1984 Comes To Boston

walmass writes "In preparation for the DNC in Boston, 75 cameras monitored by the Federal government will be operating around the downtown Boston location. There are also an unspecified number of state police cameras, and 100 cameras owned by the Metro Boston Transit Authority. Quote: 'And it's here to stay: Boston police say the 30 or so cameras installed for the convention will be used throughout the city once the event is over. "We own them now," said police Superintendent Robert Dunford. "We're certainly not going to put them in a closet."'"

Comments

Security vs Liberty.

[Cavio]

Is it even possible to live free and untracked anymore? Is this just the price we pay for living in a civilized society?

I'm considering going to cash for most everything. Has anyone experimented with that lately, and what difficulties did you face?

Support the ACLU and the EFF. Those are the people fighting these battles for you. The guy in the article who says "''I definitely think it's good for safety reasons," said Chris Bellomo, a 55-year-old teacher from Cheshire, Conn. ''I feel more comfortable [knowing] that, if something bad happens, more people are going to be watching and aware of it, and that help will be there if it is needed." forgets that freedom has a cost, and I'm willing to live with a little danger in exchange for being beholden to no man other than myself. As Penn & Teller say, these cameras are "Bullshit!".

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[0123456]

"Is it even possible to live free and untracked anymore? Is this just the price we pay for living in a civilized society?"

If we lived in a civilised society it might be a price worth paying, but we have the worst of both worlds: an uncivilised society and a growing police state.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[treat]

If we lived in a civilised society it might be a price worth paying, but we have the worst of both worlds: an uncivilised society and a growing police state.

What we have isn't civilization? We have agriculture, arts, science, writing. Did you have a different definition for civilization?

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[leob]

It was never possible to live free and untracked in a big city.

What had changed is the technology that allowed to track you with better efficiency and with lesser expense (no need to pay an agent or a private detective to sit in a car across the street), that is all.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[abe ferlman]

No.

Privacy's gone. Abandon the flank and start insisting on reciprocal surveillance. You have no other choice.

I'm dead serious.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Moofie]

Freedom.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[SpacePunk]

If that's the price to pay, then it's far too high.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[asavage]

civ.i.lized

1. Having a highly developed society and culture.
2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable.
3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[antiMStroll]

"We have agriculture, arts, science, writing."

As did medieval Europe, the Romans and 'insert your favourite 20th Century genocidal regime here'. Your definition is broad to the point of being meaningless in the context of a discussion about rights and freedoms.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Gee. Let's see. A 0.0001% chance that these cameras can be used to catch a criminal, who won't pay me for the damage, that will only ransack my house once in my entire lifetime, and will never see any fair justice, one way or the other.

Vs.

A 99.9999% chance that (I'm 29) within my own lifetime some grabass lowlife politician or other "authority" will abuse this system affecting me at least indirectly, and in a serious, lasting manner.

Then again, I was taught math in public skool, so I'm not sure how to finish the equation. I change my mind, bring in the cameras!

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Shihar]

I am a civil libertarian, and yet cameras do not bother me all that much. It does not bother me that a camera might be watching me do something illegal in public. A cop could watch me do something illegal in public. Why does it matter if it is a cop or a computer? If a cop, cop watching a TV screen, or a computer manages to catch a criminal before he does something bad, good.

The real issue, in my opinion, is not the surveillance. It is the laws being enforced by surveillance. What makes the cameras scary is that they might be used to enforce bad laws. There are a lot of laws that we as a people simply accept because we don't expect them to truly be enforced strongly enough for it to be a concern. The risk is that these cameras will make it easy to enforce bad laws imposed by a slim majority. Drug laws a prime example. We do not want them truly enforced. If everyone who has committed a drug violation at one point in there life was suddenly jailed, over half of the population would be in jail. Many people would be facing very long prison sentences. It isn't an issue because few people are actually caught breaking these crimes. Surveillance and improved policing powers such as cameras wouldn't bother me if there were not a lot of fundamentally bad laws in existence. I don't mind the push to monitoring public spaces for criminals so long as that push is also followed by an effort to eliminate unjust laws passed by the majority on the minority, or laws that have simply been around for a while and no on bothers to question any more.

The secondary issue to this is the matter of who controls the information. We don't want corruption and secrecy. We want an open and fair society. If we truly want to push towards a society that has surveillance on itself, then it should be done in an open manner. Hook up the cameras to the internet and take an open source approach. Let the masses monitor themselves instead of doing it secretly in a police building. This sort of control is far too large to be trusted to only a few. It should be entrusted to everyone.

