• 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

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

Wow, what's with you today? It was YOUR argument and you're calling it stupid? I even quoted where you made it.

ZERO expectation of privacy, as in none. That's what the sentence, "you have NO expectation of privacy" means. But what we're talking about here is photography and the courts have ruled over and again that if you're in public, you can be photographed and there's not squat you can do about it.

If you don't like that, move to the UK. Oh wait... :mrgreen:
 
Wow, what's with you today? It was YOUR argument and you're calling it stupid? I even quoted where you made it.

No, I never made claim to what you are saying.

If I had zero expectation to privacy in public, that means my person, property, effects, etc. may be search and seized at any moment; that includes my personal data which makes up my "identity". If there is ZERO expectation to privacy I could do nothing about people stealing my identity in public. If the cops wanted to come up and search me, take my property with no rhyme or reason, they could. That's what ZERO EXPECTATION to privacy is. Now of course, in private none of that is allowed, because we both agree that in private you have FULL expectation to privacy. So you bringing that up really was a stupid argument. So at least understand what you are saying

ZERO expectation of privacy, as in none. That's what the sentence, "you have NO expectation of privacy" means. But what we're talking about here is photography and the courts have ruled over and again that if you're in public, you can be photographed and there's not squat you can do about it.

No expectation to privacy means the 4th does not hold in public. But that's stupid, and any rational individual would understand this. I have REDUCED expectation, and that's how the courts rule it. Reduced, not zero.

You people need to start understanding the arguments you're making.
 
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:

We don't know the bomber's motives, either. He might have just wanted to blow some people up and isn't trying to make some kind of statement.
 
Actually, I agree with Erod. If the trail hadn't gone cold, they would be carefully following it; I think they'd want to keep them under surveillance for just a bit (carefully watched) to see if they contacted any fellow conspirators. That'd mean keeping their "in-the-know" on the down low. Since they aren't doing that, I think they're looking for additional help from the public.

People will now again review their own images looking for these guys. That and the chance that people know them will, hopefully, provide a new set of leads.

What trail was that? They have to have a trail before it goes "cold". All they have are these faces now. Matching them with people takes help. I get the feeling some here don't want the perps caught as they are scared of who's side they might be from. They sure don't look middle eastern to me.
 
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.

Yeah, so some out-of-control clown can pop a cap in their asses, when he sees them on the street. Then, after the "suspects" are dead, they figure out that they fingered the wrong dudes, because IMO, their evidence is purdy weak. Two dudes walking down the sidewalk, totin' knapsacks?

So much for due process.
 
No, I never made claim to what you are saying.

You did indeed. I quoted it and responded to it, Maggie quoted it and responded to it. You may want to walk it back now as it was sort of a silly argument, but you did make the claim. Here it is again, direct quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari
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.
 
What trail was that? They have to have a trail before it goes "cold". All they have are these faces now. Matching them with people takes help. I get the feeling some here don't want the perps caught as they are scared of who's side they might be from. They sure don't look middle eastern to me.

Yeah! That's it! You got us! :roll:
 
You did indeed. I quoted it and responded to it, Maggie quoted it and responded to it. You may want to walk it back now as it was sort of a silly argument, but you did make the claim. Here it is again, direct quote:

That's a true statement and has nothing to do with your deflection that identity theft is illegal in private.

Do you have a point? Or is this random "throw **** at the wall and see what sticks" time?
 
What trail was that? They have to have a trail before it goes "cold". All they have are these faces now. Matching them with people takes help. I get the feeling some here don't want the perps caught as they are scared of who's side they might be from. They sure don't look middle eastern to me.

The trail begins with the available video, physical evidence, and eyewitness testimony. When that reaches a dead end as to identification, the public is asked for help. I'm not aware of any poster here that is afraid of any "side" in this instance...
 
Wow, what's with you today? It was YOUR argument and you're calling it stupid? I even quoted where you made it.

ZERO expectation of privacy, as in none. That's what the sentence, "you have NO expectation of privacy" means. But what we're talking about here is photography and the courts have ruled over and again that if you're in public, you can be photographed and there's not squat you can do about it.

