Slashdot Mirror
Student Sues FBI For Planting GPS Tracker
GabriellaKat submits this snippet from Yahoo! news, writing "'Yasir Afifi, 20, says a mechanic doing an oil change on his car in October discovered the device stuck with magnets between his right rear wheel and exhaust. They weren't sure what it was, but Afifi had the mechanic remove it and a friend posted photos of it online to see whether anyone could identify it. Two days later, Afifi says, agents wearing bullet-proof vests pulled him over as he drove away from his apartment in San Jose, Calif., and demanded their property back.' Now he has decided to sue the FBI. This story was also covered last year when he found the tracking device."
For the illegal wiretappings, they were fined were $200. How much will it be this time?
If we're going to take people's freedom away and treat them like criminals, then why the fuck does America exist?
If we're going to act like some police state or other oppressive regimes, then America is dead.
And if you really think we need this kind of monitoring to be safe, I'd like to point out that even the most monitored states around the World aren't any safer - if anything they're LESS safe because it allows for the abuse by the watchers.
If the FBI gets away with this, I'll consider America and Her values to be completely dead as opposed to mostly dead because of the PATRIOT Act.
If they can't find it, it is clearly useless. Or am I missing something?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Once again the FBI wants to takeover everyones rights. There is no reason for what they did, they're just bullies. Also, first post :D
This guy would succeed in suing the absolute shit out of them, and the agents responsible would be fired (all the way up the chain). The FBI has repeatedly spit on the cornerstone of our legal system which supposedly guarantees a man to be innocent before proven guilty. They have turned it around once again and forced this man to prove his innocence.
Now let's see just how free this country really is.
Reddit post:
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dmh5s/does_this_mean_the_fbi_is_after_us/
Images of device:
http://imgur.com/OM6nE.jpg
http://imgur.com/sspLU.jpg
http://imgur.com/f4V2T.jpg
http://imgur.com/srhrK.jpg
Someday we'll hit the human carrying capacity. And the band will just play on.
He should have had some fun, like putting it on a random car at an airport and phoning in a "suspicious device" and calling the local news media. The ensuing circus would be fun.
So you're saying the thing he's done was being a dictator's nephew...?
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]",
Exactly! Government agencies never do anything wrong and never target innocent citizens! All hail our three lettered overlords!
He made a comment on Reddit about how easy it actually is to bomb shopping malls
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_deodorant_could_be_a_bomb_why_are_you/c0sve5q
Someday we'll hit the human carrying capacity. And the band will just play on.
There hasn't been actual reporting since Franklins press. 99% of news is spun propaganda, the rest is gossip.
Yeah if I found a device on my car, I'd damn keep it for my own amusement.
When the scaredy clowns in their pussy vests came back for it. "What property, I know the FBI doesn't do illegal things to citizens, so you must be mistaken. Why don't you both go on down to the gym and pump each other".
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Isn't it obvious ?
"Yasir Afifi"
That sounds like a terrorist name to me! And he's studying, clearly to make bombs! I bet he looks arab too!
I'm being sarcastic, but I don't think I'm too far off.
"Losers weepers; finders keepers." "Posession is nine-tenths of the laws," and so on. Balls thrown into my yard become my property - same applies with GPS devices found in my driveway.
The FBI would simply have to follow "the due process of law" if they wanted their discarded item back. I'm sure that would be most embarassing and reveal things they'd rather not reveal, but then I guess they shouldn't have left the GPS in my yard.
Dicks.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
To paraphrase: "All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect, would they?"
People like you should never ever ever serve on a criminal jury.
I am officially gone from
The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]", as the article says. Maybe he's Ahmadinejad's nephew or something. Can we have some actual reporting?
Republicans are a strange breed. When it comes to Education or Environment or Social welfare or financial regulation, "Govt is incompetent, Govt is the problem, Govt cant do anything right. Govt employees are useless slackers ...".
But when it comes to warrant-less wiretaps, surveillance, etc the very same government employees are paragons of virtue and epitome of ability.
Go figure.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
You sound like my art teacher, after I showed her video of cops beating an innocent jogger walking his dog. "I'm sure the cops had a good reason to beat him."
Riiight. More likely the cops (fbi) are Sick with power, and they do these things simply because they can, not because the citizen did anything wrong.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
And only the guilty get beaten by police, too...
There hasn't been actual reporting since Franklins press. 99% of news is spun propaganda, the rest is gossip
You're joking right?
The "phamplet press" of colonial time was 100% biased to whatever side of the political fence the editors sat on, and would print rumors and innuendo in ways that would make the editors of the weekly world news blanch
They did occasionally get things right, like when they busted Thomas Jefferson for impregnating Sally Hemmings (vindicatated 200+ years later), but they also printed stuff that would easily get you sued for libel and slander today.
Considering the founding fathers went out of their way NOT to put limits on it, and considering the state of the press at the time of the constitution really illustrates just how far-reaching freedom of the press should be...
Who says they wouldn't be? The cost of those devices probably isn't huge, and once you've got them distributed you can probably loosely track a few dozen people for each agent on the case. Why wouldn't they widen the net to people who have some third-, fourth-, or fifth-degree connection to an actual "person of interest"? It seems like it would be terribly efficient to me.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
If it were me I would have called the bomb squad and made sure all the TV crews were there to see them pull the tracking device off. I think the government and friends have granted themselves far too many powers since 9/11 etc and all of which wouldnt make a damn difference had it all happen again. Its a convenient justification to make it easier for which ever department has the resposibilities to do something that could be a bit easier if they were able to spy on you, read your emails, listen to your calls, check your bank transactions, etc, etc and now track your every movements. None of which is going to stop a guy with a cash plane ticket and a box knife is it now? I think the balance between privacy and security has now long been broken and ever day it seems to be getting worse. Its only when people like this guy stand up and make a point that it shouldnt be happening that something might ever possibly change.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
and left it at that.
I mean, what are they going to do to you?
Too bad you could not get it onto a plane. I wonder how much trouble you would get into taking it or trying to take it on checked luggage?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Well he does have photos of the device, a unique FCC ID that traces back to the FBI, and a plausible story of being pulled over. It's not like he's some paranoid "I was abducted" fool. Last I checked, the legality of inserting a tracking device on someone was questionable.
The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]", as the article says. Maybe he's Ahmadinejad's nephew or something. Can we have some actual reporting?
You are the reason that our civil liberties are being eroded so effectively these days. "He was being investigated by the FBI, therefore he must have been doing something wrong?" Are you insane? Mind you, this is not to say that the FBI is a particularly nefarious organization, but is it ever prudent to give anyone that much unchecked authority? Even if the FBI as an organization was totally beyond reproach (which it isn't), you still need to take into account that it is composed of people, all of whom are imperfect. Sometimes people make mistakes. Other times, people maliciously abuse their authority. I know when this case originally came about, it was revealed that Afifi's friend had made some ill-advised, but obviously non-threatening statements on Reddit. We also know that he is of Middle Eastern descent. Is it not possible that this is all the FBI ever had on him and were grotesquely overstepping their bounds? Please consider these things before you say that sort of bullshit in public again, it really hurts all of us.
P.S. -- What fucking business would it be of the FBI if he were Ahmedinijad's nephew? It is not illegal in the United States to be related to someone!
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
If you want to see a better picture of why the FBI was interested in him, take a look at this following comment from the last time this was on slashdot:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1813728&cid=33839634
How would the FBI even prove their ownership, if he held back the device pending such proof?
I think, that's exactly why they were "aggressive" and "hostile" to get it back...because they noticed, this could potentially be pretty bad for them (which it was anyway).
Another thing is, what if he had thrown it away? Could they sue him for property-loss damages incurred?? It's your car, so can't you work on it, add and remove things as you see fit?
That sound just like the Westborrow Baptist Church!
Clearly he was a dangerous individual. After all, the FBI never makes mistakes and targets only guilty individuals.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's easy for the FBI to show the legality of their surveillance operation: simply produce the warrant signed by a judge. Clearly it doesn't matter if the suspect knows about it or not, otherwise they wouldn't demand their device back. There is no logical reason at this point not to tell the suspect why he's monitored: if the suspect is guilty, he very well knows why he is monitored anyways, and if he is not, he can probably exactly tell the FBI why it's all a waste of time and money.
Dear FBI, if you have nothing to hide you can clearly show under what jurisdiction you are monitoring people, right?
Wow. Too much Fox News FTL. While I certainly agree that the Islamic religion is a particularly nefarious one (only marginally ahead of Christianity, mind you), the vast majority of Muslims are normal people that just happen to believe something differently than you do.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
I couldn't find an appropriate moderation category, so I'm just going to call you an idiot.
oh look! an idiotic biggot.
go back over to conservapedia or fox news.
He made a comment on Reddit about how easy it actually is to bomb shopping malls
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ciiag/so_if_my_deodorant_could_be_a_bomb_why_are_you/c0sve5q
I'm sure I've done the same. I have a pet (completely hypothetical) theory of where in Birmingham, UK, you could plant a car bomb to have a catastrophic effect on the whole nation's transport, and I'm bound to have discussed it on some mailing list, newsgroup or forum at some point in the last 20 years.
I don't think it would justify bugging me.
He did not do that -- it was a friend of his. This means that if you say something stupid, but clearly non-threatening, on the Internet, that the FBI has a right to spy on everyone you know. That, to me, is an extremely troubling precedent to set.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
You forgot beating their wives, gouging out their womens' clitorises in the name of chastity, making women wear bed sheets in the name of modesty, murdering women who dishonor their families by getting raped, murdering homosexuals, murdering women who date non-Muslims, murdering apostates, murdering people for suggesting that insulting Islam is not a capitol crime (just happened to a politician in Pakistan), murdering critics of Islam (RIP Theo Van Gogh), ironically rioting over political cartoons that suggest Muslims are violent, etc... Yes, piss AND shit AND puke AND HIV-infected blood be upon Mohammed, that murdering pedophile.
Should just DHL it to the Iranian embassy or even overseas to China or something.
So, discovering glaring holes in the security infrastructure in the US is now an offense warranting surveillance and covert ops? Did you read his statement?
"i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many fucking malls would have blown up already.. "
The guy was criticizing the US "war on terror" and how its just a show to keep the stupid cheeple down. Nobody in their right mind could read his post and get the notion that he was in any way or form even remotely interested in blowing stuff up. This was the best example of DHS being used for political motives ever.
no.
you've got your facts wrong.
his friend made a comment on reddit about how insane it is to obsess about terrorists blowing up shopping malls.
"bombing a mall seems so easy to do. i mean all you really need is a bomb, a regular outfit so you arent the crazy guy in a trench coat trying to blow up a mall and a shopping bag. i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many fucking malls would have blown up already.. you can put a bag in a million different places, there would be no way to foresee the next target, and really no way to prevent it unless CTU gets some intel at the last minute in which case every city but LA is fucked...so...yea...now i'm surely bugged : /"
that in and of itself wouldn't be a big deal, half of slashdot would be under permanent surveillance.
but he did so while being brown which makes it far far more serious.
You are an idiot.
Mostly harmless.
>>>they busted Thomas Jefferson for impregnating Sally Hemmings
"busted"? Really? Are white men not allowed to have sex with black women (or vice-versa)? How colonial of you. --- From what illustrations I've seen, Sally was a gorgeous woman and I would have sex with her too. (With her permission of course - I'm too submissive to force someone to do something they don't want.)
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Brum, or a catastrophic effect on the whole nation's transport ...
Fair trade off I'd say.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
The question surrounding GPS tracking has been a topic for discussion for a few years now. Last year when this took place, I believe that a California court stated that it was equivalent to an officer tailing an individual, and a vehicle that was on public property could have the device attached to it without a warrant. According to the article, a Federal Appeals court over ruled this and claimed it unconstitutional.
From the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_on_re_us/us_gps_tracking_warrants
"Judges have disagreed over whether search warrants should be required for GPS tracking. Afifi's lawyers say they are filing this lawsuit in hopes of a decision saying that any use of tracking devices without a warrant in the United States is unconstitutional.
The federal appeals court in the Washington circuit where Afifi's case was filed ruled in August that the collection of GPS data amounts to a government "search" that required a warrant. The Obama administration asked the court to change its ruling, calling the decision "vague and unworkable" and arguing that investigators will lose access to a tool they now use "with great frequency.""
I agree with the student and his lawyers, I too feel this is unconstitutional, but IANAL. If his actions are truly suspicious and worthy of tracking, it should have been easy to get a judge to sign a warrant for the tracking. But what the government is doing is building intelligence to help prevent future terrorist attacks. Since the signing of the Patriot Act, many of our civil liberties have been stripped from us and our own government no longer sees fit to work within the confines of the law that has been built off of the interpretation of our Constitution. The govt. is trying to tie this young man to a terrorist cell, and they don't have the evidence to support it.
I mean, what are they going to do to you?
I don't know, like say you are a terrorist and a Unlawful combatant, as such you don't have any rights and put you in to Guatemala Bay prison, torture you there and release you after a few months. If he tries to sue, the Obama administration will pressure the courts to not hear the case and to drop the charges. Oh wait, that was the CIA, o.k. never mind.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
anyone who thinks being put in positions of authority doesn't turn ordinary nice people into sadists needs to read up on the Stanford Prison
Experiment.
Some balls.
Subtlety is clearly their middle name, and also their first and last name. :P
It's the old - "The police wouldn't have arrested him if he weren't guilty of SOMETHING!"
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Exactly. If the authorities are interested in him, he must have done something wrong. I mean, that's just straight up logic. It's not like he should be presumed innocent or someting like that.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Amazing how they can't seem to find time to shut down the Saudi religious schools in the US which use blatantly seditious indoctrination, but they can find all the time they need to go after a guy who's probably at worst just a 20 year old punk.
Of course this is the same federal government that can find a 100 illegals at the BP clean up site, but can't find the illegals at the day laborer site down the street from my office which is in one of the areas of metro DC with the largest populations of illegals in the region...
that in and of itself wouldn't be a big deal, half of slashdot would be under permanent surveillance.
What gives you the idea we're not?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
"not to say that the FBI is a particularly nefarious organization" WTF? You never hear of COINTELPRO? If murdering Americans because you don't like their politics doesn't qualify them as a "nefarious organization" then what will?
Sorry my friend but the FBI has been playing fast and loose with the law since the day the branch was created. All this "war on terror" has done is give them another excuse in their bag for screwing with people. Hell the sad part is they can get any search warrant rubber stamped and five will get you ten they were either too lazy or didn't even have the most flimsy of excuses to screw with this guy so they didn't bother.
I bet if the Founding Fathers could see what the three letter orgs have done with their constitution they would rip it up and start over.
the comment in question was damned tame too.
I see worse here on slashdot daily.
"bombing a mall seems so easy to do. i mean all you really need is a bomb, a regular outfit so you arent the crazy guy in a trench coat trying to blow up a mall and a shopping bag. i mean if terrorism were actually a legitimate threat, think about how many fucking malls would have blown up already.. you can put a bag in a million different places, there would be no way to foresee the next target, and really no way to prevent it unless CTU gets some intel at the last minute in which case every city but LA is fucked...so...yea...now i'm surely bugged : /"
The really sad thing is that he really did have to fear being bugged/tracked as a result simply because he's brown where you or I wouldn't get any such bullshit.
I can imagine this now:
[Man tries to take FBI tracker onto plane]
[X-Ray machine detects unusual item]
[Airport FBI Agent 1 attending x-ray machines draws gun at passenger with tracker]
"FBI: Get down on the ground! That's a bomb"
[FBI Agent 2 following the tracker]
"FBI Get down on the ground! That's not a bomb. It's..err.."