The point is that we do not have a sacrifice freedom so long as the laws are made such that you don't have to be a criminal to be free. If someone wants to bring out their pipe during the DNC and take a few drags of old Mary J, they should absolutely be able to. You shouldn't have to be a criminal to be free. Our society should spend less time trying to control the guy next door and more time trying to snag the bastard looking to commit real crimes, like homicide, rape, and terrorism.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[WNight]

They won't exactly be the most unbiased. Your argument is nothing but a pathetic retread of "Won't *someone* please think of the children."

Instead, ask the first government whistle-blower who is caught and vanished while trying to meet a reporter, because the FBI could use face-recognition software and a vast network of cameras to find him. Stupid emotionally laden arguments are easy.

It's different to have cameras watch you than police officers in their cars because the patrol car is somewhat more visible. You know if you're being followed and watched.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[SquadBoy]

How the hell can a crime be prevented by a camera? Maybe at most solved a bit faster, but prevented? I don't think so. I wish I had my e copy of "Grimmer than Hell" so I could point you at Drake's Lacey stories. They make the point better than I ever could. I'll have to put up a link to it tomorrow at work. In any case let me address your points.

" Why is it any different that a cop can see you on camera when they could otherwise see you as they drive by in a patrol car?"

I'll address a couple of other possible points in addition to your question. A cop driving by who looks at me as some reason to do so and he is certainly not going to recall seeing me unless I'm doing something to bring myself to his attention. You could even go so far as to say that if he looks at me and recalls what I look like as a result of looking at me that I was most likely doing something to give him "probable cause" to look at and remember me. Now the point you are going to try to trot out next is what if they have a camera in cop car. Same thing there is still going to be some reason for them to point the camera at me and keep it on me for any length of time. Same thing with a radar gun. Granted most of them don't do it but the story they have to tell in court is that they looked at you for a few seconds and based on that thought you were speeding before they used the radar gun on you. What all of these things have in common is that there is a person making the choice to use his/her limited resources to pay attention to you. A automatic camera on 24/7 is going to record anyone in its range at all times. You have just removed both the formal and informal requirement for "reasonable cause" from the choice to notice, pay attention to, and record you doing things.

"We have cameras downtown here and the world didn't end on the day they were installed"

Of course it did not end. But there is a chilling effect and there are possible bad effects. Say for example you are a woman trying to get away from a cop who likes to hit you. Well you just made it harder to do so. Say for example you wanted to assemble with some of your friends and express the opinion that W is maybe not doing the best possible job in the world. Given the way things are going in general I know that I and many other people feel that it may not be such a good idea to do that where there are cameras. Over time the kind of chilling effect these things cause will harm the country and will lead to bad things. In any case hope the above helps you to change your mind.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[the_2nd_coming]

hmm, we live in a police state yet we have the worst crime in the western world? you are aware that in a police state like Singapore or the soviet union in its hay day or China under Mao, the crime rate was nearly zero.

we are far from a police state.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[the_2nd_coming]

yeah, like the french and russians wanted to...you know, those nations that just happened to be getting kick backs from Saddam. and we all know that the UN had the best interests at stake with their corruption in the oil for food program.

I am all for cool heads ruling the day and all, but to put our trust in having a consensus in the UN or even among our allies is not how to run a foreign policy.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Anonymous Coward]

the reported crime rate.

1) crimes went unreported a lot to avoid drawing attention to it from the higher-ups
2) crimes were committed en masse by the higher-ups themselves. Though they were often "legal" to the government, it depends on what you define as a crime.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[BlackHawk-666]

Say for example you are a woman trying to get away from a cop who likes to hit you. Well you just made it harder to do so.

Well, wouldn't the women actually want the images of the cop hitting her on camera a-la Rodney King style. How does having this evidence taped and presented in court to convict the cop "chill" her freedom not to be hit.

Say for example you wanted to assemble with some of your friends and express the opinion that W is maybe not doing the best possible job in the world.

Since the right to free assembly is granted in your constituition you would surely be allowed to do this and the cameras would protect your rights. In fact, having them there might stop the police state from cracking your skulls with their batons, not a bad deal for the Bush disidents.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[KingJoshi]

bullshit! Anyone with any knowledge of social/political dilemmas knows the difficulty of making decisions. Simple games like the prisoner's and chicken dilemma show the dangers of trying to decide the right course of action while modeling the assessments of others.