If you don't like that, move to the UK. Oh wait... :mrgreen:

If someone uses a photograph of me in the wrong manner, without my permission, I can sure the dog **** out of them.
 
That's a true statement and has nothing to do with your deflection that identity theft is illegal in private.

Do you have a point? Or is this random "throw **** at the wall and see what sticks" time?

Oh, I've already made my point, as have you. I didn't make any deflection but responded directly to your broken argument. You said we couldn't [legally] steal your identity in public, do you deny saying that? How far you going to take this attempt to repair what YOU said?

Face it, the reality is, whatever you show in public can legally, constitutionally, be recorded and can be used against you in a court of law.
 
The trail begins with the available video, physical evidence, and eyewitness testimony. When that reaches a dead end as to identification, the public is asked for help. I'm not aware of any poster here that is afraid of any "side" in this instance...

There are definitely more than a couple posters that re relieved as hell, excited even, that the suspects appear to be white boys.
 
If someone uses a photograph of me in the wrong manner, without my permission, I can sure the dog **** out of them.

Not legally you can't [we're talking about photos taken in public here]. It's how the paparazzi legally do business every single day.
 
There are definitely more than a couple posters that re relieved as hell, excited even, that the suspects appear to be white boys.

Well, you do have a point here...
 
What trail was that? They have to have a trail before it goes "cold". All they have are these faces now. Matching them with people takes help. I get the feeling some here don't want the perps caught as they are scared of who's side they might be from. They sure don't look middle eastern to me.

You don't need to look middle eastern to be affiliated with middle eastern connected terrorist organizations. We here in Canada are learning all about that with four Canadian students being involved in the al Quida attack on the Algerian oil plant last year.
 
You don't need to look middle eastern to be affiliated with middle eastern connected terrorist organizations. We here in Canada are learning all about that with four Canadian students being involved in the al Quida attack on the Algerian oil plant last year.

Excellent observation. Good evening jcj...
 
Not legally you can't. It's how the paparazzi legally do business every single day.

Yes...I can...lol! If someone uses a photograph of me to defame my character, or to make money without my consent, I can sue their asses off.
 
Yes...I can...lol! If someone uses a photograph of me to defame my character, or to make money without my consent, I can sue their asses off.

You're free to try, but you won't win, ask any Hollywood alum. Btw, those paparazzi, they sell those photos and make money from them.
 
You said we couldn't [legally] steal your identity in public, do you deny saying that? How far you going to take this attempt to repair what YOU said?

I did not deny what I said, it remains true. You may not steal my identity in public, this is true. This demonstrates that I have some above ZERO expectation to privacy in public.

The real problem here is that you think you said something you didn't.
 
You don't need to look middle eastern to be affiliated with middle eastern connected terrorist organizations. We here in Canada are learning all about that with four Canadian students being involved in the al Quida attack on the Algerian oil plant last year.

Speaking of Canada ... doesn't that look like a Toronto Bluejay bird on the side of cap of suspect #1?
Looks like some kind of bird or fish but I couldn't find a cap that looks close enough to the one he was wearing.
 
Speaking of Canada ... doesn't that look like a Toronto Bluejay bird on the side of cap of suspect #1?
Looks like some kind of bird or fish but I couldn't find a cap that looks close enough to the one he was wearing.

I'm really surprised that the hats were not specifically emphasized. What's up bubba?
 
The real problem here is that you think you said something you didn't.

Read that while looking in a mirror and you'd finally have it.

Look, I know now what you were going for, but you're still wrong using the word "identity" and going for "steal". This isn't a society that subscribes to the idea that your soul can be stolen with a photograph. Even the founders wouldn't have believed that.

Now, show us ANY law that says you cannot be photographed in public. Or how about a court decision?

For your education:

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]

While a person may have a subjective expectation of privacy in his/her car, it is not always an objective one, unlike a person's home.[13]

Source
 
Last edited:
Excellent observation. Good evening jcj...

Hey Paul ... ya think James D Hill would be ticked off if someone told him they were glad Obama lost on guns because it ticked ant-gun nuts like him and Obama off?
 
Back
Top Bottom