Whose Cameras Are Watching New York Roads?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Whose Cameras Are Watching New York Roads?

Posted by timothy on Saturday June 2, 2012 @10:45AM from the hope-it's-the-model-un dept.

NormalVisual writes "License-plate reading cameras are popping up on utility poles all over St. Lawrence County in upstate New York, but no one is willing to say who they belong to. One camera was found by a utility crew, removed from the pole, and given to the local police. 'Massena Police Chief Timmy Currier said he returned it to the owner, but wouldn't say how he knew who the owner was, nor would he say who he gave it to....(Andrew) McMahon, the superintendent at Massena Electric Department, said one of his crews found a box on one of their poles and took it down because "it was in the electric space," the top tier of wires on the pole above the telephone and cable TV wires, and whoever put it there had taken a chance with electrocution. He said they had never received a request or been informed about its placement.'"

376 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

FIrst Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 10:45 · Score: -1

Hahahaha NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER! Yeah. Go wet your bed now you liberal assholes.
1. Re:FIrst Post by chilvence · 2012-06-02 11:51 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  DERPA DERRRRRRRRRP STINKY POO POO SMELLY WEE WEE AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  ps dear slashdot post filter, here are some lowercase c's: ccccccc cccccccccc cccccccc ccccccccccccccccc ccccccccccc ccccccccccc ccccccccccc ccccccccccccccc ccccccccccccccc cc cccccccc cccccccccc cccccccccc ccccccc ccccc ccccc cccccccccc cccccccccccc ccccccccccccccc cccccccccccunt.
2. Re:FIrst Post by Genda · 2012-06-02 11:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
  -- Mark Twain
3. Re:FIrst Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 12:41 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  Better to remain silent and be thought a fool ....
  -- Mark Twain
  Which you failed to do.
4. Re:FIrst Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 12:46 · Score: 0
  
  How convincing. I believe in light of these erudite remarks, I'll be voting Republican henceforth.
5. Re:FIrst Post by Grayhand · 2012-06-02 13:39 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Hahahaha NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER! Yeah. Go wet your bed now you liberal assholes.
  So Rush Limbaugh posts on Slashdot?
6. Re:FIrst Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 14:02 · Score: -1
  
  Nope, just an arrogant fuck that doesn't know that the LIBERALS are the racists and the conservatives don't have a problem. We only have a problem with ILLEGAL immigration.
7. Re:FIrst Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 14:32 · Score: -1
  
  Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
  -- Mark Twain
  Hi Genda. It's so funny you should mention speaking and looking foolish!
  
  You're the dumb cunt who can't handle the difference between "teeming" and "teaming". How nice of you to chime in on the same day and tell other people that what they say indicates their level of intelligence!
  
  You are most definitely qualified to make such judgments, of course.
  
  Just answer this: you're a woman, aren't you? Only a woman can be so incredibly blind to her own hypocrisy. "But it's different when I do it! *stupid premise* *faulty logic* *emotional interjection* See?!" That's a woman's ego.
8. Re:FIrst Post by causality · 2012-06-02 14:57 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Nope, just an arrogant fuck that doesn't know that the LIBERALS are the racists and the conservatives don't have a problem.
  That's absolutely true. The only way to avoid being racist is to simply treat everyone by the same fair and equitable standard. If you give special favor to anyone based on race, that policy is inherently racist. In the long term, the only way to ever defeat racism in a real way is stop participating in racism in any form. That creates less racism. Responding with a different flavor of racism still creates more racism.
  
  What's really racist is to fail to understand this, and then to pretend to be a particular race's "friend" by assisting them in ways you assist few others. Of course you want to look nice and to present yourself as a real friend in terms of how much you're willing to do, how many double standards and other corrupt things you're willing to champion. Anything you do for them they learn to stop doing for themselves. It will atrophy. It's like what happens to a muscle when you stop using it, except on a larger scale.
  
  In most other contexts, this is called dependency. A friend you've come to need isn't really so friendly. The relationship has then shifted; it is now based on power. It's not the mutual benevolence you were sold -- if it were that, it would come from a level of consciousness which isn't so petty as to divide by group identity. It's petty because it's an emotional, feeling-based approach to life that ignores reason because it is not appreciated. Most Liberal types are well-meaning but fall into traps like believing reverse-racism to be a solution to racism. It certainly does have the intended effect on votes, with many Democrat politicians taking "the black vote" for granted.
  
  You can see how that couldn't work except that they see themselves as fundamentally different from whites and vice-versa. That's the part that is a lie. That speech by Martin Luther King Jr. is so famous that they had to have heard it. I think they forgot that part about the content of someone's character.
  
  Most Conservatives are worired about things like financial matters, with vocal minorities concerned about things like abortion and gay marriage to the point of obsession. That sucks but it's not their main problem. Their main problem is that they understand enough not to play that particular dependency game, but too little to offer anything much better. They have little more than their own set of unreasonable demands, dividing the entire political landscape into two camps which each find one set slightly less repulsive than the other.
  
