• 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!

FBI releases photos of Boston blast suspects

First, no it's not. Second, in public you have ZERO expectation of privacy, same as when you are on the business property of others.

I have every expectation that my rights and liberties shall be observed and revered in public. I have way above zero expectation to privacy in public. You don't get to steal my identity, for example, because I am in public.

I have a reduced expectation, not zero. In that if I commit a crime right in front of a cop, that cop has got all reason to exercise force against me. But you are not unfettered, there is always restraint against government force.
 
It makes me wonder more about the potential motives. I would think that if white hat guy was truly fighting for a "cause", he might be a little less nonchalant.

They might be pros, though I ruled that out initially because they walked by the various cameras showing their faces. Maybe they thought they would be lost in the clutter of all the acquired images since there was going be thousands of cameras in the area anyhow. The other thing maybe is they are NOT they guys who pulled off the bombing. This point we have to potential suspects wearing backpacks that look like the packs used in the bombings. That's what I am presuming the FBI is looking at anyhow.
 
The white hat guy looks like a punk. The arrogance and nonchalance with which he is walking disgusts me - at least have some reverence for the **** you're about to pull. It's like he's just doing it for ****s and giggles. I wonder though what he planned on doing after the attacks as he doesn't seem at all concerned about being recognized.

Actually the placement of his hands tell me he was very nervous.
 
It would be stupid to plaster these guy's mugs all over national TV, they could flee to a country that has no extradition treaty with The United States.

It's a double edged sword.

Or they could have been recognized by a neighbor or caught at the airport and/or border before they were able to flee.
 
LOL, I agree. They are one of the reasons I generally go into a place with a drive through - to avoid the stress. I would think that by now they might even have cameras so that we can see the lips moving on the person taking the order. But alas, businesses are cheap mofos.

Have to be to make a buck anymore.
 
No, I'll give people their biological function. But since when has a camera been part of human physiology?

ahhh, but you see, it's the same thing. Big Brother is watching you from the corner. A human cop is not a biological function. He is paid government eye.

You're stretching this now.

How about this? There's an FBI van outside your home just watching and waiting for you to come out. ohhhhh! the humanity!
 
They might be pros, though I ruled that out initially because they walked by the various cameras showing their faces. Maybe they thought they would be lost in the clutter of all the acquired images since there was going be thousands of cameras in the area anyhow. The other thing maybe is they are NOT they guys who pulled off the bombing. This point we have to potential suspects wearing backpacks that look like the packs used in the bombings. That's what I am presuming the FBI is looking at anyhow.

There is another possibility I'm not hearing discussed. They may have been paid or given some kind of compensation as in drugs for leaving the bags in the selected locations. If I was of an ethnic appearance that could raise flags the next logical progression would be to get some stupid white boys to do it for me.
 
ahhh, but you see, it's the same thing. Big Brother is watching you from the corner. A human cop is not a biological function. He is paid government eye.

That he is, but given the limitations of humanity; he cannot be everywhere for all hours.

If that FBI van wants to sit on my street for all hours, it may. It cannot use any tech to see or hear inside my home without warrant, anything they see through open window is inadmissible less they have warrant, it should be extremely restricted from recording everything without warrant either. But if they just want to sit in that van and do nothing, then more power to them.
 
Or they could have been recognized by a neighbor or caught at the airport and/or border before they were able to flee.

That's possible, too. Like I said: a double edged sword.

I agree that if the FBI is letting the cat out of the bag like this, it means they don't have jack **** else to go on.
 
My rights do not cease to exist in public.
<<delete>>
EDIT: never mind, my comment wasn't pertaining to government surveillance.
 
Last edited:
My rights do not cease to exist in public.

You have no expectation of privacy in a public place. At least learn the law. It might come in handy for you some time.

There are two types of expectations of privacy:
A subjective expectation of privacy is an opinion of a person that a certain location or situation is private. These obviously vary greatly from person to person.
An objective, legitimate or reasonable expectation of privacy is an expectation of privacy generally recognized by society.
Examples of places where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy are person's residence or hotel room[1] and public places which have been specifically provided by businesses or the public sector to ensure privacy, such as public restrooms, private portions of jailhouses,[2] or a phone booth.[3][4]
In general, one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things held out to the public. A well-known example is that there are no privacy rights in garbage left for collection in a public place.[2] Other examples include: pen registers that record the numbers dialed from particular telephones;[5] conversations with others, though there could be a Sixth Amendment violation if the police send an individual to question a defendant who has already been formally charged;[6] a person's physical characteristics, such as voice and handwriting;[7] what is observed pursuant to aerial surveillance that is conducted in public navigable airspace not using equipment that unreasonably enhances the surveying government official's vision;[8][9] anything in open fields (e.g. barn);[10] smells that can be detected by the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine traffic stop, even if the government official did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to suspect that drugs were present in the defendant's vehicle;[11] and paint scrapings on the outside of a vehicle.[12]
 
It's not just the cameras, high quality being more expensive, it's the wiring and the storage. The more high quality the capture, the larger the file. Even with storage being "cheap", you'd soon reach your storage limit.
Ah, I wasn't even thinking about that. Yeah, I figured it's probably more complicated than I was imagining.
 
