realistic enough to them.

4) This thread is also a good example. A guy getting in trouble with police because he was holding a beer while he was still underage. Yes, he could have said it wasn't what it looked like or something like that, but it's still not something I would want the police to do. Drinking a beer isn't going to destroy the community... :roll:
 
Dude, I'm a web designer..I know the history. You are missing MY point because you keep taking my post out of context. Like I said, I do not want police (law enforcement) to surf social networking sites for under aged teens drinking a beer or trying to catch petty criminals... That's all.

I don't either. I was just making the point that you should make your point better.

Examples:

1) People create Photoshopped pictures all the time, and police do not always know the difference. I wouldn't want to find myself in court over something like this.

2) Police find Marijuana activism sites and use that as "probable cause" to raid houses. It happened last year to a 19 year old college student. The police raided his house in the night and shot him because he had a flashlight in his hand.

3) Kids fight with their friends as games, but find themselves in court because the police found videos on YouTube and it looked realistic enough to them.

4) This thread is also a good example. A guy getting in trouble with police because he was holding a beer while he was still underage. Yes, he could have said it wasn't what it looked like or something like that, but it's still not something I would want the police to do. Drinking a beer isn't going to destroy the community... :roll:

These are good examples of defenses. They aren't good reasons why police shouldn't use a tool. I can just as easily come up with examples of when using evidence from the internet would catch criminal legitimately. I'd start with child molesters and work from there.
 
Back
Top Bottom