  Albert Einstein gave us some good quotes. Ever heard this one? "The world we have made, as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far, creates problems we cannot solve at the same level of thinking at which we created them." That's what the average person will realize once they finally unplug from this self-limiting matrix of left-right politics.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
9. Re:FIrst Post by Sulphur · 2012-06-02 15:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Albert Einstein gave us some good quotes. Ever heard this one? "The world we have made, as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far, creates problems we cannot solve at the same level of thinking at which we created them."
  What got us into this mess will not get us out.
10. Re:FIrst Post by shmlco · 2012-06-02 15:49 · Score: 2
  
  "The only way to avoid being racist is to simply treat everyone by the same fair and equitable standard."
  If everyone were willing to abide by that policy, all would be well and good. The problems occurs when they don't.
  It's not that you're giving special favors to someone based on race. Or gender. Or religion. Or sexual orientation. It's that you're ensuring that anyone, regardless of those factors, has the same rights and access to the same opportunities as everyone else.
  Even if some people would prefer -- or even demand -- otherwise.
  If you believe that EVERYONE should be under the same fair and equitable standard, then there would be no gay rights issues, or abortion issues, or special breaks or exemptions under the tax code. Everyone would have access to basic medical care. And on. And on.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
11. Re:FIrst Post by Genda · 2012-06-02 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  To Slashdot and all its readers, I apologize in advance for what might seem like feeding the Troll, but this needs to be resolved... Wow. I just fired one across your bow. Clearly a mistake and now I take it back with the deepest of apologies. Whatever I said, or did, or suggested in the past that left you in this state. Please forgive my unspeakable hubris, and if at any time I left you insulted or offended then please know that was never my intention. I can be a little brusk at times, especially after that second or third cup of java, and more than anything else, I rattle the tree to see what falls out... I often pick the minority position just to expose people's logic or more than anything else try to find what motivates them. I like understanding why people are the way people are. It has, is, and will continue to be my intention to unconceal, but never to inflict hurt or enmity, and if at any time I left you with upset or anger, then I am sorry, I can be confrontational, and I'm certainly opinionated. However, I'm also socially responsible and if I did anything that left you disrespected then I owe you the deepest of apologies. I play hard with ACs because they have their anonymity to hide behind. That is no excuse however for not being respectful and for that I'm deeply sorry.
12. Re:FIrst Post by geminidomino · 2012-06-02 17:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." --Brian Kernighan
13. Re:FIrst Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 19:37 · Score: 1
  
  Which is fine, because the part you cut is about demonstrating you're a fool with what you say... which they didn't do. I'm fairly sure Twain wasn't trying to say that silence is the correct response to *every* scenario, nor that everyone who says anything is foolish.
14. Re:FIrst Post by Truedat · 2012-06-02 21:08 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  In response to Twain, how will we ever transition away from being fools unless we practice speaking out, are willing to make mistakes and then learn from them? Pithy witticisms like this are all very well for a little amusement but I sometimes worry that people take them seriously.
15. Re:FIrst Post by arkane1234 · 2012-06-02 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's okay if you didn't get it. We understand.
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
16. Re:FIrst Post by drinkypoo · 2012-06-02 23:17 · Score: 0
  
  Most Conservatives are worired about things like financial matters, with vocal minorities concerned about things like abortion and gay marriage to the point of obsession.
  Most self-declared conservatives and liberals are actually fascists. By definition a conservative wants to regulate moral matters, but does not want to regulate business. A liberal is just the opposite. Practically nobody is a pure liberal or conservative.
  Conservatives are concerned about things like abortion and gay marriage, because conservative's view towards economic issues is supposed to be free market.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
17. Re:FIrst Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  You're dull. The use of the word 'fair' means it will always be a matter of subjective opinion, and your failure to realise this is pitiful.
18. Re:FIrst Post by lightknight · 2012-06-03 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's how I feel about many of my projects lately; even thinking about debugging them is depressing. Sadly, I've found that after I finish refactoring and rewriting it, I wonder what the problem was to being with; the code looks simple, clean, and could have been written in a 200-level programming class.
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
19. Re:FIrst Post by lightknight · 2012-06-03 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  begin*
  Sunday mornings are worse than Monday mornings for me.
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
20. Re:FIrst Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  It's not that you're giving special favors to someone based on race. Or gender. Or religion. Or sexual orientation. It's that you're ensuring that anyone, regardless of those factors, has the same rights and access to the same opportunities as everyone else.
  This is Orwellian newspeak. Discrimination is equality.
21. Re:FIrst Post by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Sunday mornings are worse than Monday mornings for me.
  Sounds like a classic off-by-one error to me.
22. Re:FIrst Post by shmlco · 2012-06-03 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  Subjective? Hardly. Start with the presumption that other people will treat you, your wife, and your kids the same way you treat them and theirs. That gets you close.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
23. Re:FIrst Post by causality · 2012-06-03 12:21 · Score: 2
  
  No, by _definition_ "conservative" means you want to maintain the status quo and believe that changes to it should be made slowly and gradually. If you want a good antonym, try "radical".
  