[FBI Agent 1 spins to see man pointing gun at him]
[Both FBI Agents startle and shoot the other]
...
[America Implodes]
'Nuf said.
The system is rigged so that there is no chance you'll succeed in suing the FBI.
So, if you ever find one of these things on your car, call the local police, say "Someone has attached a suspicious device to my car. I think it might be a bomb!" Call the local media so they can come watch the bomb squad in action.
because when this story hit the news the first time there were so very very many people on here gleefully talking about checking their own cars for such bugs.
mainly because they wanted a chance to take them apart and examine them.
That's not what he's saying. The FBI don't target people without a reason. Nobody does anything without a reason.
For some reason the FBI felt he was worth following for a bit. I'm pretty certain they didn't arbitrarily pick him on a whim, or because he was a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything interesting. They had a reason. We don't know what it was.
Are you seriously that clueless? Pay attention.
Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with? Are we just hating on the FBI?
Well, you could probably be prosecuted under some sort of anti-stalking legislation, perhaps "harassment." If you start following me around, yes, I can actually report you to the police, and something may come of it.
Palm trees and 8
If CAIR is helping him maybe you should look at why CAIR helps peaple in the USA
tl;dr: Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with?
If you did it? Harassment and stalking.
If the FBI did it, and it was warranted , nothing. If the FBI did it, and it was unwarranted , nothing, after a very public lawsuit that gets settled.
Too bad you could not get it onto a plane
I'm not sure you couldn't. It doesn't contain any sharp edges.
It's unconstitutional, in part because it's the FBI. FBI agents, like cops, have limits on what they can do without a warrant. The agents in this case had no warrant.
Let's look at your facts, shall we?
1) It was attached with magnets (ie: no damage to the car)
Totally irrelevant to whether the search is legal. If I'm stopped by an officer as part of a traffic stop, refuse the officer entry to my vehicle (which is totally legal to do), and he grabs the keys and searches my vehicle anyways, that doesn't make the search legal despite the fact that it didn't damage the car in the least.
2) The car was likely in public (i.e. government property) when they did so
Irrelevant for much the same reason as the last one. Cars on public streets are still considered "persons, houses, papers, and effects". Also, it's more likely the car was parked in his driveway (where he found the device), or a privately owned parking lot.
3) The device was readily removable and findable, though most definitely "hidden in plain sight"
So? If my phone is bugged without a warrant, just because it's an amateurish job does not mean that the wiretap was legal.
I am officially gone from
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Is a warrant needed to tail someone? Is a GPS device much different than tailing someone in a vehicle?
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
Talk about gall.
By the way, is it also OK to "attach" a tracker (trojan) to a computer system?
And then when you're caught, demand "your property back"?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
aw.
You know the classic romantic trope, where the girl is plain or even ugly, but over time reveals herself to be beautiful on the inside.
That's Brum.
Invasion of Privacy.
Would be quite illegal without a signed warrant from a Judge. (as far as I understand US Law)
Real Lawyer, yes
But not USA.
Wasn't this done under Obama? Pretty sure he's a Democrat.
a unique FCC ID that traces back to the FBI
I looked up the ID and it applies to a cellular remote access device. I don't know that it necessarily traces back to the FBI, does it?
Loading...
Come on... extensive ties to the mid-east... repeated travels there.... and supported by CAIR... OH NO... THERE'S NOTHING SUSPICIOUS ABOUT THAT.
So you believe the FBI to be infallible and that guilt by association is valid?
If he hadn't died last year I'd think you were my Dad. Dreaming up hypothetical terrorist atrocities against Birmingham was practically his hobby.
Wondering if you were also a Brummie I clicked on your blog. It's not well: /usr/local/psa/home/vhosts/hartnup.net/httpdocs/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/bdprt/bdp-referral-db.php on line 34
Fatal error: Cannot access empty property in
The sad thing is that you don't even realize how paranoid and ignorant your comment makes you look.
We know that on any given day, police officers in a major city will be involved with dozens if not hundreds of use-of-force incidents. We know that, as a general rule, the vast majority of those will be completely justified. Therefore, any time you're presented with a video clip which shows cops using force, the rational person should be asking "what is the context that justifies this action". Whereas the irrational fool will immediately go off on a rant about the damn fascist pigs oppressing the poor innocent citizen something something something FIGHT DA POWA and pass the joint ...
It's not a question of beliefs - it's a question of statistics. I understand them, and you're blind to them because of your hateful ideology. You're no different than the bigot who thinks that every muslim he sees is probably a terrorist plotting the demise of western civilization. You need to pull your head out of your ass if you want to actually see the world as it is; otherwise, don't complain when everything you see looks like shit.
The FBI wouldn't be tracking him if he was actually "a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything [wrong]", as the article says. Maybe he's Ahmadinejad's nephew or something. Can we have some actual reporting?
The most important thing is that you NEVER question the agencies, the government or the police. Not only is it unthinkable that their complete policy is wrong, even small mistakes are impossible.
And blowing up clinics and shooting doctors, Oh wait no that is Christians.
>>>Muslims are normal people that just happen to believe something differently than you do.
"Wrongthought"
It's not just a 1984 idea - it dates all the way back to the ~1100 AD crusades. The only justification for those wars was because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas, and therefore they needed to die. No wonder they hate Europeans & Americans - they still desire revenge for the injustices done to Arabs long ago.
".....remove the heads from thy enemies....." - Qor'an
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
And everyone ever charged with a crime is guilty too, right?
I hope you never get a chance to serve on a jury. These are the folks whose no fly lists end up getting toddlers hassled and you think they had or needed an actual reason to hassle a genuine brown person?
Wow, you're a real piece of shit, you know?
For all anyone knows, they had a warrant. While warrant-less surveillance is a problem, if a judge signed a warrant allowing them to track him, they wouldn't have to notify the subject of surveillance (that would make all surveillance useless).
The GPS device was attached to his vehicle, which is driven on public, state and federally owned road infrastructure. There is no legally defensible expectation of privacy in public places. His car is registered to him, with a license plate that ties him to the vehicle. Tracking him visually by having agents follow him, or tracking him by GPS signal, is nominally different both effectively and physically. There was no breach of privacy, there was no attempt to prosecute this man for anything. The FBI has the constitutional right to track him in public places. The individual also has the constitutional right to avoid being tracked, as this individual did by removing the GPS tracker.
... but that's what the Patriot Act specifically allows.
Now, if they wiretapped his telephones and recorded all of his conversations without a warrant, that might be a little different
Yeah if I found a device on my car, I'd damn keep it for my own amusement.
Or just mail it to a putative "returned devices" desk at FBI HQ in Washington, clearly marked "returned FBI property". Presumably their security screening would have either identified it or blown it up before it got close to the building. You'd likely avoid any consequences, since you were merely returning what's theirs.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
That's naive.
2) The car was likely in public (i.e. government property) when they did so The government can own property, which makes it private property (ie, schools.) Public property is not owned by the government. It is owned by the public, hence it's name. I think your point is that they did not need to trespass to "install" it, in which case you are probably right. Is the tracking illegal because it follows him home to his own private property? I could see this, but then the US doesn't have any laws about such things as satellite imagery that could theoretically do the same. The real world isn't CSI or 24. Satellites don't track people in real time. Satellites don't track people on demand. The most advanced stuff like they had in Resident Evil: Extinction. The satellite watches predetermined areas as it passes overhead.
Well, probably he just fit one of the crystal ball profiles? Tech student, arab sounding name, all that's missing is getting a solicit call from an organization "under surveillance" (remember, kids, we only track who you call, not what you yack) and suddenly he's very interesting. Even if he told them to get lost and that he's not interested in their imaginary friend bullcrap. And who'd want to fuck virgins anyway?
The point is that tracking and monitoring has become so trivial to execute, technically, that the inhibition threshold has become so low that our TLA friends do it on a hunch base. Before technology allowed that you'd have to put a guy on the person's trail and risk exposure. It's become a lot more trivial now, so why not just bug someone?
Besides, even if his uncle is some madman, have we descended to that again? Your dad's a crook so you are one too?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Should just DHL it to the Iranian embassy or even overseas to China or something.
Yes, I'm sure that would have worked out wonderfully for him if they thought he actually went to the embassy.
As the US economy is deteriorating at an alarming rate your dream will come true pretty soon. Im sure most immigrants will move somewhere you can get a job so you americans can enjoy your food stamps all by yourselves.
HTTP/1.1 400
Should just DHL it to the Iranian embassy or even overseas to China or something.
Good idea: confirm to the FBI what they already suspected. LOL
The guy was being monitored... in the FBI's computers, they had his name attached to that gadget. Sending it anywhere other than the police or the FBI would only increase the suspicion, even if he is innocent.
Here's a little advice: if you live in a police-state, don't mess with the police, unless you intend to completely overthrow the system.
But isn't the issue here rather whether or not the FBI was legally authorized to wiretap him and not whether they had any putative reasons for doing so? I mean, the police may have many reasons and many of them might be flawed. For example, in some regions of my home country (where I'm not living now) I would be suspicious to the police just because of the way I look and behave and because I'm not talking the local dialect , yet this would not give them sufficient grounds for wiretapping me.
Can the police in the US do anything they want when they appear to have reasons for it? Isn't there some further control, like e.g. an independent judge or panel that has to review the case, before someone can be wiretapped in the US like in most other countries?
Oh, of course not! Get bugged too, that way they can always find your car if it gets stolen! Who could be against it?
But just hope your favorite grocery store is not right across the street from some place where terrorists congregate. You probably won't know they do 'til the FBI kicks your door in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Guatemala --- I don't think so
Guantanamo --- Much more likely
It's threatening the general sentiment towards the security theater currently on tour in the US. I guess that's enough to be a threat. Not to the people, but to those that count...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And how many of them are still around? Hmmmmm?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No the rational person should ask what is happening here. They should not assume either side is correct off the bat.
The problem is your statistics on use of force are biased. You would need a real study done with impartial judges, this cannot be done as the police would end up short of man power soon. Not because all uses of force are unjustified but because it only takes one to lose your job. I also suspect that your statistics completely ignore unreported uses of force. Surely you see the problem with only asking the potential force user if force was used?
I think you need an updated copy of the Audobon Society Troll Spotting Guide.
GP did have some lovely plumage, though, am I right?
Most likely this was a six degrees of separation style investigation, like the Muslims who were suspected of being terrorists because they frequently called the same telephone number that certain suspected terrorists also called. The number was a pizza delivery service.
Afifi's late father was the president of the Muslim Community Association in San Francisco. He moved back to Egypt in 2003, where he died in 2008. So it isn't hard to put this together. Afifi's as a businessman and community leader probably had a huge personal network. He was put on the watch list because he probably had two degrees of separation from a suspected terrorist, which made *him* a suspected terrorist. That means that the younger Afifi had *one* degree of separation from a suspected terrorist. When the elder Afifi moved back to Egypt, the younger Afifi went to visit him there. After that he was a person with one degree of separation from a suspected terrorist who had also traveled to the Middle East, and therefore a suspected terrorist as well. If the mechanic who spotted the GPS happened to be Muslim, *he's* probably a suspected terrorist now too, and if he has any customers who are Muslims they'd better not travel to the Middle East.
One term for such a steaming pile of investigatory turds would be "grasping at straws." If you think the FBI could not possibly be so screwed up, consider the case of the scholar who was hired to lecture at the FBI on his field of study: Islamic extremism. Afterward he was put on the watch list because surveillance of international calls showed he had called people with ties to Islamic extremists.
The problem with paranoia is that if *somebody* is out to get you, you won't be able to tell them from the countless people you *think* are out to get you, but are not.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
> Maybe he's Ahmadinejad's nephew or something.
So what if he was? Being someone's nephew isn't illegal (at least I don't THINK it's illegal in the US, yet. IANAUSL). Hitlers nephew never did anybody any harm (...or, well, except Adolf Hitler, who he tried to blackmail).
Fred Phelps, is that you? How are things in Westboro?
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
But when it comes to warrant-less wiretaps, surveillance, etc the very same government employees are paragons of virtue and epitome of ability.
Uh got news for you dude- this happened under the Obama administration. A Democrat. Fact is politicians are to blame, not liberals or conservatives.
That's not what he's saying. The FBI don't target people without a reason. Nobody does anything without a reason.
Their reason was that he looked like an arab aka terrorist and traveled frequently. What more reason do they need? If they had any actual evidence against him wouldn't they just come out and say it?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
plain or even ugly chicks need loving too.
Probably he didn't want a car finding device on his car, maybe that's why he "softened" it up.
Btw, did you check your car today?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Crap, I guess I have to go check my car now.
(checks skin color)
Oh, wait, I guess I'm good. I'm McVeigh-colored, so I'm obviously safe.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Okay, so this is going to probably incite some serious hatred on me... But I'm quite unclear about why this is illegal
Yes, the FBI was being creepy and I don't condone what they did... BUT lets look at the facts:
1) It was attached with magnets (ie: no damage to the car) 2) The car was likely in public (i.e. government property) when they did so 3) The device was readily removable and findable, though most definitely "hidden in plain sight"
Is it against the law to put something on someone's car when it is in public? Because I see parking tickets and flyers being put on peoples' cars all the time.
Is the tracking illegal because it follows him home to his own private property? I could see this, but then the US doesn't have any laws about such things as satellite imagery that could theoretically do the same.
I'm hoping there is a lawyer -arm chair or otherwise- around that can unofficially shed some light on where the illegality is involved.
tl;dr: Don't support the act, but would it be illegal if I did this? What would I be charged with? Are we just hating on the FBI?
First, although it is not the central point of my response to your posting, I have to question your statement "Your car is government property if it is in public" - really?? What confused notion of property do you have? Property rights do not transfer to the government just because your property is located in a public rather than a private location. I think you may have meant some kind of diminished expectations of privacy (in this case, with respect to the car) when in public, which is generally held to be true. However, the permissibility of the detailed tracking of an individual's every movement does not necessarily follow as an automatic outcome of those movements being in public.
There is an on-going discussion as to what level of monitoring of an individual's movements constitutes a violation of that individual's right to privacy. A "little bit of monitoring" of an individual's public activities isn't the same as place a GPS tracker on their car and building a record of their exact movements over a long period of time. The principle that a large enough difference in degree is a difference of kind should be considered. The debate revolves around whether a warrant should be required for this type of detailed tracking, and what the criteria should be for a judge signing off on that warrant. According to the the US Consitution, "... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The reason why the tracking might be illegal (unconstitutional in this case) is that if it is done without proper adherence to the requirements of the US Constitution (and Federal law), then it is illegal. The FBI (nor any other government entity) does not get to make up the law as it goes along, and must operate under and with respect to the US Constitution and Federal law.
Incidentally, I fit the armchair lawyer definition. I believe that you don't (and shouldn't) need to be a lawyer to understand the US Constitution (Federal law gets murkier because of the constant pawing over it by the fine legal minds that enjoy twisting ordinary statements into amazing circumlocutions). The US Constititution wasn't written to be the basis for arcane incantations; it was written to be the foundation of an agreement between the 13 original colonies about how they would divide power up between themselves and the umbrella government structure they wished to establish, yet keep in check. Everyone should read it. Everyone should understand it. A copy of Black's Law Dictionary is a useful aid to understanding at times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black's_Law_Dictionary
the vast majority of the KKK are normal people that just happen to believe something differently than you do.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Now let's just drop the whole "see a lawyer" and "due process" crap and hand them some whips and ropes and they can even start asking people sensibly so they will tell them what they did wrong. I betcha the police would never again arrest a single innocent man. Ever.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And some Americans electrocute or gas their own citizens - so what?
The US is singularly unable to assert any "moral highground" arguments.