Sometimes, you have to stand your ground, or the bully/lunatic wins. Sometimes, you have to make threats, and if your "bluff" is called, you have to follow through. The UN made demands for years and the world was sure Iraq didn't comply, hence the resolution calling for Iraq to cooperate (Iraq was too stupid not to cooperate better). Anyhow, you have to follow through on the threat or your "word" and position is lessened for the future and that brings many other problems.

Situations aren't clear cut or simple. Your line you draw on when to fight might not be similar to anothers. But the decisions aren't so simple as to say, that guy was wrong and I'm right. Some decisions are a gamble, and some just can't get second guessed. It does no good. We can learn from it and analzye failed intelligence, etc. But some calls are gut calls where the right course of action isn't known.

This goes in hand with security vs liberty. Where people draw the lines differ. Some things are easier to see than others (the administration failed to plan for peace, they only listened to defectors and had 4 year old intelligence, likewise, giving up liberty for security is bound to have government abuse their power). But things aren't so clear cut (the defectors had good evidence before and Saddam could never be trusted, likewise, police have done a relatively good job and I'd prefer them to anarchy and every man for themselves).

It's just finding the line. Sometimes, the majority comes to a conclusion you don't agree with and you continue to argue your position but must give way to the majority at times.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[espo812]

Ask the potential victim of the first crime that's prevented because of the cameras if the price is too high.

As has been said, cameras don't prevent crime. Another thing most people miss is that police also do not prevent crime. In fact, in Warren v. D.C. the court held "courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community."

You may think of police mainly as historians. They are charged with collecting the facts and figuring out what happened and arresting the person responsible. They are not there to prvent crime, only to deal with committed crimes. It is up to individuals to defend themselves.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[CrowScape]

Would that reaction be coming from the government, or from the population? In a free society, the other side is always allowed to express itself in opposition. A recent example would be Whoopi Goldberg being dropped by Slim Fast. In a nice irony, Whoopi is outraged that a group excercised their First Amendment freedoms to get her fired because she was excersing her First Amendment freedoms to get a certain President fired. The moral; freedom of speech cuts both ways.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[paganizer]

You have a small problem with your logic.
you are presupposing that the cameras will be controlled by, and only available to, honest, loyal, trustworthy boy scouts.
Logic, and a brief period spent reviewing documented police power abuses, should make it obvious that this is very far from the situation we actually have.
and, BTW, don't forget that the Governor of Georgia declared martial law so he could deny assembly permits during the G8 conference...

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Yeah, America has certainly shown how to run a foreign policy. This Saddam, was all bottled up, keeping his country under (reasonably lawful albeit despotic) control, and disuading Iran from invading; and with a minimum of weapons.

Now, you've pissed off half of Islam (and Islam is a big, big place; bigger than America). Iraq's economy is all but destroyed, Iran is eyeing up the place and Americans and Iraqis are dying by the hundreds/thousands. The US governments budget is in deficit.

About the only one happy about the situation is Osama Bin Laden; America has managed to fumble the situation in every one of the top holy places of Islam. Nice work.

That UN- what do they know? They know enough not to take a poison chalice...

And you know what? Dumb moves like create the kind of uncertainty that helps put cameras in American cities.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[SquadBoy]

Yea because they could *never* use the camera to get pictures of you at say a perfectly legal protest, put you on their enemies list then send you a secret letter and putting you away in some hole with no access to communications to the outside for a very long time. That could never happen in America.

Oh wait in the last 3 years the groundwork to be able to do just that has been laid by the people now in power. The same ones who where able to pull a huge piece of complex legislation out of their asses in a couple of weeks. The same ones who at that time said "now we can do some things that we have wanted to for a long time now". The same ones who during the campaign said "there should be limits on speech". The same ones who are trying to get rules in place so that a unelected committee can overrule the Constitution.

Yea I pretty much think that anyone who has been paying attention has good reason to think that anything that increases potential government power at this point is a bad thing. 3 years ago I would not have been really up in arms over these cameras. But combine this trend to public cameras along with a lot of what has happened in the last 3 years and I start to get scared. And so should you.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[dcam]

Sorry, but when someone starts deliberately murdering innocent civilians he instantly loses any moral claims he may have had.

No. The moral high claims are likely to be somewhat diminished, if not removed, but they may not be totally removed. Suppose the person who is doing the killing of hundreds is avenging the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?

The Palestinian suicide bombers would argue that they are avenging those innocent palestinans killed by the Israeli army, with some justification.

People/groups generally fit somewhere between extremes on a moral scale. All you can claim is that you are closer to one extreme than the other.