  That's what the word means. You either use the word correctly, use a different word if you mean something different, or you're wrong. I don't subscribe to this "but but languages evolve!" nonsense, at least not when it's used to defend stupidity. We live in an age where kids are made to play soccer games without keeping score so "everyone's a winner!" The "languages evolve" excuse is like that. To say that wrongly using words is proof that languages evolve is a nice, sweet, sugary-coated way of saying that ignorance tends to establish itself and become institutionalized.
  
  Languages evolve when new words are created to explain new concepts that did not previously exist. All the terms we have now like "bit, nibble, byte, megabyte, et al" or "laser", and terms like "fiber optic" that did not exist 100 years ago is bona fide evolution of language. This isn't the same as redefining useful words to suit the widespread ignorance of those who utter them. Something novel that didn't previously exist is evolution; confusing two things which both previously existed is neither creative nor evolutionary.
  
  Anyway, a great deal of Newspeak has occurred in the last couple of decades in politics. "Liberal" used to mean what we now call a "classical liberal" -- the most similar word for it today would be "libertarian".* Now it is wrongly used to describe "Communist with a happy face" the same way ""Conservative" is often used to describe "Fascist who claims to want your prosperity".
  
  Speaking of free markets, you probably realize they don't work in a situation that naturally tends to create a monopoly, or where companies in an industry realize it's in their best interests to collude and not to compete. There's not such a free market for electrical utilities, nor for cell phones. Elsewhere, you also won't ever have a free market until the average person is incredibly shrewd and wouldn't consider doing business without first learning all about who they're doing business with. Effectively that means we'd have to eliminate public schooling, at least as we know it today, because that system regards inquisitive, diligent minds as failure to achieve its goals.
  
  * I am talking to those who understand what "libertarian" means, not to those who think a minor political party has a monopoly on the idea that consenting adults should be free to live their lives and reap the consequences. I am especially not talking to the mindless people who seem to have been traumatized by some kind of Soviet-style mind conditioning and have unreasonable emotional reactions to it -- it is never portrayed favorably in the media and that's the upper limit of their ability to think for themselves (though it sure is funny how average people only ever have this kind of irrational response to things which are pro-freedom, meanwhile they will happily sell their liberty to anyone who promises security or some kind of hand-out).
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
24. Re:FIrst Post by skogs · 2012-06-03 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  That is not a Twain quote...it is a Biblical quote...of which Twain knew many.
  
  --
  Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
Treaspassing by nurb432 · 2012-06-02 10:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

If they didn't have authorization from the city/etc then not only were they doing something a bit on the dangerous side, but its also illegal.
If they did, then its part of the city network anyway and not a huge deal.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
1. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 10:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Not a huge deal that the city won't acknowledge their existence?
2. Re:Treaspassing by donaggie03 · 2012-06-02 10:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What is the point of having these cameras, if not to catch speeders and red-light runners? If those two ARE the point of having these cameras, then people would be receiving citations based on photos from these cameras. So the immediate question that comes to my mind is: are people getting these citations, or not?
  
  --
  Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
3. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:08 · Score: 2
  
  Code dictates 40 inches distance from the bottom of the electric facilities. Telephone and cable wires need to be attached to the pole below that space. Code compliance is a major pain, but something like this probably sticks out like a sore thumb, so it was easily spotted by utility crews.
  This is such a big box that doesn't look very covert to me. In southern AZ, we have different federal agencies and their cameras. Usually, they're really discreet and don't look like much at all. This seems like overkill, so it's probably some local police force trying to get away with something. Probably using it to notify when certain license plates are entering the area, and gather evidence of relationships and meetings. BTW, I learned everything about surveillance from The Wire.
4. Re:Treaspassing by Samantha+Wright · 2012-06-02 11:17 · Score: 2
  
  Pretty sure this calls for more tinfoil than that.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
5. Re:Treaspassing by whoever57 · 2012-06-02 11:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  What is the point of having these cameras, if not to catch speeders and red-light runners? If those two ARE the point of having these cameras, then people would be receiving citations based on photos from these cameras.
  My guess would be a three-letter-agency, in the "war on (terror|drugs|communism|whatever)"
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
6. Re:Treaspassing by donaggie03 · 2012-06-02 11:29 · Score: 2
  
  Well that's my guess too. I just thought it would be less tin-foil-hatty to rule out the possibility that they are being used for less nefarious purposes. The implication being that three-letter-agencies are nefarious.
  