Seriously?! You make it too easy.
...".
Democrats are a strange breed. When it comes to Education or Environment or Social welfare or financial regulation, government employees are paragons of virtue and epitome of ability.
But when it comes to warrant-less wiretaps, surveillance, etc the very same "Govt is incompetent, Govt is the problem, Govt cant do anything right. Govt employees are useless slackers
What exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
Democrats get scared and refuse to fight the Republicans where the Government has done demonstrably good things and cede the point.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
and left it at that.
I mean, what are they going to do to you?
Too bad you could not get it onto a plane. I wonder how much trouble you would get into taking it or trying to take it on checked luggage?
Wear gloves and just put it in your carry-on. "What? Never saw it before. What is it? A tracking device only used by the FBI? Where would I get one of those?"
If they had any actual evidence against him wouldn't they just come out and say it?
Not if their investigations was part of a wider, deeper project to root out Muslim terrorists hiding in the US, plotting their next attack innocent civilians.
Bearded Dragon
Most of the time when I tune into a few minutes of "Cops", I see them use their authority in ways that are within the status quo that you mention, but that I think are excessive.
I don't think they have anything resembling an easy job, but the second they start seeing their job as anything other than a responsibility, things have gone wrong.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I mean, what are they going to do to you?
Rendition
Guantanamo
Navy brig
Preventative detention
No-fly list
Ongoing harassment
etc.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Actually, there is a reason not to tell the subject why he was being monitored. It may be that he was being monitored because the FBI had reason to believe that one (or more) of his associates was involved in terrorism. It may be that they were tracking him in order to find out if he was involved in terrorism with those associates.
To be perfectly honest, I am somewhat suspicious of him because his lawyer is with CAIR. CAIR is an organization with extensive ties to terrorist organizations. I believe based on the evidence that I have seen that CAIR's goal is the replacement of democracy in America with an Islamic dictatorship.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
He is talking about general republican citizens' attitude towards government ability, not the actual ability of the government agency or who order it. This has nothing to do with the original article, though.
I'm funny this way, but I refuse to accept responsibility for events that happened 900 years ago. Besides it's not like there isn't enough blame for both sides either.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
THIS day and age? no, dude, you are incorrect; today its correct to assume that if there was a beating from a cop, it was undeserved. more often than not, its just how life is.
you want us to think you have the correct view on reality; well, keep on thinking that, my friend. you are allowed to be as deluded as you want to be.
fact is, cops are abusive, power-hungry sociopaths. pretty much always have been, but this 'terror shit' has got everyone pumped up and scared to death. it makes those sociopaths in blue even more dangerous to normal citizens.
its correct to fear the police. they can ruin your lives, just as a fun joke, and pretty much get away with it.
and you know it, too.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I think GP's comment on Republicans was simply lamenting based on personal experience. I'm sure Republicans feel the same way in the opposite direction: "When it comes to warrant-less wiretaps, surveillance, etc, "Govt is incompetent, Govt is the problem, Govt cant do anything right. Govt employees are useless slackers ...".
But when it comes to Education or Environment or Social welfare or financial regulation the very same government employees are paragons of virtue and epitome of ability."
Their reason was that he looked like an arab aka terrorist and traveled frequently.
So you're saying he might have fitted the profile of a terrorist?
Seems sensible to check him out. He's probably okay, but really, it might make sense to just be sure about this as long as they can do it in a manner that isn't going to inconvenience the poor man.
If they had any actual evidence against him wouldn't they just come out and say it?
He's not on trial. They just had suspicion. Suspicion is caused by a whole slew of factors that can not always be easily summarised. They were collecting information to establish whether their suspicions were valid.
I'm sure they had a reason.
Just like they had a reason for their constant surveillance of counter-culture icons during the 60s and 70s. Or for assassinating various Native American critics during the same period.
Adolph Hitler was also a normal person who believed something different than you. If he lived in Cleveland, big deal. If he lived in an environment receptive to those different ideas, big problem.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Wasn't this done under Obama? Pretty sure he's a Democrat.
I wish I shared your certainty . . .
I am not a crackpot.
A university friend of mine was constantly targeted at borders and airports because his background and especially because his name was one or two letters off from a known terrorist (A known terrorist that was already in jail mind you). More than once held for hours at a border while they did extensive background checks to see if he had any connection to the terrorist in question and various terror groups (The spelling difference was in the last name, so I don't really know where the logic was there). And this was even before 9-11. After 9-11 he was smart enough to know not to bother traveling. It ended up being years before this kid who had just moved away from home to go to school got to see his parents again.
No the rational person should ask what is happening here. They should not assume either side is correct off the bat.
No, that's not what "rational" means.
By the same logic, when you're presented with a scientist saying "the earth is roughly 4 billion years old" and a bearded hobo with a sandwich board claiming that the great Zeebelbub created the earth yesterday, you should ask each for their evidence while not assuming that either side is correct. While this is technically the approach which is most likely to lead you to the truth, it's not the way people approach life in general, and it's not really practical in most cases. The rational person uses rule-of-thumb reasoning and logical and statistical generalizations in order to arrive at the most-likely-to-be-correct conclusion, while remaining open to new data.
Don't confuse "rational" with "indiscriminate". It's ok to use your head in order to reach a preliminary conclusion, as long as you're objective enough to be able to change your mind when the observed data doesn't match the theory.
The problem is your statistics on use of force are biased.
They are? How so?
It seems a little strange that you can call my statistics biased without me having presented any statistics in the first place.
Surely you see the problem with only asking the potential force user if force was used?
Of course. I see a much larger problem with asking the person on whom it was used. Every person I've ever detained or arrested will swear to you that they were innocent. Half of them will probably tell you I curb-stomped a puppy and ate an infant right before I arrested them.
Seems sensible to check him out. He's probably okay, but really, it might make sense to just be sure about this as long as they can do it in a manner that isn't going to inconvenience the poor man.
What do the words "Police State" mean to you? He was under active surveillance. That is more than just an "inconvenience". Are you an LEO of some kind? Just curious. The kind of world you envision as reasonable is not one that I would want to live in.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
You don't know. Maybe the reason was a tip from somebody who might have had a grudge. Maybe the reason was something the suspect said at a political meeting. maybe somebody misspelled a name on a form. There are lots of possible reasons, some good, some bad, and some borderline cases that might call for closer oversight of Homeland Security, and the real questions here all depend on those reasons.
You mentioned his travel. If he travelled frequently, always to locations that are considered hotbeds of terrorism, at times that were suspiciously coincidental with some known terrorists, also visiting those locations, that's a pretty good indicator to probe further. If his travel isn't that clear cut an indicator, then maybe what needs to happen here is the FBI needs to refine their process to avoid spending a lot of money and time following up on bad intelligence. But, you don't know that one way or another.
Who is John Cabal?
Actually, the constitutionality of warrantless GPS tracking is unclear, and courts have ruled both ways on the topic, generally depending on the facts of the case. Currently, one such case is being appealed by a defendant to the Supreme Court, which hasn't decided whether to grant cert yet.
And everyone ever charged with a crime is guilty too, right?
Not quite sure where you got this from. Or why you think that placing a tracking device on someone is somehow comparable to finding them guilty of a crime. I'm really quite lost here.
I hope you never get a chance to serve on a jury. These are the folks whose no fly lists end up getting toddlers hassled and you think they had or needed an actual reason to hassle a genuine brown person?
When I say "A reason" it doesn't automatically mean it's a good reason. Simply that they track every 20 year old community college student. They specifically chose to track this guy. We don't know why and perhaps he doesn't either, but I'll bet he has suspicions.
Capital punishment is quite different than the murder of foreign tourists.
But then, I suppose you believe that it's perfectly OK for a rabied bull-dog who has killed people to be let loose in the neighborhood.
Indiana (right next door to Ohio) had the first state-sponsored (little 's', not big-'S') eugenics program in the world, before the Nazis came to power. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, gave talks to both the KKK Woman's Auxiliary and in Nazi Germany and started the organization specifically to cut down on the number of minority births. The point is, there's a time when Cleveland wouldn't have been all that unreceptive to Hitler's ideas compared to what impressions you have of them today.
From the article: "The Obama administration asked the court to change its ruling, calling the decision "vague and unworkable" and arguing that investigators will lose access to a tool they now use "with great frequency." -This is not a reassuring trend. If the objection was that it was vague and unworkable, that'd be fine. But their objection seems to be that it disallows them from using the GPS without a warrant - which is not fine. Voting for change wasn't supposed to mean "Change my ideals back to what the previous people did."
Also: ". . . the agents who showed up to collect the device were "hostile," threatening to charge Afifi if he didn't immediately cooperate and refusing his request to have a lawyer present" and earlier stated, the agents "demanded their property back." I might just be a first year law student, but if you leave your property in my car, and make no claims to it and abandon it, then it could be mine. Also, the agents only "pulled him over as he drove away from his apartment" probably to avoid the whole warrant issue of collecting it from his apartment. Yet, any time law enforcement shows up, it is my understanding that you don't have to give them any information besides the identify statutes require, like name and maybe ID if your state says so. So I'd sit in the parking lot, and not invite them into my home and tell them I don't want them to search my car without some kind of pretense. Also, I'd turn my smart phone recorder on since we were having the discussions in public.
Perhaps they could have just followed him with a tail to get all the GPS type info, or put a drone over him. I don't think there's an expectation of privacy for the outside of your car, but if it was found in the engine compartment, that might be different. I don't like adding to the car with a device... that seems like some kind of alteration, or trespass to chattels (personal property). Government tort exemptions probably apply for this kind of thing, whether it's constitutional or not.
I'm much more concerned with the adding a device to the personal property than I am the expectation of privacy claim. IF I wanted to follow someone all day, I could collect all the information about their whereabouts.
A tracker is not a wiretap.
not the ID.... the serial number
-no sig today-
That is more than just an "inconvenience".
How so?
Did it prevent him from going anywhere or from doing anything? Is it going to prevent him from getting a job? Delay him from an important meeting?
His car - a piece of his property that was usually in a location where it could be seen by anyone - was being tracked.
Not if their investigations was part of a wider, deeper project to root out Muslim terrorists hiding in the US, plotting their next attack innocent civilians.
Note that the FBI has not claimed anything of the kind. So you just want to give them the benefit of the doubt? How about giving that to the victim instead? Besides this wider, deeper project may be a dragnet that covers hundreds of thousands of middle eastern or middle eastern looking Americans with absolutely no probable cause and no evidence of wrong-doing. Do you hate the US constitution so much? What's it like to be so afraid of your own shadow all the time that you would welcome government thugs entering so deeply into our lives? Oh wait... We wouldn't be investigated because we are of European descent and look it.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
In the original story it was revealed that he was in some kind of sales and took regular trips to the middle east, he also regularly sent money to his family back in Egypt. That's why he was being monitored. That doesn't mean he was doing anything wrong, he apparently just tripped the automated sensors or whatever that tracks these sorts of things.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Sure, there's lots of use of justifiable force. If you're in a job where the people you interact with will fight, you have the absolute and utter right to defend yourself and you have the obligation to apply the force necessary to complete the task at hand.
That doesn't mean you get a free pass when you taze a guy who is already lying down in a submissive position begging not to be tazed, even if he had previously resisted arrest. That doesn't mean you can zap an 80-year-old woman who is presenting you with verbal (not physical) resistance. That doesn't mean you can form a circle around a black man who tried to run and take turns beating the billy-club bejessus out of him while he lies on the ground screaming in pain.
Are these isolated incidents? Sure.
Are the vast majority of officers honorable people trying to do an honest job under very difficult circumstances? Absolutely.
Might there be a reasonable explanation behind each of these incidents? Sure. Let's hear it. Don't arrest the person who took the video, allow them to freely air it and then present your own case. The first amendment exists for a reason, and just because you have a gun doesn't mean you own the truth. Have your say, but don't try to make it the only say, or people will simply assume you are trying to cover something up.
With power comes responsibility. If you don't want the responsibility, turn in your badge and gun on your way out and find a job that you can handle.
If I, as a taxpaying citizen, am going to authorize someone to carry a gun and represent the interests of myself and my fellow citizens to protect us from internal threats, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that the person will perform their job as a professional. I know I'm held to that standard in my employment, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same from someone who society has handed "extra" powers to.
That means pulling me over and giving me a ticket if I'm caught speeding, or putting me in jail if I'm caught driving drunk, using reasonable force to restrain me if I resist, and using deadly force if I am a clear and present danger. That also means being public about 'fessing up to mistakes (if I pull out my wallet and you think it's a gun, that could still be a justifiable shooting, even if you kill me and I presented no threat. My wife might not think so at the time, of course. But mistakes happen. If you honestly thought I was a threat, you had the right and duty to protect yourself, and the only way to protect yourself from an armed man is to kill him - injury means he might still use his gun and kill you. Tragic mistakes are tragic, but mistakes. Attempting to cover it up, however, is unacceptable.).
That does NOT include beating the shit out of me for making a snide remark or engaging in unfortunate but nonthreatening behavior. That does NOT include striking me in any way, shape, or form unless it is immediately necessary to protect yourself from injury. That does NOT include abusing, arresting, or even hassling a non-interfering bystander because they were taking video of the event. You are performing a public service, in public, which affects the public. Tell your chief when you get back to the station so he can get your side of the story out.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
It's unconstitutional, in part because it's the FBI. FBI agents, like cops, have limits on what they can do without a warrant. The agents in this case had no warrant.
I don't think it's unconstitutional for the FBI to begin investigating someone when they have a suspicion about them.
Let's keep in mind that the FBI didn't use any force and didn't cause any damage to a person or property. Calling their actions illegal is a stretch. Maybe the evidence would have been tossed out of court if they had tried to use it (though I don't see why), but to then turn around and say it was a criminal act and they need to be fined/fired/etc?? That's kind of ridiculous. Evidence is thrown out of courts all the time because the search was deemed illegal -- so how many times do you think the cop that collected the evidence plus his boss who okayed it get fired? Probably almost never, because it's unreasonable.
You're setting the bar way too high. If they are not causing any damage or interference to a person, and they have a reasonable suspicion, I say more power to them.
Note that the FBI has not claimed anything of the kind.
Ya don't get it, do ya. Of course they aren't going to admit A SECRET INVESTIGATION. They will come up with any other excuse to shunt the attention elsewhere. The whole idea of a secret investigation to root out terrorists, who also never come out and admit their plots ahead of time, is never actually revealing the secret.
Bearded Dragon
-1, Truthcrime
Well, the battery pack could contain liquids.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If I were to plant audio and video bugs throughout your house and car would that be just an "inconvenience" to you? A pinhole camera with a wireless transmitter in your bedroom and bathroom? The video later posted on the internet? Not a problem for you right? After all it didn't prevent you from going anywhere or doing anything. It won't prevent you from getting a job or delay you from an important meeting. Your house and car both pieces of property which are in a public location are just being "tracked".
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
He hasn't committed any crime, nor has government charged him with a crime. Therefore, spying on this man is equivalant to guilty before proven innocent. Same as police roadblocks, wire tapping, and email scanning: they aren't solving crimes; they are merely fishing. And expanding the business of government, which if you look close enough, is the real goal here.
So you can't prove guilt without gathering evidence (let's be realistic and call it spying)? That same argument has been used by political tyrants for thousands of years, and has been used to justify all flavors of government intrusion on the lives of peaceful individuals. I'd trust this man before ANY arm of government. Given the track record of government, I'd trust ANY stranger before I'd trust government.
I would mail it UPS.
Also, I didn't see the video but there's a difference between subduing a person and cuffing him to take him in, and beating the crap out of said person even when he's already on the floor, which happens far more often than it should.