Nor do the camera owner's.

His right to liberty is protected from whatever arbitrary controls you wish to place on his use of his property.

Yes, but none of it should be admissible in court without warrant.
 
It might be a spoiler; an attempt to make the real perps relax and slip up, because they think that no one is looking for them.

But, who knows...right?

Good afternoon, apdst. :2wave:

If we have the wrong guy(s), whoever did this is not going to relax, IMO. He was trying to make some point known only to him, and while he never intended to get caught, he still hasn't had a chance to tell the world why. For that reason, I hope they have the right criminals in custody! :shock:
 
But, but, the pictures are so clear on NCIS and the there is instant facial recognition! :)
And they have such nice "enhancers" that can magically take incredibly blurry pictures and transform them into detailed HD photos that can even capture that tiniest of birth marks.
 
That's possible, too. Like I said: a double edged sword.

I agree that if the FBI is letting the cat out of the bag like this, it means they don't have jack **** else to go on.

The thing is, I think they have a better chance of successfully fleeing if the pictures are not released right away. It's better to have millions of people see the pictures and be on the lookout. You just never know who might see it and be able to identify them right away.
 
You have no expectation of privacy in a public place. At least learn the law. It might come in handy for you some time.

Again, this is untrue. You cannot steal my identity if I'm in public, you cannot take my records if I am in public, you cannot search me for being in public, you may not do a myrid of things to me just because I am in public. The words you are looking for is REDUCED EXPECTATION. Not none, not zero, but "reduced". In that other people can see me and I cannot control photons just yet. So if a cop directly sees me committing a crime, he does not have to go and get a warrant to have it admissible in court. He saw me. But you are not free to do whatever you want to me just because I am in public. My rights still exist.
 
I have every expectation that my rights and liberties shall be observed and revered in public. I have way above zero expectation to privacy in public. You don't get to steal my identity, for example, because I am in public.

Nonsense, I'm not allowed to steal your identity in private either. You're wrong on this one, not only constitutionally, but legally. The court disagrees with you, the law disagrees with you, and most of the folks here disagree with you on this.

I have a reduced expectation, not zero. In that if I commit a crime right in front of a cop, that cop has got all reason to exercise force against me. But you are not unfettered, there is always restraint against government force.

ZZZZZZZ, government use of force wasn't the issue or any part of it.
 
Again, this is untrue. You cannot steal my identity if I'm in public, you cannot take my records if I am in public, you cannot search me for being in public, you may not do a myrid of things to me just because I am in public. The words you are looking for is REDUCED EXPECTATION. Not none, not zero, but "reduced". In that other people can see me and I cannot control photons just yet. So if a cop directly sees me committing a crime, he does not have to go and get a warrant to have it admissible in court. He saw me. But you are not free to do whatever you want to me just because I am in public. My rights still exist.

I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Photons. Give me a break. That's not what we're talking about here. And you know that. People can photography you and video tape you all they want all day long if you are in public. If you're splitting hairs about some future technology, that's not what's being discussed here.
 
Actually the placement of his hands tell me he was very nervous.
I thinking more about the way he had the bag on one shoulder like it was nothing, his backwards cap and his casual walk. The guy in front was much more serious at least in those aspects.
 
Nonsense, I'm not allowed to steal your identity in private either.

Of course not, nor did I make that claim. Please do not use stupid arguments.

You're wrong on this one, not only constitutionally, but legally. The court disagrees with you, the law disagrees with you, and most of the folks here disagree with you on this.

Well your appeal to popularity aside, the court does not disagree with me. They have ruled time and time again on reduced expectations to privacy, but not none. None is a ridiculous claim with no rational or logical base to it what so ever.



ZZZZZZZ, government use of force wasn't the issue or any part of it.

No, in fact it always comes to it because we are talking about the government using recordings to hunt down criminals and put them through the court system using the video as evidence; which is an exercise of government force. Please try to be honest.
 
I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Photons. Give me a break. That's not what we're talking about here. And you know that. People can photography you and video tape you all they want all day long if you are in public. If you're splitting hairs about some future technology, that's not what's being discussed here.

How the hell do you think photographs are taken? Is this why the Republic is going to hell in a hand basket? People are just uneducated?

I never said they couldn't, I said it shouldn't be allowed admissible in court without warrant.
 
I thinking more about the way he had the bag on one shoulder like it was nothing, his backwards cap and his casual walk. The guy in front was much more serious at least in those aspects.

If he was being nonchalant, it could be that he was acting, didn't want to draw attention to himself.
 
Looks like David Sirota should be kicking his cat about now.
 
ahhh, but you see, it's the same thing. Big Brother is watching you from the corner. A human cop is not a biological function. He is paid government eye.

You're stretching this now.

How about this? There's an FBI van outside your home just watching and waiting for you to come out. ohhhhh! the humanity!

That level of surveillance would require a warrant. Without a warrant, or probable cause, it could be considered harrassment. Ohhhhhhhh! The lawsuit!
 
Back
Top Bottom