  --
  Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
7. Re:Treaspassing by skids · 2012-06-02 11:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  My guess would be a three-letter-agency, in the "war on (terror|drugs|communism|whatever)"
  My guess is that it is more commodity than that. What PI wouldn't find the answer to the question "did this car go down this road between these dates" unworthy of a small disbursement from their client's expense account fairly frequently?
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
8. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Your supreme court agrees you have no expectation of privacy on a public road, now shut the hell up and enjoy your "freedom".
9. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  I'm in Tucson. That's southern AZ in my book.
  The only agency putting up cameras is ATS ("American Traffic Solutions") (solving problems nobody identified).
  The V-For-Vendetta mask and a baseball cap seem to stop them.
  HOWEVER, Pima County judges refuse to find it a perjury for sworn testimony that "masked man #1" is allegedly me.
  Problem #1: Cameras to observe the populace.
  Problem #2: Judges allowing sworn testimony from Officer ATS, Badge 0000.
  Problem #3: No oversight of the process.
  I'm glad the utility crews took down the cameras. It makes no difference if they are in the "safe" zone or not.
  The electric-zone CAN BE USED by non-electric companies -- they just have to pay a LOT more. See the
  discussion re google fiber in Kansas City.
  Regards,
  Anonymous Coward
10. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  St Lawrence County is 350-400 miles from NYC.
11. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:42 · Score: 0
  
  To monitor your coming and going. You don't even have to have them on every street why not keep an eye on people, makes sense after all its a new world we are moving in the next two decades.
12. Re:Treaspassing by demachina · 2012-06-02 11:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  DEA has had license plate reading cameras on U.S. highways for a while. In particular they record every car on some routes in California, Texas, Arizona and recently Utah using ELSAG cameras though they usually make no attempt to hide them.
  They analyze the data looking for people transporting drugs from the Mexican border among other things. Maybe they are just expanding the program to watch the traffic along the northern border too.
  So, yea welcome to the big brother police state, we've been in it a while now. Say cheese!!
  
  --
  @de_machina
13. Re:Treaspassing by kheldan · 2012-06-02 12:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You're assuming that they weren't clandestinely placed by a clandestine three-alphabet-letter government agency.
  
  If this sort of shit keeps up, I wouldn't be surprised if certain people start destroying ALL public cameras on general principles -- and I wouldn't blame anyone who did. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave about now and/or laughing riotously, wherever he might be, because He Told Us So and we apparently didn't listen.
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
14. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 12:06 · Score: 0
  
  Given that St. Lawrence County is along the Canadian Border, these are probably for Border Patrol or DHS use.
15. Re:Treaspassing by Genda · 2012-06-02 12:16 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  None of this is a problem. There is a paint available that makes it very hard to photograph your license plate and as far as I can tell, this is a great thing.
16. Re:Treaspassing by bpsbr_ernie · 2012-06-02 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  It probably was homeland security... ;-)
17. Re:Treaspassing by guttentag · 2012-06-02 13:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's worth noting that Massena is on the Canadian border. All that separates them from Canada is the St Lawrence River, and there's a bridge a few miles east of downtown. If it is the DEA, perhaps they're watching people fill their prescriptions with cheap canadian generics they can't buy in the U.S.
  
  Massena is also home to a major hydroelectric power dam, three large aluminum plants (two of which are idle) and the Eisenhower lock on the St. Lawrence seaway (any international ships en route to the great lakes have to stop there), so it could be a place of interest for agencies/companies other than the DEA.
18. Re:Treaspassing by Hatta · 2012-06-02 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  If you're looking for smugglers, people with obscured license plates are going to be high priority targets.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
19. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 13:46 · Score: 1
  
  " I wouldn't be surprised if certain people start destroying ALL public cameras on general principles --"
  Indeed, doing so would be an act of true patriotism, not to be confused
  with the propagandized bullshit spewed by the people who want to
  be our masters.
  Remember, people, they all bleed, and they can all die. And when the time comes,
  many of them will have to do exactly that.
20. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 13:55 · Score: 0
  