If you see the first case, you might ask what the guy did. If you see the 2nd case, then it's harder to think it's really justified.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
He made a comment on Reddit about how easy it actually is to bomb shopping malls
And he's right, which is why so many Americans are complete morons. To live in ANY free society, you risk being murdered, or worse, at any time of day or night. Period. The fact that so many idiots now suddenly believe they can be free, and have no risk while being free, means they are ignorantly demanding the removal of everyone's freedoms. Only these same people are too stupid to realize what they are really demanding - a non-free society. And guess what, that's exactly what we see; the destruction, well serious erosion, of liberty and freedom.
Sadly, those who are demanding the absolute protection of America are the most un-American of them all. These people are the real terrorists and all too often are openly embraced by the American public. Sadly, our forefathers are well established about warning us of these tyrants among us.
The reality is, its trivially easy to mass murder people in any free society. And what you linked to is exactly what he's saying. If terrorism is really such a threat, why don't see see mass murders on a daily basis? The commenter's point, which is completely accurate, is since we don't see terroristic mass murders on a daily basis here in the US, the propaganda is full of shit. The public is being mislead and lied to on a daily basis. The people "saving us" from tyranny are the real tyrants.
To be absolutely clear, I absolutely am NOT advocating violence. I'm only pointing out that in a free society, just as people have the freedom to go to work or store, some crazy has the freedom to kill them. And the only way to prevent that crazy from having his freedom is to prevent the rest of us from having ours.
As a side note, with very few exceptions, when you find people saying the US Constitution and our forefather's well known historical positions on life and liberty no longer apply, you've identified either an idiot or a tyrant.
As the US economy is deteriorating at an alarming rate your dream will come true pretty soon. Im sure most immigrants will move somewhere you can get a job so you americans can enjoy your food stamps all by yourselves.
Perhaps they'll move to Sweden instead? Oh wait, plenty already have.
If you want to see a better picture of why the FBI was interested in him, take a look at this following comment from the last time this was on slashdot:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1813728&cid=33839634
Right.
Facts from Wired article.
Hahahahaaaaaaa.
Uh, ok, can't the same be said of Republicans just the other way around? They're pro-big, old school military (almost 50% of the budget), illegal wiretapping, and they'll take away any of your freedoms, handing them over the the federal gov in the name of "national security" (patriot act for example). But government run health care is socialism?
It works both ways and it's bs from both parties, but the overwhelming majority of the double-talk seems to come from the right in this country.
It's not just a 1984 idea - it dates all the way back to the ~1100 AD crusades. The only justification for those wars was because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas, and therefore they needed to die. No wonder they hate Europeans & Americans - they still desire revenge for the injustices done to Arabs long ago.
From Wikipedia's page on the Crusades:
The immediate cause of the First Crusade was the Byzantine emperor Alexios I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire was defeated, which led to the loss of all of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) save the coastlands.
So, Muslims attacked the Byzantine empire and the Byzantine emperor asks for and receives help from Europe. So, it's Europe's fault for not telling the Byzantine emperor Alexios I to simply give up and die in place?
More:
While the Reconquista was the most prominent example of European reactions against Muslim conquests, it is not the only such example. The Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard had conquered Calabria in 1057 and was holding what had traditionally been Byzantine territory against the Muslims of Sicily. The maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Majorca, freeing the coasts of Italy and Catalonia from Muslim raids. Much earlier, the Christian homelands of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and so on had been conquered by Muslim armies. This long history of losing territories to a religious enemy created a powerful motive to respond to Byzantine Emperor Alexius I's call for holy war to defend Christendom, and to recapture the lost lands starting with Jerusalem.
Someone is wrong here. You say the Crusades were "because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas" and Wikipedia states that it was because of Muslim aggression into the Byzantine empire. Hmmm. I wonder who's wrong?
".....remove the heads from thy enemies....." - Qor'an
"....turn the other cheek...." - The Holy Bible
And Christians are the bad guys.
And as for your sig... you think that those that hold a different view from you should be "BANNED"? Kinda goes against the whole "free exchange of ideas" thing doesn't it? How many tyrannical dictators gained power by people who felt the same way you do about people they disagreed with?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
That's not what they were doing though. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy about what I say in my car and what I do at home.
Right now, my car is quite visibly on a public street outside my house. Yesterday it was at a medical centre for several hours. A week ago it was heading up the M40 towards Coventry, and then was parked in a council car park. I have no problem with everyone knowing this.
The federal appeals court in the Washington circuit where Afifi's case was filed ruled in August that the collection of GPS data amounts to a government "search" that required a warrant. The Obama administration asked the court to change its ruling, calling the decision "vague and unworkable" and arguing that investigators will lose access to a tool they now use "with great frequency."
So the FBI admits they're doing a lot of GPS tracking without warrants.
".....and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour....." - Bible, KJV translation.
Out of context, obviously (but appropriate since no context was given to the Qor'an quote either), but still. I always found it amusing that in return for following their divinely appointed religious leader and violating a law they hadn't received yet they get ordered to violate another law from the same set repeatedly.
Actually, the justification for the crusades was some non-religious leader (i.e., non-practicising of any faith) decided to destroy a Christian church, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and massacre Christian pilgrims. A quick google for "cause of crusades" turns up some interesting perspectives.
Sure, one of the many justifications for the Crusades was religious. But it's far from the only one. Seeing as Islam controlled the territory that Jesus walked on and died on, there would obviously be some conflict, though at first, the Muslims were more than happy to allow Christian pilgrims through because it brought in tourism moneys. Later, a less-enlightened leader (it looks like it was Turkish) decided to annoy the Christians for I-don't-know-what reason. Now that their Holy Site was threatened, it was trivial to make up a bunch of reasons to get people who might otherwise not care to go on a Crusade to restore pilgrim access to those Holy Sites. And, of course, some of those reasons were hinged on the old reason to go there: religion. Of course, once the participants forget about the original reason (restoring access), it becomes easier to extend the extra reasons: if it's religious, then obviously other religions need converting (and converting away from Islam is a capital offense, so obviously some Muslims would need killing).
I'm not attempting to justify the bloodshed. Only point out that it's far more complicated than popularly held.
Fox news? All we have on here is CNN and I keep hearing Islamic this Islamic that.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Oh, there was plenty more justification than that... like the fact that Muslims were occupying large parts of Spain, Italy, and Greece, oppressing people, and attacking many Christian nations.
Of course. I see a much larger problem with asking the person on whom it was used. Every person I've ever detained or arrested will swear to you that they were innocent. Half of them will probably tell you I curb-stomped a puppy and ate an infant right before I arrested them.
Ah. So you are a cop. That explains everything. No point in debating with you then. American cops are simple minded thugs almost without exception. The laws you blindly enforce make you the criminals. And not a single one of you could think in a philosophical manner (aka for yourselves) if your life depended on it. Which lucky for you it doesn't. The only good cop is a dead one. Please DIAF. Thank you.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Would you have put it in the semi with or without permission from the owner of the semi?
Seriously? How did the FBI know it was "removed" then? Where I live, there are enough potholes in the road to separate your tire from your rim.
Anything held on by mere magnets and not explicitly bolted to the vehicle could rattle off and be on the side of the road for days, and then possibly get it itself accidentally attached to a long-distance truck.
I mean seriously -- if this had happened to me, I'd have gotten rid of the thing, and claim I never knew about it, and it must have fallen off the car.
What would the FBI have done if it had come off the car if the young man in question had been involved in a fender-bender? Or, let's say there was a side-impact, and he decided to have the car towed to a scrap yard, where it was subsequently crushed? Would the FBI show up at his door asking for their property back?
I don't know what's stupider: Our attempts at terrorism enforcement, or the government/corporate stooges that authorize this kind of nonsense.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
That's not what he's saying. The FBI don't target people without a reason. Nobody does anything without a reason.
For some reason the FBI felt he was worth following for a bit. I'm pretty certain they didn't arbitrarily pick him on a whim, or because he was a 20 year old community college student who has never done anything interesting. They had a reason. We don't know what it was.
The point is, noone knows what the reason was.
Usually it would be the judge deciding whether the reason was good enough, but since you guys live in police state now, you don't even need judges anymore.
Good luck, you will really need it.
She was a slave, property, you can't have sex with her because it the same as using her to masturbate. Why ask for permission, she's property, do you ask your car if it's OK to drive it? You just don't understand the real concept of slavery and therefore why it's wrong.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It has been clearly documented that the FBI has wire tapped and recorded American citizens private conversations with no justification for tapping/recording those conversations. That's why warrants are necessary. The FBI could have easily gotten a warrant in this situation. That fact they didn't means they had little justification for tracking this guy.
And some Americans electrocute or gas their own citizens - so what?
The US is singularly unable to assert any "moral highground" arguments.
Really? You think that executing the absolute worst criminals in society means we can't "assert any moral highground" over people that behead reporters, lob rockets into neighborhoods from school grounds, fly planes full of civilians into buildings filled with civilians, hangs homosexuals and stones rape victims to death for the "crime" of adultery?
Seriously?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
His point is that the Republicans are talking the big government is Eeeeevillle! line except about the part of big government that is military/security oriented. Unless you know of a bunch of democrats who are saying they want to decrease the size of government by spending even more on homeland security, the comparison is moot. There's a lot of the usual political guff being thrown around, but there's still a particular total insanity which way exceeds normal politics to saying "Big government is bad, now increase the FBI budget again so we'll all be safe.". There are currently 17 Federal civilian agencies who have agents carrying automatic firearms. If big government is dangerous, the worst the National Endowment for the Arts can do to you is still only to deny you a grant for your painting project and reward a competing artist. The worst a BATF agent can do is lob a grenade into your home. Which agencies are the real threat from big government? How is it not a matter of liberals or conservatives, when its ALL conservatives who are telling you the problem is the government agencies that DON'T have police powers. The NEA isn't the people who will be rounding citizens up and putting them into camps - if that happens, it's going to be some agency under homeland security's umbrella.
Who is John Cabal?
Convicted criminals, yes. The moral problem with that would be... what exactly?
Given its history, I think that sentence applies much more to Europeans.
Can't mod down for disagreeing, so you're just going to point out that he's a moron?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
With her permission of course - I'm too submissive to force someone to do something they don't want.
"Submissive"? I think the word you're looking for is "human".
1) Attaching something to MY car with magnets could actually be damaging, if you put it in the right place you're probably damaging my storage devices. Even if you don't have any in your car, it's by no means illegal to transport magnet-sensitive devices in your car.
2) Public or not, the CAR is still HIS property. If I get the right to put up a sign in front of my pub on public ground, you cannot mess with the sign legally without my consent.
3) Doesn't really matter after 1 and 2 anymore, and I cannot comment on this since I do not know where it was "hidden". But if it takes an inspection from a car mechanic to be discovered, I wouldn't call it "in plain sight" anymore.
IANAL, and certainly not one in the US, but there are explicit exemptions here for things that may be put on a car. Tickets are an explicit exemption because they are in the interest of the car owner (the alternative is a far more expensive court order sent to your home, so don't remove your windshield wipers in the vain attempt to avoid a ticket, it only gets more expensive). Flyers are already a grey area, so far nobody really bothered to sue afaik. My guess is that the results outweigh the possible legal damages in this case. The FBI isn't a for-profit organization, though, and yes, I'd expect them to be sticking even MORE to the law than anyone else, since they are a member of the law enforcement. I do actually expect these people not only to make sure we uphold the law, but I expect them to uphold it themselves, to letter and spirit.
Tracking is illegal. Sat images take a snapshot of some place, not a person. If a person happens to be in that place, and he can somehow prove that the place was observed because of the person and not the place, he could sue.
Again, IANAL and laws might differ in the place you live in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Right because it's a slippery slope from providing contraception to killing people in concentration camps. You're a complete moron.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Welcome to the watch list, citizen.
SSC
Again, you know little to nothing about this case. You're making gross assumptions and, even if the FBI came out with not only a warrent allowing this but also tons of proof of this guy's involvement in something shady, most people posting in this guys defense would still caw on about how right he was even given evidence to the opposite.
I don't have a problem with people questioning the legitimacy of what the FBI did as much as I know they will never live it down in the eyes of some, right or wrong.
A tracker is not a wiretap.
And more to the point, placing tracking devices without a warrant is already legal in several states and has so far been upheld by the ruling of the 9th circuit court:
http://www.dailytech.com/Ninth+Circuit+Court+Rules+in+Favor+of+Warrantless+GPS+Tracking/article19464.htm
Wasn't he the drummer of that band Alfred Ainstein used to be in?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Most of the time when I tune into a few minutes of "Cops", I see them use their authority in ways that are within the status quo that you mention, but that I think are excessive.
Well, yeah, that's probably a fair assessment, but there are two separate issues here:
1. Any job these days which allows for the controlled use of force has so many hoops associated with it that, when the Person-In-Authority finally gets to the point where force is justified, he tends to be a little ... "exuberant" in it's application. That's human nature, and I don't think you're going to "fix it" until you can replace human cops with androids. It's why I always laugh when a "protester" who has just spent the last three hours heckling a bunch of riot cops acts completely shocked when he gets pummelled into a bloody mess the moment he does anything that justifies arrest. Sure, in an ideal world it wouldn't happen, but cops are human too. The good ones will stay within the letter of the law, but if you piss them off even they will push it right to the limit.
2. Resolving a violent situation with the least amount of harm to both sides usually requires quick, decisive, and extremely aggressive action. It's counter-intuitive, but trying to take the approach which looks less aggressive quite often results in greater harm to the suspect, AND it places the officer at greater risk. That's why all personnel who are expected to use force as part of their duties are trained to end the situation as quickly and efficiently as possible, without escalating to deadly force. If you think the stuff you see on "cops" is excessive, you should see what police and military personnel do to each other in training.
In most cases, it's not really an issue - a jackass who was resisting arrest ends up with 3 or 4 extra bruises. In some cases it does result in excessive harm to the belligerent, and that's where outside agencies need to get involved.
I don't think they have anything resembling an easy job, but the second they start seeing their job as anything other than a responsibility, things have gone wrong.
Again - you seem to think they should be machines. If you honestly think this expectation is realistic, you're incredebly naive.
Actually, he didn't endorsed terrorism in any way. He just dismissed it as a real threat, mentioning that given how simple is to put a bomb in a mall, all malls would have been already blown. Maybe that's what pissed the FBI, that there are people who actually think...
Why would they have got a warrant? They weren't recording anyone's conversation. Just tracking where his car went, which they could do with another car, or with some guys with cameras and notebooks. The FBI's position is that they don't need a warrant to track where a car is going.
Full disclosure: I'm a huge privacy advocate - I'm just genuinely curious:
What would your alternative have been, exactly? To the extent of my knowledge in the surrounding events, the FBI has yet to disclose why they were tracking him. Maybe they will never divulge that information, or maybe they will after they actually go to legally pursue an individual or group as a result of the investigation. Now - if you'll agree, I think that their intention remains the major defining variable in this case.
In one scenario (and I'll agree it seems the more plausible), this was part of a wider dragnet cast out and this guy was just one of many picked up in an overarching shouldn't-be-legal-but-is investigation because he had some connection to an estranged relative or associate who was legitimately under suspicions (which is key... this was !legal!, whether those laws violate the constitution or not, it's not for me to decide, I suspect if I was a Justice of the Supreme Court I'd lay the legal smackdown on this bull, but that's another long winded post).
In another scenario, he just happened to buy the wrong things in the wrong order at a grocery store and got flagged. And again, the FBI used the tools that were !legally! available to them to track him and verify their suspicions.