BTW I am not condoning murdering innocent civilians, I am just pointing out that in many cases these things tend to degenerate and neither side can claim the absolute moral high ground.

This should have been apparent after ABU Graib.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[BlackHawk-666]

Since when has pot been legal in the US. Probably not since around Lincoln was chuffing the stuff down. Although it has just been re-classed over here, the police have turned a blind eye to it for quite a number of years. I made a police report a few years back and sat in the police station and told the officer we were smoking weed, she just said to go on with the story, it wasn't important that we were smoking canabis.

The Prince Charles story would be protected on two levels. Firstly, after Diana's accident the government brought in laws to help prevent pazaratzi from hounding public figures - this especially pertains to the royal house. Secondly, did you miss the part about the court injunction? You have the same thing in your country - inability to publish a story whilst awaiting the court hearing. This is to protect people from smear campaigns. This stuff does fly in the US.

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[ponxx]

Oh come on ... no country in this world has an ethical foreign policy. Certainly not the US.

In case you forgot, the US supported Saddam for decades when he was just as despotic as he was recently. The US stood by and and even cooperated while Saddam fought a terrible war against the Iran, because Iran was the bigger evil, so Iraq was a friend. Incidentally, the CIA also trained Bin Laden for his terrorist work, which was supposed to be against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. He was just as much of a lunatic back then, but had a different enemy, so that was fine...

Now they've done the same again, backing for example the Kurds, who are by no means better than Saddam in their political outlook, and if they allow free elections they'll probably get an islamist government of the Iranian variety...

It's all a big mess, and it's getting no closer to being sorted out. The Iraq war was a most bizarre reaction to 9/11 as it was probably the only country down there that *didn't* have *anything* to do with it. Iraq was secular for a start and loathed by Bin Laden...

Anyway, there appears to be no coherent concept of any kind, so either it's such a subtle plan no-one can understand it or it's a very flawed foreign policy and an engagement with no exit strategy...

Re:Security vs Liberty.

[Tassach]

Suppose the person who is doing the killing of hundreds is avenging the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians?

Intentionally targeting civilian populations is never justifiable, regardless of the provocation. Those who intentionally kill innocents are murderers, not soldiers.

You cannot use evil to fight evil without becoming evil, the ends do NOT justify the means, and "I was only following orders" is never a valid defense.

An honorable soldier will do his best to minimize the chances of harming innocents, but sometimes it's unavoidable. Take for example a military support facility like a weapons factory, or a strategic dual-use facility like an oil refinery: these are clearly valid targets in war, even though they are privately owned and staffed by civilians. Another example would be a dishonorable government which sets up a missle launch site right next to a school or hospital. In that situation a commander might have no choice but to attack the weapon even though he knows many civilians may die as a result; if he is honorable, he would do everything he could to reduce civilian casualties, even if it means exposing his troops to additional risk.

Defending Freedom?

[toetagger1]

"will be able to zoom in from their work stations to gather details of facial descriptions or read license plates""

Somehow this tells me the terrorists won

Re:Defending Freedom?

[Timesprout]

Cities were deploying cameras for years before 9/11 mostly for crime prevention. The technology behind them was only ever going to get better. Its not the terrorists winning, its law enforcement implementing a phased plan. How comfortable we all feel with it is another matter.

Re:Defending Freedom?

[toetagger1]

So all you are saying is that the terrorists didn't need to do anything to win.

Re:Defending Freedom?

[Iesus_Christus]

Has it ever occurred to all the "The terrorists have won" people that the terrorists more than likely don't fucking care about our freedom? They want us out of the Persian Gulf. They want us to stop helping Israel. They hate our imperialistic actions. But, if we were to leave them alone and not interfere with them, would they really go out of their way to bomb us?

And this is only Al-Qaeda. The vast majority of terrorists out there are in it for one of two things: radical change on one issue that no one seems to care about, and drawing attention to themselves and killing as many people as possible. While the lower-level operatives of terrorist organizations often believe in what they're doing, the leaders are frequently just trolling because of their own psychological issues. Even without our freedom, they'd sill hate us.

Re:Defending Freedom?

[Qrlx]

I think it's quite possible for terrorists to lose, and for us to lose as well. It's a false dichotomy.

I think these cameras will have very little effect on terrorism. How exactly would cameras have stopped 9/11 or Oklahoma City? Instead they will be used by the government to track, monitor, and selectively prosecute us.

How does the saying go: Treat people like criminals, and they'll behave that way. Putting the world at large under surveillance is far too reactive a solution to the problems we're facing.