  Better yet, make a licence plate surround with high intensity IR-LEDs. Plug in to the wiring for the license plate light.
  Won't be much to look at visibly since eyes don't pick up IR, but most cameras don't do that great a job at filtering IR and will just see one big flare. Probably no more legal than any other supposed method of blocking a plate scan, but seems much more effective in terms of actually working from what bit experience I have with digital cameras.
  Polarizing films are another way, but that seems more like a crap-shoot depending on camera optics and enclosures.
  CAPCHA: maskings
  (They're content aware?)
21. Re:Treaspassing by machine321 · 2012-06-02 14:02 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  George Orwell must be spinning in his grave
  That's a better clean power source than taping buttered bread to a cat.
22. Re:Treaspassing by hawguy · 2012-06-02 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  None of this is a problem. There is a paint available that makes it very hard to photograph your license plate and as far as I can tell, this is a great thing.
  This paint is designed to overexpose photos from cameras that use a flash to illuminate the license plate (i.e. most redlight cameras). It's doubtful that these cameras are using a powerful flash to illuminate each passing car or they wouldn't be so stealthy.
23. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  As someone who sent to college in St Lawrence County, this would easily be my guess.
  For one, there are routinely random checkpoints, given the long border between St. Lawrence County and Ontario, Canada, and the Mohawk Reservation which crosses over into Canada.
  In addition to the rumors about people on the Reservation growing certain drugs (which is perfectly legal), there are also quite a few rumors about certain police departments either aiding in drug trafficking, or "confiscating" in order to build their own stash.
24. Re:Treaspassing by netmater · 2012-06-02 14:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It would be interesting if the next time the power company finds one, they keep it and inform the police department that the "rightful" owner may come by anytime to claim it and pay for the removal expense.
25. Re:Treaspassing by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-02 14:53 · Score: 2
  
  Photoblocker paint is a scam.
  http://www.amazon.com/PhantomPlate-Inc-Photo-Blocker-Spray/dp/B000EQUFHS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338691883&sr=8-1
26. Re:Treaspassing by hairyfeet · 2012-06-02 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Or it could just be dope dealers, anybody who has known one knows they get paranoid as hell and just looove cameras. I once knew one that you couldn't take a step within 2 blocks of his place without him seeing thanks to all the cameras.
  Because I seriously doubt the cops or even a three letter agency is gonna have one of their guys risk electrocution when they can simply make a call and have the power shut off at the pole.
  As for the cops saying they "gave it back to the owner" well what WOULD they say "yeah there are cameras all over the place, fuck if we know why". yep that would be a great way for the police to look incompetent. Of course if the local cops are on the take or the dealer is a snitch then they very may well have given Mr. paranoid back his cameras and told him to chill.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
27. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  If it is the DEA, perhaps they're watching people fill their prescriptions with cheap canadian generics they can't buy in the U.S.
  Actually, brand-name prescriptions tend to be cheaper than in Canada than the USA due to govt price controls.
  But when it comes to generics, the USA tends to be much cheaper - US pharmacies compete on price to a much greater extent. For example, Walmart even has a long list of generics that it sells for $4. I doubt you would get any generic prescription for less than $10 in Canada.
28. Re:Treaspassing by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-06-02 15:28 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  That's what big tinfoil wants you to believe.
29. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 15:54 · Score: 0
  
  Many tests (including by Mythbusters) have proven that this stuff is entirely ineffective.
30. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 16:07 · Score: 0
  
  Tucson PD and Border Patrol also have cameras all over Tucson. "Only" ATS? Not hardly.
31. Re:Treaspassing by ScrewMaster · 2012-06-02 16:31 · Score: 2
  
  Your supreme court agrees you have no expectation of privacy on a public road, now shut the hell up and enjoy your "freedom".
  Maybe not. But we still have to right to know where the Hell our tax dollars are going. The police may have the "right" to put up those cameras (and that is debatable) but to deny knowledge of the things, or who or what is monitoring them ... well. That simply should not be allowed. Having no expectation of privacy does _not_ mean that anyone can put up a camera on public property.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
32. Re:Treaspassing by ScrewMaster · 2012-06-02 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  None of this is a problem. There is a paint available that makes it very hard to photograph your license plate and as far as I can tell, this is a great thing.
  This paint is designed to overexpose photos from cameras that use a flash to illuminate the license plate (i.e. most redlight cameras). It's doubtful that these cameras are using a powerful flash to illuminate each passing car or they wouldn't be so stealthy.
  There are a few of those flash types around where I live. Damned irritating, especially at night where I get my retinas blasted on the way to the grocery store.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
33. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 16:38 · Score: 0
  
  The system the parent linked to, installed near the checkpoint, must be a face scanning / photographing system in addition to being a license plate scanning system. There would be no other reason to have cameras calibrated to point at both the driver and passenger locations.
34. Re:Treaspassing by Z00L00K · 2012-06-02 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  If they didn't have permission to put up the cameras - wouldn't that mean that any images captured would not be possible to use in court since they were obtained illegally?
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
35. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well, stop running the red lights!! (kidding)
36. Re:Treaspassing by skine · 2012-06-02 17:36 · Score: 1
  
  Also worth noting is that St. Lawrence County's economy is almost entirely based on education.
  Between St. Lawrence University, Clarkson University, SUNY Potsdam, and SUNY Canton, there is a large influx of young adults.
  To follow the advice of Chef on South Park, there is a time for experimentation. This is called college.
37. Re:Treaspassing by jetole · 2012-06-02 18:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  My guess would be a three-letter-agency, in the "war on (terror|drugs|communism|whatever)"
  My guess would agree with you because...
  