The point I'm trying to make is this: yes I know it's an egregious invasion of privacy - but that's what an INVESTIGATION is. They assumed they needed that information, so they set about attaining it. What would have been the "acceptable" level of invasion of privacy to ensure that this guy isn't some jerk in a sleeper cell? I don't have the answer. I know that this isn't right, but I can't think of a better way to deal with it that would be acceptable to both me, and the fox news watching segment of the population (which seems oddly active in this thread, btw.)
You act like the Muslims took no aggressive action during that time . . . they were just as interested as the next group in spreading their ideals by force.
Sadly, No! What was the last time you heard of a public figure successfully suing for libel or slander?
And the "Founding Fathers" did a little more than just "not put limits on it", they actively subsidized it with government money. The media of that period and for all but a few years of our entire history as a nation has been subsidized. Back then it was through the Post Office. Today it's through PBS and National Public Radio. But the Founders believed it was so important for there to be public speech that they did not leave it to the vagaries of the "Free Market". And they definitely didn't want a situation where only rich guys could get their message out, which is what we're in danger of having happen today.
If you read a lot of the writings of those guys, you'll find a fair amount of distrust for the "Free Market". They weren't stupid.
il Papa
Someone is wrong here. You say the Crusades were "because muslims thought the "wrong" ideas" and Wikipedia states that it was because of Muslim aggression into the Byzantine empire. Hmmm. I wonder who's wrong?
The problem with your well researched and reasonable points is that just any nitwit can post to that wikipedia article as can post to slashdot. There are a variety of more reliable sources. For starters, try: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/144695/Crusades
It isn't naive to talk about how things would be if men were better men, it's how things get better.
I mean, you are damn close to saying that since that's what they did last week, we shouldn't worry about what they are going to do next week.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The police can follow you, stop you, question you, detain you, and even arrest you without a warrant.
Is this the sign of a police state?
People have suggested all sorts of stuff like that. The fact is, you would be liable for tampering with an investigation and the results could be much, much worse (eg. prison if they wanted to railroad you).
I forget which laws you would be violating but I'm sure if you go back and read the discussions back when this happened you will figure it out.
I dunno, Jesus killed a few peeps when he told Dubya that war in the middle east was okey dokie.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
And blowing up clinics and shooting doctors, Oh wait no that is Christians.
Really? How many abortion doctors killed in the last, say, 10 years? Go ahead, look it up. I'll give you a hint... It's ONE. That's right, ONE!
How many pro-life activists have been murdered in the past 10? ONE. That's right! One. Look it up for yourself. No, better yet, allow me. So, the FACTS show that in the past 10 years, there have been the exact same number of pro-life demonstrators murdered than abortion doctors.
But, hey! Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
It's bothered me since long before Wikipedia existed that people believe the urban legend that Europeans started the Crusades to convert Muslims. However, the politically correct devotion to Muslims makes it almost a crime to point out that the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Every person I've ever detained or arrested will swear to you that they were innocent. Half of them will probably tell you I curb-stomped a puppy and ate an infant right before I arrested them.
This is just another reason why cops should be festooned with cameras. It would cost way less to put a camera on each cop using cellphone technology than we spend figuring out who was lying and who wasn't. Anything seen by a cop is already a problem for any offender so I don't see a civil liberties problem at all. Meanwhile your activities should be tracked to help prevent potential abuse. Finally, a gun-cam is an absolute necessity, and it's the only kind of abuse-prevention tech which belongs on a gun (no finger print sensors or other similar ridiculousness which can compromise the value of the firearm in a crisis situation.) I want to know what's being shot.
The simple truth is that we MUST NOT give police the benefit of the doubt because cops are just people. We MUST depend on proof. We have seen time and again that police are not any more trustworthy than anyone else. Indeed, they have more opportunity for skullduggery and thus must be LESS trusted, and held to a higher standard than the rest of us, because they (you) have more power than the rest of us. Decoupling rights and responsibilities is the basic root problem with western society.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The problem with your source is that it confirms what the OP said. From EB - "Crusades, military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion."
Thank you for proving two things - 1) that the OP was telling the truth about Muslims provoking the Crusades and 2) that you're not too bright and have no clue what you're talking about, merely parroting what the TV tells you to say.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Some Ex-President can't risk to fly to Europe because they'd arrest him for war crimes and you claim the high road?
What about your illegal wars, umpteen bombings on weddings, torturing prisoners, concentrations camps on foreign soil, illegal kidnapping of foreign citizens, illegal renderings and and and?
Yeah, but there still is an important distinction between "being receptive" and actually committing mass murder.
If this was a private business doing the spying, and not government, would you still hold the same opinion? If not, what makes the private business different, and why don't you hold government to the same standard? What makes you think you can trust government more than the private business?
Absolutely. Christianity is horrible for so many reasons, focusing on murdered abortion doctors is just silly.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
That's surely the best option:
1) It's the responsible thing to do - you're returning government property to the head of the government.
2) There will no doubt be some fun and games when the people scanning the president's mail find an electronic device of unknown provenance in the package.
You don't have to take parts of the Qur'an out of context to see the statements of violence and anti-semitism. It specifically advocates the killing of Jews and apostates, and the subjugation of unbelievers. I have the backing of the imams on this.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
And everyone ever charged with a crime is guilty too, right?
I hope you never get a chance to serve on a jury. These are the folks whose no fly lists end up getting toddlers hassled and you think they had or needed an actual reason to hassle a genuine brown person?
Nice strawman. Here's an idea. Why don't you try to direct your comments to the post you are replying to. That post said that the FBI probably has a reason for tailing this guy. GPS devices are not free, nor is it free to plant them and track them. They just don't go around saying, "hey, that one is brown. Place a tracker on his car." If that were the case, there would be millions of trackers in Michigan alone. Of course, if there was not a good reason, then there should be hell to pay, but before we jump to that conclusion, let's at least get all the facts.
So, you might want to try to answer that argument instead of assuming that the GP thinks all suspects are guilty. After all, aren't you assuming that the FBI is automatically guilty because they are going to be the defendant of this trial? Isn't that EXACTLY what you are wrongly accusing the GP of doing. I don't know if I've ever seen an clearer example of psychological projection in my life.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
walk into an uncontrolled airfield with a hi-visibility jacket on, and i promise you nobody will bat an eyelid...
It isn't naive to talk about how things would be if men were better men, it's how things get better.
It's naive to talk about changing human nature on a large scale. Mr. Spock is not a realistic role model.
Perhaps, for the rest of the world, you could explain the difference? As a bloody foreigner I can only see a political system with two exactly equal parties. It's hardly different from a one-party system, but has slightly more overhead.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Mind you, this is not to say that the FBI is a particularly nefarious organization, but is it ever prudent to give anyone that much unchecked authority?
While I've had the privilege of working with several fine and Honorable FBI AGENTS, as an agency it definitely has much more nefarious history than non-nefarious. A quick read of J. Edgar Hoover's wikipedia article is all it takes to make a person realize that we are very lucky we still have the freedoms we have.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Their reason was that he looked like an arab aka terrorist and traveled frequently.
[CITATION NEEDED]
Aren't you assuming that the FBI is racist because they are the FBI? How is that any different than the FBI assuming this guy is a terrorist because he's Arab?
Actually, the difference is that we don't know why the FBI assumed this guy was guilty.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I see as many atrocities done by CHRISTIANS as well.
Christians in the USA typically are rude and hostile (Westboro) OR are fakes. Jesus fish car tailgating you or driving recklessly. I have seen more Christians road rage someone than any other. Christians call for the death of people that do good, Sara Palin calling for the death of Assange for example. Christians send death threats to doctors, accused, etc.. Christians support taking away freedoms. Unless these people are not really Christians but just fakes that go to church to keep up the lie they live. I really see jesus's love coming from the Christians that picket the gay pride events, the pagan events.. All these people do is exude hate. Raw hate.. They are identical to the extremists in the middle east.
Disclaimer: I'm christian, but one who actually follows Christs teachings.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The FBI's position is that they don't need a warrant to track where a car is going.
The FBI's position is that they don't need a warrant to do anything, and those lowly whiners should just STFU and let them 'do their jobs and protect us'.
For no other reason than taking his car to a mechanic to have the oil changed.
"Really? You think that executing the absolute worst criminals in society means we can't "assert any moral highground" over people that behead reporters"
WE dont just execute evil, we execute innocents. there is an unacceptable number of innocent people on death row. and many innocent have been executed because they were railroaded by the prosecution or they had incompetent defense.
They are STILL INNOCENT... and yes, until that is fixed our hands are very bloody.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Only in Nazi America would something this stupid happen, that student should have shoved the GPS down that idiot agents throat (I know I would have). I'd like to see those dingbat agents try to pressure me, I'd feed them their teeth and send 'em back to Nazi-Land in a body cast.
FU FBI ..|..(^_^)..|..
when its ALL conservatives who are telling you the problem is the government agencies that DON'T have police powers.
I am a conservative and I don't believe the issue is about agencies that have or don't have police powers.
But I digress. The fact still remains that whole ordeal has nothing to do with democrats or republicans. It has to do with the current state of American political mindset as a whole and its lack of rational decision making, but instead knee-jerk reactions to situations that may or may not be a threat.
Every argument made thus far has been a result of political view, not government view. It is far to easy to start bringing in military, arts, big government, small government, police, education, health care into this- the fact is they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the issue. Yes republicans have made some really crap decisions, and they have a major PR problem (amongst other issues like being hijacked by ass-hats like huckabee and palin) but these still have nothing to do with a Govt' agency which has managed to ignore the laws of the land, or at least waste tax dollars on non-viable threats.
Yes, I know this doesn't fall into the liberal narrative that usually posted through slashdot, but really, lets take politics out and just look at where the real failures lie.
Which is why I no longer have ANY online discussions about shadowrun gaming anymore.
The Feds are looking for scapegoats. and Gamers are a good target.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I think you've pretty much taken care of my questions, I'm pretty satisfied.
Just for the record, I wasn't suggesting the car wasn't his property... I was only wondering about the fact that it was in public (and thus didn't require any inherent evilness to place the device). You've given a pretty reasonable answer to that though.
This is just another reason why cops should be festooned with cameras
I agree, with the provisio that ALL citizens be festooned with cameras. If police don't get any privacy, neither should anyone else. I don't like double standards.
The simple truth is that we MUST NOT give police the benefit of the doubt because cops are just people.
Agreed: the guilty-until-proven innocent model has always worked so well in the past. It was foolish of our ancestors to abandon it.
It's too bad that I posted already, because someone modded the parent "troll" when, frankly, it is insightful. What's the difference between a bunch of Klan members who advocate the subjugation of differing races but never hurt anyone, and a Muslim who reads a Qur'an that advocates subjugation of differing religions but never hurt anyone? It's worth thinking about if you haven't already.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Right. Because it is a big secret to the subject that he is under investigation. The FBI exists to serve the public. It is a right of the public to know whether they have some kind of specific evidence against the guy or whether they are just on some kind of fishing expedition. All they would have to say is "we have specific evidence in this case". They don't have to reveal exactly what that is at this point. Although eventually they should be required to. The fact is the FBI should be required to have a warrant for this kind of intrusive surveillance. They shouldn't be able to randomly pick people on a whim.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
We're geeks; we don't like your fancy numbers here! *spits*
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Why would they have got a warrant?
Because they were messing with his private property (and thereby invading his privacy), perhaps?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I wouldn't. I wold have called the local cops and reported it as a bomb. Get a ton of press, have the local swat team remove it and then discover what it was. The feds get to pay for a bomb removal and explain to themselves WHY they did not report it to the locals so that the bomb squad was not rolled for no reason.
Best way to embarrass a federal department is to get the locals to do it for you. The device looks like a bomb. The kid after all the news could have sued and won damages as well.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Seems sensible to check him out.
If they have a warrant (which was granted to them because they had evidence beyond him "seeming" like a 'terrorist').
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The fact is the FBI should be required to have a warrant for this kind of intrusive surveillance.
How do you know they didn't? A secret warrant, issued by a secret court, the very one responsible for secret warrants, which by acknowledging having a secret warrant, would be a felony offense. That is what the secret court is set up for, because some investigations are so sensitive, as to require a cloak from the public, for the protection of the investigation.
The system exists for good reasons, but can be used for bad reasons. It is hoped that the good outweighs the bed in the long-term.
Bearded Dragon
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that his car stopped being his property, the place was the [insert anything that isn't his] property.
I guess the primary part I was unclear about was that the FBI was *not* really tracking him, but his car. They can track his car legally without a device, so I was unclear as to why it would be illegal to use a device to do so. However another poster pointed out that there are laws clearly pointing out what someone can put on your car.
You're a Brit? Wow. You just completely changed my view of British law enforcement. Forget about the law then. Isn't it impolite to track citizens without specific evidence that they are guilty of something? How can you do that and still be an English gentleman? I didn't think you blokes were quite as thuggish as American cops. I guess a lot of Brits will be laughing at me now.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
That's not what they were doing though.
They made physical contact with his private property and installed a tracking device. How is that not invading his privacy? Does this suddenly become okay just because an authority figure did it instead of, for example, a random person?
I have no problem with everyone knowing this.
Others disagree.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
For some reason, under Clinton, conservatives used to think it would be FEMA. Despite the fact they have no weapons.
Now, of course, conservatives prefer to believe that Health and Human Services is going to be doing it, sending people to death panels. Again, despite the fact they have no weapons.
Or possibly it will be ACORN. Or whoever Beck's come up with this week as the big bad.
This despite the fact we've had law enforcement detain, without charges, American citizens. Despite the fact we've had the CIA participate in torture. Despite the fact we have dozens of private and lawless mercenaries under our employ who appear willing to do anything.
And all those people do have guns. These groups actually exist, and actually have detainment centers and actually have guns and stuff. They aren't imaginary FEMA camps or some sort of weird slippery slope created from requiring people buy health insurance. They are really actually real.
But those things are only used against 'bad guys'. And it's utterly impossible that the government could just call people bad guys. Why, that's insane. When the government starts rounding them up in their crazy paranoid fantasies, it always makes sure to never pretend they're the bad guys, and it would never use the actual real system that already exists, it has to make some new conspiracy-theory-invented system.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
And mugging people in the street, oh wait thats blacks.
What people don't seem to understand is that muslims control countries and rule them according to their laws, and those laws are contrary to basic human rights. If the pope was allowing people in Vatican City to shoot homosexuals, that would be equivalent to what people mean when they talk about the horrible things muslims do. Its hard to say "those are just the radicals" when its the people in government and people of that religion overwhelmingly support those parts of government. With christianity, as with anything, you get some crazies. However, those crazies are not in control of the government getting their crazy rules passed. This is because their belief is not widespread.
There are states that treat women and people in general like shit. Many of these governments are muslim and supported by muslims. That kind of government is vile and there is a sizable movement within the religion to spread their ways, as we would like to spread our ways to them. Now, just because two people disagree doesn't mean they're both right. We live in a world with a lot of different perspectives, but that doesn't mean there is no right and no wrong. Just because we have some flaws doesn't mean they can do whatever the hell they want and we can't call them on it. Equating abortion clinic bombings to the kind of sick, twisted stuff that happens in muslim states, condoned and supported by the religion is just stupid. You are stupid. A person such as you should never open their mouth because every time you do it will betray just how idiotic your view of the world is and how extremely small your capacity for reasoning is.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
I know several ex cops. and they all quit the force because of what you said. The police are turning into a legal thug gang. Personally I believe any cop that injures a innocent person needs to be found off duty after hours and have the living shit beat out of him by 5-6 people. break both arms and legs. make him understand that what he did was unacceptable. That's the only way those kinds of thugs learn.
Problem is cops support the bad cops. it's a good ol boys club and they back each other up. Honestly, if you are a good cop, you need to blow the head off another cop that is assaulting an innocent. Cops needto be held to a higher standard...