Why do police write speeding tickets? The pigs would say it's to keep the roads safe. But that's just a side effect. The raison d'ete is to generate revenue. Parking tickets are an even better example.

So no, I don't trust the government, and I don't see why I should be expected to. Their track record over the past 20 years is abysmal. Just look at the war on drugs. A criminal justice system that provides "customers" to a for-profit privatized prison system (NYSE: CXW). Civil forfeiture laws completely out of whack with common sense.

Fundamentally, the government is not there to hold my hand as I traverse life. There are occasions when a helping hand is appopriate. But not every time I step out into public.

Re:Defending Freedom?

[beakburke]

From a historical perspective, many ideologial groups have attempted to use totalitarianism to achive their goals over the last 100 years or so, and even farther back of course. The first two, facsist dictatorships and communism, have suffered major defeats and are no longer the threat they used to be to free countries. Radical islam however is still a very entrenched and is now becomming a bigger threat to "free" countries.

The idea of "leave them alone" was very popular before WWII, just like the anti-Iraq position is now. It hold a lot of appeal to people who think that somehow the terrorists wouldn't have been "mad" at us if we hadn't provoked them. I agree that the freedom itself isn't necessarily what upsets them, it's that many of us use that freedom to live our lives in ways that they don't agree with. Remember, the stated goals of Al-Qaeda et al. isn't just the removal of US troops from the Gulf, they really do want lifestyles they don't agree with wiped out. They aren't going to be happy to simplly have the US out of the Gulf. To steal a phrase "if you give a mouse some cheese, he's gonna want a cookie."

So what?

[kentrel]

They're only cameras.. they're in public places.. What do you expect? Why do you care? Are you planning on doing something you shouldn't? If so, that's why the cameras are there. And FYI, by law, you're entitled to access any CCTV footage that contains your image, so exercise your right.

Naive or what?

[0123456]

"Are you planning on doing something you shouldn't?"

Indeed. Only those who've done something wrong, or are misidentified, have anything to fear... and no-one should be worried about a mere few years spent in Cuba because they were misidentified as a criminal. Of course what's legal today might be 'wrong' tomorrow, like, say, trying to cross the border to Canada in order to avoid being drafted to die in Iran or Syria, but as long as you're docile little sheep who do whatever the government tells you to do (and don't get misidentified), you'll probably be OK.

Your Rights Online? What a joke.

[Ken@WearableTech]

What rights are in question?
People do NOT have a right of privacy in public. This is nothing new. This is NOT 1984! 1984 is government cameras in your home. This shrill scream of "1984" all time just weakens it's real meaning.

Re:Your Rights Online? What a joke.

[josh3736]

What rights are in question?
People do NOT have a right of privacy in public.

Oh, but you do.

Just not as much as when you're sitting at home on a beanbag naked eating Cheet-ohs.

Like most other things, my expectation of privacy is not binary, 1 or 0, black and white. When I am at home on my beanbag, I have a full expectation of privacy. It is my very reasonable expectation that no one is watching and recording what I do, listening to my phone conversations, or going through my porno collection to see what kind of pornos I have. (Warrants notwithstanding.) When I'm walking down the street, it would not be a reasonable for me to expect that no one is watching me. However, I do expect that no one is following me around with a camcorder, and I think that is perfectly reasonable. However, I can resonably expect to show up on a camera if I go to a baseball game.

Likewise, if I'm on a crowded street, chances are somebody will hear my phone conversation. If I don't like that, I should find somewhere a little out of the way so no one can hear what I'm talking about. But I do expect that the streetlamp isn't recording what I'm saying.

I also expect that no one will look through my brown bag full of pornos-- It's my bag, even though I'm in a public space.

The examples can go on and on. It's simple: There are varying degrees of privacy.

Re:cash?

[Cavio]

Yeah. Still, you cannot reserve a hotel room or rent a car with cash.

And don't even THINK about trying to buy an airline ticket with cash, unless you ENJOY body cavity searches and long vacations in Guantanimo.

Now ask yourself

[Anonymous Coward]

Who really poses a bigger threat to your well being on a day to day basis?

A) Osama 'been bombin'

B) The local police force

Uhmm...hmmm...let's see.... 'B'!

Your activities in public are public

[Jayfar]

I'm in public, and damn it, I reserve the right not to be watched while I'm doing whatever the hell it is I'm doing!

Uh, when you're out in public everything you do is subject to observation by the public. That's why it's called public.