  1) If this was a police or city camera, it likely wouldn't have been placed that high up since the lower the camera is, the easier it would be to view the license plate. The higher it is, the greater the viewing angle and the slimmer the image of the plate the harder it becomes for a program to correctly distinguish the important features. Well... this applies to police looking at license plates at least. Automated tickets for running red lights and speeders. I suppose there are possible reasons why the city could have placed them up there and in doing so wanted them as high as possible (I can't think of why they would want them at all but I guess it's possible) but see the reasons below for why I don't think the city would have done this either.
  2) If this was a police or city camera, it wouldn't have needed to be placed "in the electric space" on the pole for electricity. The electric space doesn't mean it's the only spot for power on the pole. It means it's reserved for transporting massive amounts of electricity and it's reserved at higher place on the pole so that it doesn't become a hazard to less informed telco and cable company workers. It's dangerous and you don't want anyone near it who isn't fully trained in it. Now a camera doesn't even require a wired connection for communication. We have them all over where I live (Miami and Fort Lauderdale area), you see them all of the time on lights, on the highway, etc, and they all have antennae on them for wireless communications. These cameras can receive power and communicate equally at lower levels (when it's this small level of height difference). The police or city would have no reason or want to place them that high for technical purposes. If the cameras are not wireless equipped or they need a faster connection then what the wireless can provide (high def, high fps over long range wireless from many devices simultaneously) then they would still be in the proper zone for cable or telephone links in that zone. They have everything they need in that zone on the poll.
  3) If this were a police or city camera, the power company would have already known, would not have dismounted it and would not have brought it to the police.
  4) The police and city would both admit that it belongs to them if it did. It would not be a secret. They have so many bureaucratic policies that they are not allowed to go through some move like that and not inform the public when they did. I remember in a town a grew up in when the police started using cruisers marked as taxis to trick drunk drivers into not thinking it was police, making it easier to follow them without being noticed, etc, I don't remember the details but it was in the paper with a statement from the police about it. Government, at least at these basic levels, are not allowed to keep any secrets. They are required to inform the public (if your city has cameras, try it, ask the police and they will tell you it's theirs).
  5) The police and city don't install cameras! They don't have a camera installation department. They don't want or need one. They contract this out. This is a one time roll out. They install the cameras and then they are installed. They wouldn't have a pre-existing camera installation department and if they know that they will have no practical use once the cameras are installed then they wouldn't create this department just to have to disband it soon thereafter. They contract this out to qualified individuals who are familiar with these polls and understand what zones it's allowed to be mounted in.
  6) A properly done installation will leave details of the installation at the location. What I mean is these boxes that are mounted on the polls will say something like "Property of Comcast Cable, for problems call 1-800-555-7264" or something like that. It serves to notify people on the pole who
38. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 18:32 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe so, but that's like saying whoever's behind a proxy that shows up in your logs is a high priority target in cracking investigations. If you don't know who it is, the fact that they're a high priority is sort of pointless.
39. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 18:36 · Score: 0
  
  You'd have better luck with a 3M security filter turned sideways. Works like a tiny set of louvers and makes it impossible to see anything behind it unless you're looking straight on. Turn it 90 degrees and nothing as high as a camera will be able to see your plate.
40. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 19:07 · Score: 0
  
  how about infrared led diodes ?
41. Re:Treaspassing by Zemran · 2012-06-02 19:10 · Score: 2
  
  There is no radar element to these devices so they cannot be used for speed or movement checking. They are obviously for spying on the population and not for law enforcement. Number plate recognition used over a large grid like this is for tracking your movements over your lifetime. They will know where everyone is at every moment of the day.
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
42. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  "2) If this was a police or city camera, it wouldn't have needed to be placed "in the electric space" on the pole for electricity"
  Why can't the US place their electric cables underground like the rest of the developed world?
43. Re:Treaspassing by Patch86 · 2012-06-02 21:57 · Score: 2
  
  In the UK, when you fill up with petrol a camera will read and record your number plates. If it can't get a clear shot of both your number plate and your face, the pump won't activate. It's to deter petrol thievery (which is a very common crime at self service petrol stations). So said paint wouldn't be a goer for your average driver.
  I know the UK is about 20 miles further down the Orwellian road than the US, but just thought it was worth mentioning.
44. Re:Treaspassing by arkane1234 · 2012-06-02 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  Bad analogy since a proxy completely obfuscates your actions as another machines, while obscuring license plates just makes the quick 2 second check thing fail. Simple deduction works after that. No matter what, if info is wanted it can be found. The license plate is only one variable in the algebraic equation here, with lots of other variables filled in with a picture along with knowing exact timestamps and possibly passenger numbers, etc.
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
45. Re:Treaspassing by arkane1234 · 2012-06-02 22:07 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  And it's quotes like that which turn things from patriotism to borderline terrorism.
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
46. Re:Treaspassing by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-02 22:08 · Score: 2
  