Speeding off duty? you lose your fucking job scumbag.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
refuse the officer entry to my vehicle
phone is bugged
you clearly didn't read my post despite responding to it. I was very clear about the lack of any evidence of intrusion. Frankly what they did is no different than having a cruiser follow him around which they can already do.
However, some other posters that *did* read my post have made it pretty clear that attaching something to the car was illegal, so that's fair.
I agree, with the provisio that ALL citizens be festooned with cameras. If police don't get any privacy, neither should anyone else. I don't like double standards.
While in uniform or while otherwise on duty you need the cameras for your protection and ours. While out of uniform you should be considered to have the same rights as the rest of us plus any actually necessary to your protection (e.g. concealed carry where not granted to the general citizenry.) Police frequently abuse their lack of accountability, but the very point of having police is to have them serve the community, and it makes no sense for them to not be accountable to it. Again, with additional rights there must come additional responsibilities.
the guilty-until-proven innocent model has always worked so well in the past. It was foolish of our ancestors to abandon it.
I was talking about taking the word of one person vs. another at the time, sorry I didn't specify other than via quoting.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fair point:)
I would put it on Bill Gates' car. :)
Ceci n'est pas une
"Really? You think that executing the absolute worst criminals in society means we can't "assert any moral highground" over people that behead reporters"
WE dont just execute evil, we execute innocents. there is an unacceptable number of innocent people on death row. and many innocent have been executed because they were railroaded by the prosecution or they had incompetent defense.
They are STILL INNOCENT... and yes, until that is fixed our hands are very bloody.
Agreed, but ACCIDENTALLY executing prisoners when we truly believe they are guilty of a heinous crime doesn't exactly put us on the same level as those who execute rape victims for the crime of adultery. Even if there are prosecutors that intentionally place innocent suspects on death row, as a society 100% minus those few prosecutors would call for charging those unethical prosecutors with murder. Not so in the Muslim world.
Hardly a valid comparison.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
They demanded it back? So that's an admission that it's theirs. Idiot move #1. They need to write that sort of stuff off.
The proper answer should be: "My attorney has it. He's having it analyzed by experts."
Next time, have some fun. Stick it to a police car parked at the doughnut shop. Then, make an anonymous call to the cops and report a rumor that some gang members in a couple of black SUVs are looking to knock off a cop to make their rep in the neighborhood.
Have gnu, will travel.
Well I do hope that's not their state of the art tracking device as that thing is huge ! it also does look really like a pipe bomb of some sort so I'd have definitely called in the cops if I saw one of these under my car. I'd make sure to take multiple pictures of the device, and video it being removed, too.
I drive a route that spells out "I know your watching" in letters 5 miles across
xkcd link in 3..2..1
TFA says the reason seems to be that the 20 yr old community college student has ties to the middle east, including visiting often and having family in egypt.
Do you understand the goal of terrorism? One of the principles of terrorism is called "the principle of reaction". The terrorist tells his peers that "they hate us" (for any given combination of "they" and "us"). Not everyone believes him, so he attacks "them" in the name of "us". "Them" blame "us" for the actions of a few terrorists. This gives the terrorist the proof they need to say again that "they hate us".
If you charge CAIR with all the ills of Islamic terrorism simply by association, then you are letting the terrorists win. Love thy neighbour -- only love can set you free.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
I think the best response is "Yes, track everyone and prevent crime before it happens. Starting with public representatives to make sure they are not abusing the public. THEN we can talk about tracking everyone else."
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Convicted criminals, yes. The moral problem with that would be... what exactly?
Well it depends what they did. If their only crime was being rude to a police officer then I think there would be a very big moral problem. If the accused had been found guilty of killing a bunch of school children based on overwhelming evidence, not so much. What you should have said was convicted murderers. Not convicted criminals. The moral justification for capital punishment in the US is an eye for an eye. So it cannot be used except for the crime of murder. If you kill someone then you can't really object to someone killing you. OTOH, I don't think our government has any business murdering people even if that murder is justified. If the victim's family was given the option to legally kill the murderer though I wouldn't have a problem with that. As long as the method of murder were "humane" enough to be used on animals. IOW, no state sanctioned torture.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Suddenly, I have visions of a Big Trouble ending.
Have gnu, will travel.
Which is why I no longer have ANY online discussions about shadowrun gaming anymore.
There are two ways to deal with this. One way is the way you've chosen; the other is the "I'm Spartacus" way.
Thousands of people tweeted their satirical intentions for Robin Hood Airport (i.e. to blow it sky high) during the Twitter Joke Trial here in the UK.
I am curious *why* he was being tracked. Sure we all agree that wiretapping and tracking occur, and for the most part are part of the investigative process. Will the FBI have to disclose the "why" (intent) to provide grounds for the legality of it? Is that mixing burdens of the argument? I know over the last few years Cali's been making questionable calls on when and how you can track someone so the area *is* murky.
I would be ripely amused if this student is really a danger.
What people don't seem to understand is that muslims control countries and rule them according to their laws, and those laws are contrary to basic human rights.
And that is different from the U.S. how exactly? America is not exactly a pinnacle of human rights these days.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
There is a slope. How slippery it is depends on what intentions you use to grease it.
Do you know how you defeat terrorism?
You make those who support it tacitly pay the price. General Sherman showed how you defeat this type of enemy when he marched through the South. There are other places this same practice has been used, including Germany after WWII. The only way to end a war (and this is a war) is to make the population that supports the enemy want the war to end more than they want not to lose. After the will of the enemy to fight is destroyed, you use good treatment to get them to not want to fight again. This idea that you defeat terrorism by being nice to those who support the goals of terrorists is BS.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
So I guess we have a new version of the addage "DWB", which is "Typing While Brown".
Also, the Government needs to feel useful and basically has a bunch of people up at or near the top yelling at the poor workers to "find me some terrorists". But there are nearly none to be found, as to be honest, it's only a mere handful of people who are even trying to do anything. The rest seem to have given up or lost interest. ie - they know who almost all of the real ones are, but their bosses are still holding their feet to the fire as they are mostly political appointments or politicians and the like and are delusional or paranoid about the real state of things, having never actually been in the CIA or FBI. Neither have I, but I'd certainly not pretend to know better than real agents and keep asking for something they tell me they aren't finding.
So they have to invent ways to look and keep busy for the most part, to keep their jobs, which leads to instances like this. The real issue is the politicians who watch too much cable news and are far too paranoid.
I personally would have claimed to have thrown it away before I thought of posting the pictures online. Then later on I would have dug it up from the hiding place and taken the batteries for my own uses. I mean, why throw or give away completely functional electronics?
Put it in a box. Bury it.
To be honest I am not sure how it worked, unless they ran an antenna... GPS requires line of sight to satellites to actually work. Probably some super secret FBI technology!
Also how would they get the data out of it? Radio? Unlikely. It probably has a physical datalogger attached to it, which would require an agent to actually go and retrieve it. Its not like they are repositioning satellites to watch you in real time like Enemy of the State or anything. Unless they have some magic FBI technology (which I would suggest they do not), this is fairly passive intelligence. Which is why they want it back, because otherwise they have nothing.
Likely the best response would be "What Box?"
In Texas it's considered justifiable to protect property with deadly force under certain circumstances. Unless they're clearly identified as police, then I wonder what happens when they hit up a militia-type that's more than happy to shoot someone messing with his car at night.
http://www.bakers-legal-pages.com/pc/0942.htm
I mean anyone that uses GPS knows that it can be foiled by simple things like "leaves"....
It specifically advocates the killing of Jews and apostates, and the subjugation of unbelievers. I have the backing of the imams on this.
"The imams" aren't a unified group -- that's why people have been known to shop around to get a statement they agree with.
Did you read my post? Do you understand "boo hoo collective bargaining rights" and "oh no, we're not allowing unfettered access to our country" and "privacy violations!" is not the same as "holy shit, did you see them weld that woman's pussy shut" or "They dragged that guy through the street throwing rocks at him because he spoke unfavorably about Allah!" You are just like the person I was responding to, living in your own world where since we have some flaws we're the same as every other country except Canada and Sweden.
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
It's a place where he has no expectation of privacy. I'd have no problem with a member of the public putting a tracking device on a police car either. I'd actually find that sort of funny.
Others disagree.
Clearly:)
"So I'm sure I fit their profile."
What type of apology is that?
Does he say he understands that what he does is 'suspicious' behaviour or anything?
How did his mind get that far?
What brainwashing did he receive?
Even I were playing chess-via-snailmail or email with Osama himself (yes, Osama B, Tora Bora, Afghanistan) there would be no real reason for anyone to put a GPS on me.
What has the American nation gotten to?
Mass insanity?
Please think for a while why that man should be labelled 'suspicious' at all. Now what if YOU did the same things for very valid reasons.
Think again...
So why did he cooperate at all?
Why didn't he leave the place and go to a police station?
`US CIA/FBI/secreservcie men shoot civilian while trying to recover GPS-device`?
What sick type of nation is that? (yes, the hostile behaviour of the men that approached the guy could also have come from some evil gangster mob...)
The difference is that they actually had to access a person's private property (his car) and place an unmarked device in it. Any such devices should be clearly marked as government property _and_ matched up w/ a search warrant # which is on file in the same locale as the vehicle is registered in.
I think it would have been far more interesting if instead of removing it, the mechanic had instead:
- rolled the car out into the public street
- called the local police department to report a suspicious, possibly explosive device in a vehicle
- notified the owner of the car and asked for him to coordinate things with the bomb squad
Moreover, the biggest problem w/ warrant-less placement of such devices is that it fails the equal protection under the law test. Poor people park their cars out on public streets or on driveways --- which can apparently be accessed w/o a search-warrant, while rich people live in gated communities and have their cars stored off the street, often in garages which are pretty much inaccessible w/o a search-warrant.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
It's a place where he has no expectation of privacy.
On his car (his private property)? If making physical contact with his private property with the intent of revealing what he is doing is not invading his privacy, then what is?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
If you think Brits aren't thuggish you've never seen a Rugby match:)
Thing is, it is impolite. But not so much so that I think it should be a crime. Not at this level anyway. Tracking the person, yes. Tracking the car? I can live with that. Actually interfering with the car to add the tracking device - I have minor issues there.
If a random member of the public was to put a tracking device on my car, I'd be a little offended perhaps but wouldn't call the police. I wouldn't give them their tracker back either.
I just don't see this as the (literal) federal crime that people are claiming it is. It's cause for complaint to the FBI.
Actually, when it became public, they confronted him and threatened him with all kinds of legal action if he didn't return the device.
Too lazy to find the news articles. Just Google it.
Beetle B.
I agree, but cameras aren't enough.
Even when they're on camera doing it, cops routinely get away with little more than a slap on the wrist for brutalizing and harassing their victims, choke-slamming little kinds into the cement; and even shooting unarmed, unresisting, restrained, people in the back while they're lying prone. In the last case (Oscar Grant) they did so in front of dozens of witnesses, many of whom were recording. And after doing so, they tried to cover up Grant's murder by confiscating the phones and cameras from the witnesses. The only reason that even got out, is because some of the witnesses managed to escape from the police with their cameras... in one more dramatic video even fleeing onto the BART train as the computer automatically closed the doors and took the train off to the next station while the cops pounded on the doors and windows demanding the phones and cameras be handed over.
And what did the police get for a casually-done on-camera mafia-style summary execution of an unarmed and unresisting man? One of them... just ONE... got a two-year (with double credit for time served) slap on the wrist sentence for involuntary manslaughter. He'll be out before the end of this year. The rest got no punishment at all and are still wearing badges and carrying guns.
Cameras are a start. But what we need is nationwide and comprehensive reform on the oversight of the police forces and discipline in their ranks. The police unions need to be broken, the culture of "the thin blue line" and "the blue code of silence" need to be utterly destroyed, "professional courtesy" within the police ranks needs to go away. An independent citizen oversight board should be in place over all departments with unlimited authority to compel testimony and impart administrative punishment up to and including termination (And "suspended with pay" should not be an option.) And the DAs and judges need to be instructed and encouraged to drop the hammer... hard... on officers who break their trust with the public by abusing their power.
Otherwise... without oversight and discipline reform and stringent punishment for officer misconduct; no matter how many cameras you focus on said cops, all you have is a reality show.
Imagine all the people...
ah the great slashdot dissapearance of 2010... it all makes sense now.
it's deeper than we thought!
God's Battalions: The Case For the Crusades is an interesting, well-researched book on this topic.
Guatemala?
No way you're putting that up MY tailpipe! But seriously: This looks like a hangout to me - a deliberate exposure intended to lead people to a false conclusion. In this case, that a GPS tracker is much too large to hide effectively. But from a technical viewpoint, there is no reason the tracker has to be larger than a cell phone, because in fact a cell phone can be used as a tracker. "Never build what you can buy." At most the phone would need to be repackaged, with a circuit added (if required) to allow it to charge from a 12 volt source in the car's electrical system.
I was trying to confirm what he was saying but by a more level headed source. My point is that Wikipedia at any given moment can be hijacked by a hothead. I'm sure the people at Britannica will cry when they learn you've said they're not bright and only publish what the TV tells them.
Don't forget those naughty cartoons and Theo van Gogh's little movie Submission. They really need to get a sense of humor. They should visit Jesus and Mo for a good chuckle.
Science is the Real TRUTH!
I would be remiss if I did not point out that new technology can make something that was previously infeasible, feasible. When this happens, it is necessary to re-examine hidden assumptions to determine whether an explicit change needs to be made due to the elimination of a hidden assumption.
To make my above general statement more specific, you currently believe that it is legal for a government agency to track someone's car. I'm not going to argue that it isn't (yet). I am going to point out that such tracking had a cost to it that made it infeasible to perform on a broad basis or for long periods of time prior to the production of low-cost GPS-based tracking devices. One hidden assumption behind the postulated legality of the government's tracking of people's cars is that the government can't really afford to do it unless the government is fairly certain that it will yield a desirable result. In the past, the government wasn't likely to start tracking vehicle movement of citizens in fine detail over a long period of time unless the government had a reasonable suspicion through data gathered by other means that this tracking was going to prove something. This assumption is no longer valid. The government can, relatively inexpensively, track vehicles in exact detail over long periods of time, whether or not there is any reasonable suspicion.
In my mind, the question then becomes whether it really is legal for the government to track an individual's movement in fine detail over a long period of time, even if only through the movement of their car? What controls should there be on the government performing this tracking? Should any agent or police officer, on their own initiative, be able to perform this tracking? Should there be judicial oversight? Does such tracking rise to the level of violating one's privacy such that a 4th Amendment requirement for a warrant exists?
If it is judged now "legal" for the government to track any one individual vehicle movements through GPS tracking devices, without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion, can this be expanded to tracking all vehicle movements at all times? Would it be reasonable for the government to have one large "vehicle location over time" database that was fed a constant stream of data from factory-installed tracking devices in all cars? Could such a database be misused? Would it be likely to be misused?
The government has argued in the past that changes in technology required new powers. For example, every regular voice telecommunications carrier in the United States is required to provide an interface through which the government can tap calls placed through the telecommunications provider's network. This was deemed a necessary expansion of government wiretap powers due to the fact that technology improvements made the old methods of tapping largely irrelevant. I think it is reasonable to also consider that changes in technology may require new limitations on what were previously uncontrolled practices, due to the expansion in capability or reduction in cost that technology has brought about where such changes remove artificial governors on those practices.
So in some states your car is an extension of private property and to put something on/inside would seemingly need a warrant. I dint know about Washington, but in my state you have all the same property rights in your car that you do in a home. I would like to think if I found one on my truck I would put it on a tractor trailer or on a ship. More then likely I would have taken it apart.