Enough fucking sensationalism

[The Master Control P]

This is NOT 1984! They are installing extreme security measures in preparation for the DNC because of what the DHS tells them is a considerable threat from terrorists. Then, once the DNC is over, they don't want to just throw everything away. If this were 1984, they'd be installing the cameras in your house and Micheal Moore would vaporize.

If nothing else, we've seen that (on the whole) it's morbidly inefficient for a single authority to try and use cameras to monitor a large area for an extended period of time.

So far, every attempt at installing cameras to monitor the public by the government has been a huge FUBAR because people destroy the cameras, and the software that tries to automate the surveylance process sucks. So take off your tinfoil hat and stop hassling the local food store to order more spam for the compound.

This is NOT a evil gubmint attempt to take over your life, it's an attempt to stop a potential attack on the DNC.

Who will watch the Watchmen?

[jjh37997]

Who will watch the watchmen? The watched!

People.... this can be a good thing. The rich, powerful or corrupt have always had the power to invade your privacy because its just an illusion and will alway be so. Privacy laws just protect the powerful from being watched by the masses.

Instead of fighting a lossing battle to stop this technology we need to ensure that it will be available to everyone and that the feeds will be open to the public. Put cameras on the streets, in the police stations and in government buildings. I don't mind being watched as long as I can watch everyone else. Imagine a world were everyone is equipped with their own personal cameras and recorders... with so many eyes spreading their light everywhere the world might become a more peaceful and happy place.

Not about our right to privacy

[Tony]

Oh, for fuck's sake, people, this is not about our right to privacy; it's about the government's right to monitor its (presumably innocent) citizens.

Do we want a government powerful enough to track us wherever we go? I don't. They *don't* need this power to do their jobs of attempting to protect us. (Nobody can "protect" us, they can only *try* to protect us.)

Liberty is not only about our rights as citizens, but more about our rights to be free of a government that feels free to track and control us. That's why "free speech zones" are an abomination, and this surveillance is a slap in the face.

If we allow our government to control us instead of us controlling it, we are no longer a democracy. (Are we a democracy?)

linguistics

[beakburke]

"A well regulated militia" doesn't mean in your modern parlance what it did to the founding fathers. To them it meant that all able bodied citizens had the right, and potentiall the obligation, to help protect and defend their country against a tyrant, whether foreign or domestic. Remeber that ordinal colonists,were the primary fighters in the revolutionary war. This was to be a safeguard against the emergence of another tyrant.

Secondly, the linguistics of the first clause are not restrictive. They are explanitory. If I said, "since it is necessary for you to drink orange juice to get your intake of vitamin C, no one shall deny anyone the right to have an orange juice", would you argue that I only intend to protect YOUR right to drink OJ, and not those of other individuals? It does provide some rationale as to WHY they wanted "the rights of the people to keep and bear arms" to not be infringed upon.

Furthermore, your interpretation makes absolutely no sense. Why would the government need to grant any army the right to have arms? Plus, using your interpretation, the 2nd ammendment is a grant of power to the government, instead of a guarantor of individual rights, which would make it completely out of character for the Bill of Rights, which is all about limiting what the governemnt is allowed to do. Logically that interpretation makes no sense and is out of line with what the founders intended.

If the anti-gun lobby were honest they would say that the second ammendment is a "dangerous anachronism" that needs to be repealed, instead of trying to pretend that it doesn't say what it clearly says. At least that would be intellectually honest. Then we could have an honest debate about the need (or lack thereof) of such a right. Unfortunately I don't see this happening.

Re:linguistics

[beakburke]

If you want to AMMEND the US Constitution then you can make that arguement, and we could have that argument and rehash the debate perhaps where it would be more on topic :). But what I am saying is that you can't pretend that the constitition doesn't say what it clearly says, that's just intellectually dishonest IMHO.

The MBTA

[glwtta]

Living in Boston I can say that the MBTA has really taken the task of stirring up paranoia and hysteria to heart.

That creepy voice imploring you "if you see something, say something" is on the subway PA about every 15 minutes.

The stations and trains are covered in posters depicting "vigilant" citizens doing their part to protect Freedom, close-ups of an eye reminding you that our enemies only wait for you to drop your guard - really straight out of some cheesy science fiction movie about a semi-futuristic totalitarian regime.

Now apparently they are going to be doing random bag-checks for the DNC (I think they've decided on bag screens now, not sure if that's better or worse), and I am sure that's going to stop right after the DNC is over.

So yeah, the MBTA is definitely doing their part in the whole fear mongering campaign.