  Also, there are a lot of over-the-counter meds in the states that require a prescription in Canada. For example, Canadians need a prescription to get Excedrin while Americans just walk into wallgreens and buy it without so much as showing ID.
47. Re:Treaspassing by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-02 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  I know where I live (British Columbia, Canada) ANY device, covering or coating that obscures a license plate from either the human eye OR a camera is illegal.
48. Re:Treaspassing by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-02 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  There is no radar element to these devices so they cannot be used for speed or movement checking. They are obviously for spying on the population and not for law enforcement. Number plate recognition used over a large grid like this is for tracking your movements over your lifetime. They will know where everyone is at every moment of the day.
  Really?
49. Re:Treaspassing by drinkypoo · 2012-06-02 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  If they didn't have authorization, then they are litter and it is your legal right to take them. Go forth and climb them poles!
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
50. Re:Treaspassing by Chris+Mattern · 2012-06-02 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's to deter petrol thievery (which is a very common crime at self service petrol stations)
  In the US, such thievery is deterred very simply. Self-service pumps won't turn on unless you either a) run your credit card or debit card through it first to be charged for the gas or b) get it turned on by the attendant, which he won't do until you pay in advance. In case b), the pump turns off after you've pumped what you paid for.
51. Re:Treaspassing by Bert64 · 2012-06-02 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  You can buy spray on mud in a can. Although its illegal for your license plate to be covered in mud, it's very hard to prove that it was done intentionally (unless your stupid and only spray mud on the plate leaving the rest of the car clean) so all they can generally do is tell you to wash it off.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
52. Re:Treaspassing by drinkypoo · 2012-06-02 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  P.P.S. I find this an odd thing to do by most "three-letter-agency" too since, from what I read on /., it's perfectly feasable to track a cell phone via tiangulation to a distance more accurate then GPS.
  
  It's called a removable battery and virtually all cellphones have one. You drive into a poor signal zone and pop it out, then change direction and head to your destination.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
53. Re:Treaspassing by shiftless · 2012-06-02 23:17 · Score: -1
  
  No nigger, it's about freedom and liberty. Don't you get it? Your grandpappy knows what slavery was all about, why the fuck don't you? If somebody is dead set on enslaving your ass....the only way to STOP him is to KILL him!
54. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 23:38 · Score: 0
  
  Is M.A.D. a given for both the left and right in the USA political system or is there a third option? http://on.fb.me/KHJZbI
55. Re:Treaspassing by jetole · 2012-06-02 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's called a removable battery and virtually all cellphones have one
  
  When I referred to people who don't carry a cell phone, I didn't think I really had to get into details here. My post was informative about a lot of information that you're average reader doesn't know. I think we'd be pretty hard pressed to find someone old enough to read who wouldn't consider removing the battery from the cell phone to disable tracking but your post seems almost like you're trolling. It's not so much that you recommended another method but in a measly sentence you seem like you're stating a riveting alternative in a condescending manner.
  
  Anyways... I already discussed the untraceable cell phone aspect of the situation but kudos for mentioning another method that cell phone triangulation can be averted.
56. Re:Treaspassing by Gordonjcp · 2012-06-02 23:47 · Score: 1
  
  The amount of electricity up there is astoundingly deadly. It's also not protected in all of the same ways your home is.
  
  If the stuff on the pole is 110V drops to the surrounding houses, it's not going to be any more deadly than the wiring in your house. The "amps" have nothing to do with it.
57. Re:Treaspassing by Gordonjcp · 2012-06-02 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  The cameras aren't usually directly connected to the fuel pump systems, and in any case all fuel pumps can only be activated by the operator behind the desk.
  I know people were gibbering on about how the UK was turning into a police state because of ANPR cameras locking out petrol pumps a while back - I got banned from boingboing because I pointed out the Cory Doctorow presenting pure conjecture as fact in this - but the simple fact of the matter is that the pumps are *not* controlled by ANPR cameras.
  How complex would a system need to be to detect, record and validate not just every UK number plate, but every other international plate too? Or are tourists supposed to be able to travel around the UK on a single tank of fuel? What about vehicles that have no number plates?
  In all the petrol stations I've been in, none of the ANPR cameras have ever detected my numberplate correctly, or even at all. It's a perfectly valid legal number plate, but it seems to confuse the image recognition stuff entirely.
58. Re:Treaspassing by Gordonjcp · 2012-06-02 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  In the UK pretty much all pumps are self-service. Some of them have card-readers so you can pay at the pump, but they don't accept my fuel bunker card so I just pay at the counter. You don't pay up front though, that's a stupid idea. What would happen if you paid for 80 litres of fuel but you only needed 70 to brim the tank?
59. Re:Treaspassing by jetole · 2012-06-03 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  The "amps" have nothing to do with it
  
  You may be right. I am not an electrician but from what I have read, I know that amperage is a measure of the amount of electric charge passing a point in an electric circuit per unit time. Again, I am not an electrician so you may be right but to me it seems like this means it's a measurement of how much of the 110 volts my body would receive in the time frame of a shock.
  
