Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What freedom does this prevent?
LOL - so none. Got it. SMHStart here, let them add up and eventually even you will notice...
He’s Riley.You don't seem to understand this issue.
Do you understand why the court ruled against the Baltimore Police Department?More word salad nonsense from you. This is about using cameras that people are using for their own security. It's entirely within their right to share that with anyone they want. Just something else that the party of small government wants to control for people.
I understand why and think it is wrong. Likewise with the paranoia that you and others have about someone seeing what goes on around your house. You're not protected from being seen.Do you understand why the court ruled against the Baltimore Police Department?
What were they doing that the court considered a ‘search’?
Let’s hear it in your own words.I understand why
This is absolute crazy talk.I understand why and think it is wrong. Likewise with the paranoia that you and others have about someone seeing what goes on around your house. You're not protected from being seen.
I thought you understood too - figures that you need it explained. They ruled that the surveillance, in essence, was too broad. That it monitored both legal and illegal activity without a specific cause.Let’s hear it in your own words.
Why did they consider it a search?
???? You think you're protected by privacy laws if someone sees you beating your wife on your front lawn or even through you picture window? JFC. The party of law an order is really the party of hiding illegal activity.This is absolute crazy talk.
Yeah but your wife's isn't!
Some people probably think that’s Hollywood invention…I watched 24 and I know the government already has access to all the private cameras
I’m sure the people posting here get a warm and fuzzy feeling when a cop pulls up behind them on the road. I’d bet they think to themselves, ‘whew, now I’m cloaked in the protective gaze of the law for the rest of my journey. This is awesome! I wish my whole life felt like this moment.’
Some people probably think that’s Hollywood invention…
Just one example:
Britain's surveillance agency GCHQ, with aid from the US National Security Agency, intercepted and stored the webcam images of millions of internet users not suspected of wrongdoing, secret documents reveal.
GCHQ files dating between 2008 and 2010 explicitly state that a surveillance program codenamed Optic Nerve collected still images of Yahoo webcam chats in bulk and saved them to agency databases, regardless of whether individual users were an intelligence target or not.
You give away your privacy, and you’ll regret it when the wrong people are in charge.
Why do you think the police need constant monitoring of people who are not doing anything illegal?I thought you understood too - figures that you need it explained. They ruled that the surveillance, in essence, was too broad. That it monitored both legal and illegal activity without a specific cause.
It should also be explained to you this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. In this case the police are not doing direct monitoring of activities, they are merely getting access to surveillance video from private entities. Much the same as they did when searching for the Boston Marathon bomber or any of countless other crimes where surveillance video can help solve crimes and make us all safer.
Lesson over.
No one is talking about constant monitoring of people - that's a really bad strawman. It's about using the monitoring of space to help solve and, hopefully, prevent crimes. That's a big difference.Why do you think the police need constant monitoring of people who are not doing anything illegal?
Couldn't they achieve the same outcome without taking away our privacy by asking for camera footage when it is needed? Like when an actual crime is committed?
I understand that you can’t fathom the politically suffocating effects of living in a police state.
That is precisely what the thread is about.No one is talking about constant monitoring of people - that's a really bad strawman.
That can be done with a warrant.It's about using the monitoring of space to help solve and, hopefully, prevent crimes. That's a big difference.
I understand that you can’t fathom the politically suffocating effects of living in a police state.
On your naïveté and ignorance totalitarianism thrives.
People voluntarily sharing their ring camera with the police is like Nazi Germany?
Maybe I am dumb - but that feels like a reach.
And it was pointed out early on how foolish your position is. First there's the limitation personal choice and then there's the tin foil paranoia. You succeed at sucking on multiple levels. LOL.That is precisely what the thread is about.
I know, because I started the thread and labeled it ‘Panopticon’.
Do you just not understand what that means?
That can be done with a warrant.
What you have come out in favor of is constant, warrantless surveillance.
Courts have ruled that violates the Bill of Rights.
It's more than a reach. It's absurd.People voluntarily sharing their ring camera with the police is like Nazi Germany?
Maybe I am dumb - but that feels like a reach.
FFS - why do you want to control how I provide security for my home?The government having constant access to cameras and mics throughout the inside and outside of your house is more like East Germany than Nazi Germany.
Of course it starts voluntary. Next will be legislation to allow access during emergencies. Then comes the perpetual emergency (42 national emergencies are currently in effect, if you lost count).
Who exercised a choice in having GCHQ or the NSA access their webcams?And it was pointed out early on how foolish your position is. First there's the limitation personal choice and then there's the tin foil paranoia.
Why do you want to live in a police state?FFS - why do you want to control how I provide security for my home?
Nevermind - we all know why.
You're a paranoid dweeb. LOL.Who exercised a choice in having GCHQ or the NSA access their webcams?
These are things that have already happened.
Not hypotheticals.
The Stasi and how they were used on the populace is real. Not hypothetical.
The hacking of devices and intercept of communications are daily realities. Not hypothetical.
Are you familiar with the term 'parallel construction'?
Why won't you answer my question? LOL.Why do you want to live in a police state?
Why won't you answer my question? LOL.
RileyHawk said:
It's people like you who don't want people to allow their videos to be used by police.
An American Stasi isn't the kind of 'law and order' I want.RileyHawk said:
Very strange for those of you on the far right who claim to support law and order. But then, you do you.
Still won't answer the question. Figures. Same old semenhole.I want the police to obtain warrants.
Why do you hate the Bill of Rights and crave living in a police state?
An American Stasi isn't the kind of 'law and order' I want.
What's the problem?owned by consenting businesses and civilians
That thousands of them collectively create a warrantless panopticon.What's the problem?
I not sure which question you think I didn't answer.Still won't answer the question.
What do you think I've 'made up'?I don't. You're making shit up again.
I'm anti-police exercising unlawful searches because they can and do abuse their power.Why are you anti-police? See how that works?
Lol - I would say you're playing dumb but you're not playing. But I'll play along in my best semenhole response - figure it out for yourself.I not sure which question you think I didn't answer.
Repeat here and I'll answer it.
What do you think I've 'made up'?
I'm anti-police exercising unlawful searches because they can and do abuse their power.
We have a Bill of Rights to restrain the exercise of their powers.
Do you see how that works?
That thousands of them collectively create a warrantless panopticon.