They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
However, the politically correct devotion to Muslims makes it almost a crime to point out that the Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression.
Perhaps both sides were asshats and largely responsible for the Crusades? The whole "European Christians/Muslims started it!" thing sounds like a second grade argument, "who started it" is a rather silly thing to argue about when talking about over 200 years of conflict, with a rather large heap of atrocities sitting in the laps of BOTH sides. I have no sympathy for either side in the crusades, since they both are guilty of perpetuating it, no matter who started it.
Same with Israel and Palestine; the argument about who started it, or who is "correct", has long since become irrelevant, since both sides continue the conflict. Actually, its the same with most large-scale conflicts.
Its like blaming all of WWI (and thus WWII, and thus Hitler) on Gavrilo Princip. It might be somewhat correct, but completely misses any point.
Not hating on Muslims isn't politically correct, its accurate. Sure, they have their extremists, and that is bad, but 99% of them are normal folk doing normal things whose only difference in life is not buying into your religion. I'm an atheist, I can't really see a difference between most Muslims and most Christians. Hell, looking at the vocal Fungelicals, the nasty theocracies in the Middle East are more a road map than some evil empire. Muslims are the same as everyone else, for good or ill.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
While in uniform or while otherwise on duty you need the cameras for your protection and ours.
See, that sounds great and wonderful, if you assume that cameras are an unerring way of knowing exactly what happened. They're not. While cameras "don't lie", they certainly can and do present an incorrect impression of the circumstances, and lead to incorrect beliefs amongst the general public even when context is later provided to explain the situation. You only need to look at this comment to see that effect in action. So no, cameras certainly don't protect cops, nor are they particularly helpful to the general public.
Police frequently abuse their lack of accountability
[citation needed]
Again, with additional rights there must come additional responsibilities.
This is already the case. You're not arguing for extra responsibilities - you're arguing for the infringement of their rights. Your statement would be better stated as "with additional power there must come a reduction in rights". Which I do not believe is justified. Should CEO's have cameras installed in their offices? How about the president? Congressmen? Judges? Parole officers? Parking enforcement personnel? Firefighters? Where do you stop, exactly, and how do you make the distinction?
I was talking about taking the word of one person vs. another at the time, sorry I didn't specify other than via quoting.
That's fair, but then "benefit of the doubt" is the wrong phrase. Also, good luck convicting any criminals if the sworn testimony and evidence presented by a cop is considered no better than the word of the suspect. Under such a system, I agree, cameras would be necessary. I just don't agree that such a system would be either fair, necessary, or even useful.
You do know that the television show '24' is fiction, right?
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
And as for your sig... you think that those that hold a different view from you should be "BANNED"? Kinda goes against the whole "free exchange of ideas" thing doesn't it? How many tyrannical dictators gained power by people who felt the same way you do about people they disagreed with?
I think it's related to this...
You do know that FISA is real, right?
Bearded Dragon
My wife works at an insurance office owned by a minority. "I thought this office was owned by a minority." is one of the first comments that a new minority customer states when they come in for the first time. She asks them to have a seat and she gets the agent.
If I walked into an office and made a comment to a black receptionist that "I'm sorry, I thought everyone here was supposed to be white", I'd be considered a racist slob and be seen as the source for all minorities problems in life.
So the Catholics were pissed because that was their job?
On the flip side, the FBI wouldn't have been sued unless they did something wrong. Right?
Why couldn't you get it on a plane?
The same could be said about the Bible, and has been said before. Funny, it seems that almost all religions seem to profess they are "the one true religion" and all non-believers will suffer in the end. Nothing unique about the Koran or Islam in that regard.
"But this one goes to 11!"
You can't watch everyone well. If they keep watching people for stupid shit like this, it means they use up resources that could have better watched a real threat.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
When you start getting your information from sources other than the voices you hear in your own head, others may start to listen to you more seriously. Your ignorance is 4 to 5 orders of magnitude more than the average idiot. Just keep repeating all that nonsense to yourself - otherwise the fear may abate and you might suffer from sensible thinking.
"But this one goes to 11!"
You know... I may be pretty damn white, but I think I'm going to go check my car quick...
What's this box near my r
Informative sir.
That comment was made by his roommate or something. The guy they tracked was just an acquaintance to the other guy that made the comment. That's why they were tracking this first guy. Totally makes sense!
I feel bad replying to such a long (and well written) post so shortly, but I do in fact agree with a lot of what you said there. Though I will say that I had always kind of figured car tracking was allowed without a warrant because it wasn't that big a deal, you're in public, your car isn't you, etc. I'm not saying I buy those things myself, I just figured that was the general gist of the rational for it. I'm interested in your take on it too.
However if we are to say that it's okay as long as there's enough of a cost (time/money/otherwise) involved then where do we draw that line? Not that I expect you to actually have an answer for me, but it's an interesting question.
God's Battalions: The Case For the Crusades is an interesting, well-researched book on this topic.
Totenglocke and the moderators think the author of that book is not too bright and just wrote what the TV told him.
and you are free to do so without retribution or surveillance - provided you are a white christian.
You mentioned his travel. If he travelled frequently, always to locations that are considered hotbeds of terrorism, at times that were suspiciously coincidental with some known terrorists, also visiting those locations, that's a pretty good indicator to probe further.
In my opinion (and I would guess it is shared by many /.ers) I seriously doubt the validity of any claims of "hotbeds of terrorism" that the FBI would be watching (meaning in the USA, not in Iran/Israel/Afghanistan/etc.). IF these hotbeds existed and there were all these "known terrorists" about we'd honestly have SO many more terrorist attacks in the USA than we have. Someone linked to a reddit post above that may or may not be posted by this guy about how EASY it would be to bomb a mall. If you really wanted to be a terrorist it's DAMN simple to be one in the USA. Any mildly competent terrorist would have a stupidly easy time of making a bomb, walking into a busy shopping mall/post office/airline security line/ANY GATHERING OF PEOPLE and set the stupid thing off. The fact is this is NOT happening and so claims of "terrorism hotbeds" are highly suspect. This is why so many people here doubt the validity of the FBI's reasons for tracking this guy.
So on top of this you are a cop?
Great, we have a totally non-baised commenter here!
You are right those folks are not the ones to ask either, but it is far less of a problem of conflict of interest. This is because those folks know no matter what a cop did he is not going to go to jail for it. Sure he might lose his job, only to get hired somewhere else, but he is surely not going to be held responsible.
For evidence of that, I point to the various real life cases including a recent one near me where they shot a little girl in the head, for sitting on the couch.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html
The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves
Wednesday, Aug. 25, 2010
I'd go to the next big port and stick it onto a random freight container!
(captcha was "situated". I swear: the Slashdot captcha generator is sentient)
I agree with you 100%. If you were objecting to something I said, I must have missed it.
From TFA:
The federal appeals court in the Washington circuit where Afifi's case was filed ruled in August that the collection of GPS data amounts to a government "search" that required a warrant.
The reason for the suit is, again in the words of TFA:
Judges have disagreed over whether search warrants should be required for GPS tracking. Afifi's lawyers say they are filing this lawsuit in hopes of a decision saying that any use of tracking devices without a warrant in the United States is unconstitutional.
You can't watch everyone well. If they keep watching people for stupid shit like this, it means they use up resources that could have better watched a real threat.
Why do you think they are working so hard to establish legal precedence to violate everyone's privacy with the use of fairly cheap electronics? They don't have the manpower to do it the old fashion way because they are already stretch tracking everyone. Since they don't have the man power, they want to use electronics to do more with less.
And as for your sig... you think that those that hold a different view from you should be "BANNED"? Kinda goes against the whole "free exchange of ideas" thing doesn't it? How many tyrannical dictators gained power by people who felt the same way you do about people they disagreed with?
I think it's related to this...
Ugh! Not that tired argument again. OK, here we go.
The case in reference was about 2 reporters refusing to do a story because they didn't like the edits. They were fired. They took the FOX AFFILIATE that fired them to court. (Note: Affiliate, not FoxNews. Fox shows the Simpsons and Family Guy. FoxNews shows Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. They are two separate entities.)
Next, the the court never ruled that the news story was false. The closest they came was the original jury said “a false, distorted or slanted story” (from your second link). Notice the "OR" in the jury's statement. As for "distorted or slanted", shouldn't every media outlet be sued, including those links your provided? Strange. You don't seem to mind their slant. Here is a story about a recent CBS Poll about public opinion of public sector unions. The title is "Report: New York Times/CBS News Poll Slanted". Notice the last word... "Slanted"? Or are you going to tell me that Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann don't have a slant? As for "false", didn't Dan Rather run a story a while back using obviously fake documents to claim that GWB was negligent in his National Guard duties? Are saying that Rather and his producer Mapes should go to jail? Should CBS lose their broadcasting license? That is what these two reporters were suing for in their case; they wanted the local Fox affiliate to lose their license. Shouldn't CBS suffer the same fate?
As for the appeal where the jury's ruling was overturned, your second link has this:
“that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news — which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” — does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute.”
Again, it never says that the story was false. It claims that the reporters may not be afforded whistle-blower protection because the “news distortion policy” is not “law, rule, or regulation”. Basically, the reporters claimed that they should not have been fired because they were whistle-blowers. They claimed whistle-blower status saying that airing a false story is against the law, per the FCC regulations. The court said they were not whistle-blowers according to the law, because there is no LAW against airing a false story. The court never made a judgment on the story itself because there was no point since these two were not protected under whistle-blower laws in the first place, meaning they could be fired.
However, I can't hammer you on the misunderstanding. First, your whole point is moot because it was not FoxNews on trial here, but a local Fox affiliate (again, Simpsons vs O'Reilly). But in doing a little research on this, I found the first five or six pages Google returned were all from sites like, purefood.org, organicconsumers.org, HuffingtonPost and so on. Of course, all of these sights are slanted toward their cause, just as a story on Redstate.com would be slanted. It is difficult, if not impossible to find a non-slanted version of this story. The irony of it all is that they are all claiming FoxNews is bad f
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
... Mohammed, that murdering pedophile.
You do know his wife was the same age as the 'virgin' mary right?
Extremists do not define the norm. Or should we base our view of christians on the likes of Koresh? What about the church spreading hate about homosexuality. The beatings and slayings of homosexuals on american soil? You do realize that nun's wear habits for exactly the same reason as islamic women right?
US'ians sure have their own form of doublespeak.
There's no such thing as "government": It's a collection of people acting like assholes and everyone else letting them.
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
Heh. When I had to take my car in for service the other day, I literally had over six inches of solidly packed snow and solid ice under my car. They said they actually had to bump my car back in the queue to let it thaw enough so they could crack it off. Bet THAT would damage a GPS!
From someone being on the receiving end of their activities and seeing it occur to my coloured friends, take my word they won't ever let this happen.
P.S. it doesn't matter that the police in my area discriminated using ethnicity and language, there is always something to discriminate upon.
God as portrayed in the bible is represented as having killed off nearly all of humanity for worshipping the wrong god, and told the Israelites to go slaughter various people in order to take their lands. The Old Testament God is a wrathful, vengeful god, and frankly is a bit scary (and a jerk). Not all Christians subscribe to those teachings, and see the New Testament portrayal of God's message as more meaningful guidance for today's life. I imagine that many muslims feel similarly about the Quran: Yes, it calls for this and that, but no, we're not going to behead people or stone our daughters.
Of course, there are also crazy people that use their book of choice as justification for being crazy. I don't know enough about the Muslim religion to feel comfortable blaming the religion for this, rather than crazy zealots. After all, Christians have their own share of zealots, and many Christians think those people set a poor example.
When technology is ubiquitous enough, the reason will be "because we can do so cheaply". If the FBI had the means to monitor the entire country 24/7 (and a belief that they wouldn't face legal consequences for it -- whether due to it being legal, being declared "reasonable" search, or just that no one will prosecute them), I'm pretty sure they would do so.
When resources are scarce, the threshold is relatively high before you're considered enough of a threat to monitor, track, and compile reports on. When computers can do that, the threshold of suspicion can be much lower, all in the name of efficiency.
The FBI believes that this sort of information gathering does NOT require a warrant - probably as it's neither a direct search nor a wiretap?
The plaintiff (and many of us) feel that it SHOULD require a warrant, so they're suing to see if they can decide once and for all whether it DOES require a warrant (and then we can legislate accordingly later, in theory).
If he fits some criteria of a terrorist, enough to warrant investigating more closely, then that sounds like it ought to be a reason to go get a warrant. That's exactly what warrants are for: legally justifying the surveillance or other activities (which would otherwise be illegal) to look for (and gather) evidence of wrongdoing. Warrants do not require the target to be guilty, evil, or a bad person, merely that there be a reason for the investigation.
e.g., if your roommate was found dead, they might get a warrant to investigate your house, even if your alibi seems good.
Yes it would.
Though after commenting, I realized what they are likely doing is using a cell, GPS-assist and 3G to do it. While you wouldn't get a GPS signal down there, you could use a cell with GPS-assist to triangulate location from GPS cell towers, and transmit location data via 3G.
Way to go innovation! Making it easier to spy on me!
Not to mention that if they truly felt he were such a risk, they could have gotten a warrant to investigate him. They didn't, either out of laziness ("no one will ever know"), or because they felt that this was a form of surveillance that doesn't require a warrant. The central issue here is whether or not they needed a warrant, and determining that (or eliciting a decision about that) is what this lawsuit seems to be aiming for.
... you have nothing to fear ... right? RIGHT?
I guess it would be too late to say "hey, this is getting out of hand!"
I'm not interested in people who agree with me. I would be really interested to hear from anyone who thinks what the FBI, the DoJ and Obama have done related to this is moral, ethical, just, lawful and/or constitutional?
The US government, my government, is a bully. I feel shame.
Democrats and Republicans are very similar political parties, where Democrats tend to support welfare, unions, and "the middle class", whereas Republicans think welfare evil, unions are evil, and that wealth is correlated with ... I don't know, being one of the Elect? Both parties are heavily subsidized by the entertainment industries (hence why we have no copyright reform), Republicans tend to support (and be supported by) the military industry, and seem to be backed by the more fundamentalist Christians in our country. Both sides have "leaders" who demonize the other side to the point that rational discussion is nearly impossible by most Americans. (Arguably this may be because many of us are narrow-minded and dumb.)
The "faces" of the Republican party are people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. (I don't know who the "faces" of the Democrats are. I'm not sure what Stephen Colbert and John Stewart consider themselves to be.) Many Republicans think they are the awesomest people ever, and many Democrats ignore them on principle, believing that everything they say is complete shite. Republicans discard anything said by the "liberal" media, and use "liberal" as an insult much as they might say terrorist, communist, socialist, or homosexual -- as a means of discrediting any argument someone might make. The populace in both parties seems (mainly) to get their entire world view filtered by their demagogues of choice, and feel that the other side's demagogues are spouting complete idiocy. Republicans frequently argue as if communism and socialism were the same thing, and treat it as a Universally Accepted Bad Thing -- I'm not sure how Democrats feel about socialism.
Urban areas tend to be dominated by Democrats, suburbs and rural areas by Republicans. Voting trends in New York and California show this very remarkably, where areas like LA, Sacramento, and the Bay Area cities vote blue, and everyone else in the state disagrees. ;)
You'll find a more accurate description of the parties' platforms and differences on Wikipedia.
Actually The GPS on my N900 works though a whole floor of house. My old Bluetooth GPS receiver worked through dense rainforest too, no problems. Considering those situations, I don't see why the trunk of a car would be such a huge obstacle.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Please note that that was about what the stereotypes seem to be, at least as I've seen them. There are many Republicans and Democrats (and other flavors) who are open to rational discussion, but there are many who are not.
And before any smartasses show up, yes it's cell-assisted GPS on the N900, but I confirmed a lock on 5+ satellites, on the bottom floor of a 2-story house.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"busted"? Really? Are white men not allowed to have sex with black women (or vice-versa)? How colonial of you.
I think you know what I meant, at least I hope you know what I meant, but just couldn't resist the idea to let loose with a "I'm hipper than you" sanctimounius pranging
OF COURSE White men and black women, or Black men and white women, or white men and black men, should be able to fall in love with each other, have sex with each other, and marry each other...
But, the point I was actually trying to make was, at that time, a supposedly moral/upstanding politician, a pillar of society, having sex with a woman who wasn't his wife was a big deal back then (as it largely, still is now), especially if said woman was a negro (thankfully, not as big of a deal now)
Jefferson denied this allegation, made by members of the pamphlet press, vehemently.
They, meaning the pamphlet press, "busted" him on the whole affair, i.e. made something public that he would have surely wanted to keep private..
> discovered the device stuck with magnets between his right rear wheel and exhaust.
I guess that if you are going to be suspect of anything, the best thing you can do is move out of USA, and ride a barebones vehicle, like a motorcycle or a bycicle, way harder to plant a GPS device there...
Actually, they were tracking him in an investigation to someone he knew and he fit the profile because of his trips home. It threw red flags, he got investigated and cleared.
This all would have been done without his knowledge if the repair shop wouldn't have notices the tracker.
Anyways, I doubt there was anything illegal about this as at the time it happened, it was legal to do that.
Here is some more details on it.
True.
And gee, sure would be helpful to have a warrant attached to this so we know exactly why they were tracking him.
Not hating on Muslims isn't politically correct, its accurate
See, this shit, right here is exactly what I'm talking about. No one said anything about "hating". All I mentioned was the apologists like you who want to blame those "evil whites / christians" instead of accepting the documented facts that many years of Muslim aggression lead to Europeans fight back. Now I know you'll say "I'm not blaming them, I'm saying they're both to blame" - it's still the same thing because you refuse to accept that Muslims did X bad thing and it resulted in Y.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
And blowing up clinics and shooting doctors, Oh wait no that is Christians.
Really? How many abortion doctors killed in the last, say, 10 years? Go ahead, look it up. I'll give you a hint... It's ONE. That's right, ONE!
How many pro-life activists have been murdered in the past 10? ONE. That's right! One. Look it up for yourself.
Wow, nice way to specifically cherry-pick your conditions (just in the U.S., just successful murders, not attempted murders, kidnappings, cases of arson, and only in the last 10 years, not the full history) to make your point! Do you also, by chance, feed numbers to Fox News for reporting on global warming? But congratulations, you did in fact inspire me to look it up myself.
Here's a better link to give people an overview of the history:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
Short version: since 1977, 8 murders, 17 attempted murders, 153 cases of assault/battery, 3 kidnappings, 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings/arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 stink bomb attacks in the U.S. alone.
Trying to compare that to the one lunatic ever to go the other way is a bit disingenuous. If you have a better list of attacks on forced-birth protestors since 1977, feel free to post it.
Out of curiosity, do you know that the first off continent marine battle was against Muslims? Or that the reason the US created a standing navy was because of them to? This was a priority done by Thomas Jefferson once he became president because when as a diplomat stationed in France, he asked the ambassador to Tripoli what gave them the rights to pirate our Atlantic shores and take our people captive, and the reply was Allah gave them the right.
This also marked our first allied interaction with Kuwait. While Kuwait was part of the ottoman empire, they were a major port port of commerce to the Americas and allowed US naval and marines safe harbor for preparations against out attacks on Tripoli.
You can say that it's all Grey and lost in the details. But that doesn't make it true. There is a pattern of behavior that has transgress beyond the crusades.
And no, I'm not going to say it's the religion that causes it. It's most likely man doing things while using the religion as a shield.
it's still the same thing because you refuse to accept that Muslims did X bad thing and it resulted in Y.
Strawman much? Yes, someone did bad thing X that lead to equally bad thing Y, and then it continues on and on for hundreds of years. I find putting blame to be rather shallow, since neither group really emerged looking good. Yes, the Muslims might have been very marginally worse (since some small group of them started it) than the Christians, but functionally it doesn't matter one bit.
Your problem is that your blaming a full group for the actions of a very small portion of said group. Muslims is as meaningless a phrase as Christians, or Caucasians, or Blacks, or whatever. Thats the problem.
Also, I'm not an apologist for anyone. I don't see either side as noble, nor do I see either side as "evil". Both Christians and Muslims have been assholes throughout time. Sure, right now the Muslims aren't doing as well, but the Christians were there previously, and will be there again (listen to some radical Christians in America, they sound just like the radical Muslims, and have the same goals). I really don't find the "whose worse" conversation productive, interesting, or accurate. Its a pointless thing. What purpose does it serve? To make your "side" feel warm and fuzzy? To spread some hate, and potential violence, to your enemies? What the hell is the purpose?
You realize that 99% of all Muslims don't care, aren't terrorists, etc... Just like 99% of Christians or any other ethnic or religious group? What percentage of Muslims took part in the crusades, versus what portion of European Christians?
And isn't just saying "the Crusades were bad", enough? What purpose is served by saying that one side was marginally worse than the other, or one side "started it"? Who cares?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
From an outside perspective America itself doesn't fair very well either. We ran (do run) around picking fights with everyone too. I'm guessing much of Latin America could pain us in a very bad light, for instance.
Basic law of cultures and societies: "everyone is an asshole".
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
It's unconstitutional to do so without a warrant. That's the point where they went wrong.
How it's supposed to work:
1. Agents think John Doe has committed or is involved in a conspiracy to commit a crime. For instance, they maybe heard somewhere that he was planning to rob an armored car.
2. Agents gather information either by consent or public sources that give them probable cause to search and / or arrest. For instance, they watched John Doe sitting around watching armored cars and making notes.
3. They go to a judge and get a warrant to search / arrest. In this case, maybe they ask to search John Doe's apartment for the notes to see if they match the schedule of the armored cars.
4. Then, and only then, can they go into John Doe's apartment to try to find the notes.
The part about asking a judge "mother may I" is the key step that was left out of this investigation.
I am officially gone from
Thank-you for your kind words. I think that you are right - it is an interesting question where to draw the line with respect to detailed surveillance of public activities. I don't have an answer, other than to say that on one end of the extreme I don't think much is required in the way of controls (hey - where is that red Mercury Marquis going right now) while on the other end there should be controls (please start a detailed trace on everyone who lives in this neighborhood; I want to know where their vehicles are at every minute for the next year). I'll be following the case at the start of this post to see where it comes out!
Well, that's sort of the Monroe doctrine and Roosevelt's corollary to the Monroe doctrine.
I'm not going to pretend that the US is innocent, but the interactions with Tripoli happened in the first 20 years of our existence. Jefferson was the third president if I remember correctly.
But back to the Monroe doctrine, This was a result of Europe interfering with south and central America. It's also on of the reasons why half speak Spanish and the other half, French (or dialects of that). Anyways, those have been somewhat abused since it's been a long standing practice that what's in our interest is their interest by default (as we basically told Europe, if you mess with them, you are messing with us).
Yes, I can see how they would think some things about the US. We have intentionally interfered in their politics when it was to out benefit. If we stayed out, Cuba would likely either be part of Mexico or part of spain right now (as we originally helped free them from Spain's rule). But all that seems separate and secondary to Carter's screw-ups with the search for oil and the IMF, or Regan's war on drugs, or Clinton's move to put the US back on the world oil market, not to mention various moves within the countries themselves that contributed to that.
1. Park in some crazy public place. Very popular shopping area, something like Oxford street in London (sorry, don't know any equivalent in this guy's area).
2. Call journalists about bomb attached on your car and how terrified you are.
3. Call police about bomb attached on your car and again how terrified you are.
N900 would have GPS assist not a true GPS. You could use GPS via cell towers to triangulate position. Not sure about your bluetooth. Depends on how dense the tree cover is.
I know some wippersnappers would be talking about accuracy, and they would be arguing about 30cm stuff, and I would cut them off saying that it was me walking with an external antenna that's a meter long, and the point is where the signal is received not where the device is actually located, so its moot.
GPS does not work through solid objects period. Cell with GPS assist in a 3G area, however might work, not as accurate, but for their purposes likely... however a hog on the battery life, which is probably why they found the thing as apparently it had a battery pack the size of a large pipe bomb, and even then would have a very limited effective time span, not exactly the best design.
And some Americans electrocute or gas their own citizens - so what?
Convicted criminals, yes. The moral problem with that would be... what exactly?
When you have to ask you have a problem with morality.
Except for self defence one human should not take another humans god given life, period.
You may have to protect society against criminals and lock them up but taking their life is simply institutionalised murder.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
If you ever find such a device, drive onto the busiest freeway at the busiest time of day, pull over to 'check the rattle coming from the back of your car', then call 911 to say someone has put a bomb on your car. The freeway will be blocked for hours and the news will be all over it. Then sue them while it's hot.
Driving into the middle of a big city in rush hour will do the trick too.
The N900 does have a true GPS, you can disable cell tower triangulation entirely, it just takes much longer to get a satellite lock that way so I always leave the assistance on. I also got a lock once on my old Bluretooth GPS receiver on the ground floor of a two-story house so it must be possible without A-GPS.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"Turn the other cheek" isn't from the Holy Bible, it is from the New Testament, which is an add-on by a Roman Emperor. The Holy Bible teaches us to extract a "tooth for tooth and eye for eye". It teaches other useful things too -- to practice ethnic cleansing, by killing all the men and raping all the women, "to salt the earth", etc. Most of these lessons were learned by and faithfully applied by the US government against poor, third-word countries whose only fault was trying to get out from under European yoke (or from Europe relinquishing the said yoke to the US satraps post-WW II).
Really, Guatemala Bay?
Is that why the post is +5 Informative, because this guy just let us know about another illegal prison?
I don't really drive much or know a lot about cars, but was anyone else confused why a mechanic would check out behind the wheel and exhaust for a routine oil change? Is that normal to do?
I don't mean to detract from the point of the story; it's pretty crazy what the FBI did here, but I'm just wondering whether that's a normal check or perhaps he suspected he was being watched.
You shouldn't. Consider South Africa and their "truth comittees?" Aka., tell the truth, and you're good.
I like it when blame for bad things sticks to the correct monster.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
So on top of this you are a cop?
Nope.
Great, we have a totally non-baised commenter here!
Right. All the "DIE PIGS DIE!!" commenters are completely unbiased; it's only the guys with the badge who are biased.
You are right those folks are not the ones to ask either, but it is far less of a problem of conflict of interest.
You have GOT to be joking.
For evidence of that, I point to the various real life cases including a recent one near me where they shot a little girl in the head, for sitting on the couch.
Ah, yes. I can see that you're completely unbiased.
this is sick
Israel is the most closed country in the world, and there are bombing there all the time.
So fuck your police state and the horse it rode in on
Lumpy ol' buddy! Where you been hiding, chummer? I've got some really whiz kit from our friend, Benny the Fence! He says all the latest deckers are talking it up on the NewFax!! G'luck in yer struggles!
"When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
I can see socialist healthcare suddenly becoming desirable if presented as "ensuring healthy cannon fodder for the Empire! Perform in a patriotically optimal way when giving up your sweat or blood!" (well, OK, perhaps not via such wording)
This even seems to have a very real chance of improving preventative healthcare, lapses of which are probably the primary reason why the US spends most in healthcare per capita (and that's just driven by simple average, by disparities / despite large part of population being uninsured or under-insured) for somewhat unimpressive results.
One that hath name thou can not otter
There's utterly no reason to demonize measures one supports... wishes for, or even cherishes.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Politics, of systems of governance (also their decisions, their PR), are largely a reflection of society... the view must be broader (and that includes all those issues); in fact, escaping to narrower one can easily help to exacerbate issues.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Ah ok. LOL. But I'm pretty sure the USA have more prison camps around the world.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
I have the further problem that if it is unmarked, is it locals, state, federal, ex wife, car lot, any agency with 3 letters?
Screw em' If i gotta remove it, cause I'm not damn toting it around without substantial remuneration to do so, storage costs overtook the value of the object and they don't get their fucking toy back. Slappin the thing on the ass of the first fat girl headed for Dairy Queen that I see and watch how many unmarked ice cream trucks follow Bessie, come to mind as a fun project. Maybe I'd YouTube it.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
In circumstances where it is meaningful, yes. We can safely blaim Hitler for the holocaust, we can blame Gavrilo Princip for shooting Franz Ferdinand, etc... But we can't blame Hitler for WWII, or Gavrilo Princip for starting WWI since it hides larger, more nebulous, causes. And for long lasting, completely ambiguous, conflicts assigning blame becomes more... meaningless. Sure, arguably, the Muslims started the Crusades rolling, but it doesn't excuse 200 years of general asshattery from Europe during that time period. Sure Palestinians cause a large amount of nasty in Israel, but it doesn't excuse the Israeli reactions also being nasty. When both sides of a conflict act badly the side who started it matters less and less.
If someone walks up to you on the street and punches you, then assigning blame is a meaningful thing. If it is a mutual confrontation that escalates into mutual violence, then blame becomes much more difficult, no matter who threw the first punch.
I also am leery of assigning blame to large groups of people for the acts of a portion of that group. Or quickly assigning blame to people or groups in circumstances that are much larger and more complicated than one group versus another, since it hides deeper causes of conflict, and often more interesting, and insightful, questions.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
don't be quick to judge it is out of order without the full facts here. It is if there was no reason for it but why the f**k would the feds put a tracking device on random civillians car? That is an awful lot of effort, time and money to do randomly. I'm guessing the guy was targeted for a "possibly" valid reason. Not all evidence can be gathered by pulling people in and sometimes covert approach is necessary. Sure I'd be pissed if it was me but there is little reason to do that to me and if I was linked in some way to some major federal crime I wouldn't be surprised even if I wasn't happy about it. Now if it was added to the article that he funded his education from unknown sources and had large funds and seemed to splash out alot but didn't work or have affluent family background, associated with people with prior convictions and so on I'm sure the sympath would change.
The FBI's position is that they don't need a warrant to track where a car is going.
That does not make them right.
No. It's just that they're going to behave in a manner consistent with this position. They don't see it as any different from a stakeout.
Other people see things differently.
I'd mail it off by FedEx overnight to randomly chosen hobbyist experts overseas, maybe the CCC in Germany, any former member of Hack-Tic in the Netherlands or similar groups.
Better yet: on a railroad freight car. Imagine retrieving it when its buried deep in a switching yard. Oops, it just left for ???
Thank you for making this clear, but I was not really trying to make a point. The way you responded to the OP's sig made me think you were not familiar with the issue, so I just brought to your attention (or anybody else who might be interested) some links mentioning what I thought was the reason why the OP wrote that in his sig.
Interesting read, nevertheless.
Which "god" would that be? The "god" of the Bible is a mass murderer. His churches and followers have committed mass murder in his name. Furthermore, the Bible and the Koran both contain the death penalty for many offenses.
The supposed reverence for life by modern Christian churches is a selective, cynical political ploy; it has nothing to do with morality.
I ask you because the reason matters. If you oppose the death penalty for the right reasons, you can take the moral high ground. Obviously, you don't, since you ground your morality in supposedly "god given" rights. When your church teaches you differently again, you'll be out there murdering again, because your morality lacks reflection and foundation.
So, yeah, you have a problem with morality: you lack it.