  I also know that when I have had to purchase industrial power wiring before that the wire gauge had to be proportional to the amount of amperage I would be passing through the wire as too many amps over an inadequate gauge could result in wire failure and present a fire hazard. Again, I'm just basing this off of items I've read and my experience purchasing industrial electrical wiring. I am not an electrician so please feel free to correct me.
  
  Oh! I also just remembered fuses too. A traditional fuse is a piece of wire in a vacuum sealed glass container where the wire is designed to melt and break if too many amps pass through it. Circuit breakers cut off the electricity if too many amps pass through but I'm under the belief that fuses and circuit breakers exist so that in the event that excessive amperage is pulled through either one, it shuts off the circuit to avoid the fire hazard that can result from sending more then X amps through a wire designed to carry no more then X amps. Now if higher amps are responsible for melting wire as they pass through it then lower amp alternatives would be, it seems to me that higher amps would more likely cook you more thoroughly then lower amps would but I'm just guessing.
  
  I'm open to any and all information and clarifications on this. I'm curious about how the measure of amps relate to the safety of a circuit and how relative potential damage based on the amperage used would be.
60. Re:Treaspassing by Gordonjcp · 2012-06-03 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  it seems like this means it's a measurement of how much of the 110 volts my body would receive in the time frame of a shock.
  It doesn't quite work that way. What people often don't seem to understand is that the amount of current a source can provide isn't necessarily the amount of current that a load will draw. For example, if you have a wireless router that takes 500mA at 9V, it's perfectly okay to hook it up to a 5A 9V supply - it will still only draw 500mA. The power supply won't somehow force 5A through the device. A good practical demonstration of this is when you get in your car and start the engine - the battery provides a couple of hundred amps to the starter motor, but the interior light coming on when you open the door only draws a few milliamps.
  While it's true that a relatively low current can harm you, your body will only pass a certain amount of current. You can measure the resistance across your hands with an ordinary multimeter. If you actually *do* get a serious electric shock then things become complicated because you're not a particularly linear resistance and if you get a burn on your skin at one of the points of contact the resistance will go down, increasing the current, making the burn worse and... yeah, you see how that works.
  It's still a good idea to stay away from bare power lines, whatever else you do. I notice that in the US with the low voltage supplies over there you seem toh ave a lot more pole transformers than we do. Presumably it's because the voltage drop at 110V is more of a problem on long runs.
61. Re:Treaspassing by jetole · 2012-06-03 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the info. Though I still have a few questions, I can google it when and if I want them answered. I don't plan to have a future in electrical engineering and plan to either stay with systems engineer or programming. Either way, while I don't completely understand your answer, it seems that you have demonstrated that you enough that I should accept it. Thanks.
62. Re:Treaspassing by lightknight · 2012-06-03 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  And they have said a number of other silly things, usually overturned by later courts.
  
  --
  I am John Hurt.
63. Re:Treaspassing by wattersa · 2012-06-03 01:34 · Score: 2
  
  > What would happen if you paid for 80 litres of fuel but you only needed 70 to brim the tank?
  You go back to the attendant and he or she gives you change. It's pretty easy.
64. Re:Treaspassing by koan · 2012-06-03 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  If you're trying to hide why would you even have your phone on you? That's how brain washed people are they can't bear to leave heir cells behind.
  Personally I have a small aluminum box that I place the phone blocks everything perfectly.
  
  --
  "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
65. Re:Treaspassing by reboot246 · 2012-06-03 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Amps and volts don't matter if the shock knocks you off the pole and you hit the ground. :)
66. Re:Treaspassing by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · 2012-06-03 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  My guess as well. But I'll add the incompetence level where nobody knows what they are or why they're there, they're installed in dangerous places, and then everyone hush hushes to maximize the tin foil hattery.
  All the earmarkings of a government agency doing stupid things stupidly, then failing to properly address it when its discovered.
67. Re:Treaspassing by ebuck · 2012-06-03 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  The reason that you see cameras mounted to take front photos is so they can associate the crime (red light running, etc) with the person; because, our legal system doesn't have a means to provide service against a car, but they do have the means to provide service against a person. It also defeats the primary defense which is to argue that while it might be your car, you were not the person committing the crime. Unless the accuser provides evidence that the person commited the crime, the courts are quite happy to dismiss.
  While ruleing out other agencies is useful, it doesn't mean that a certain agency did the work. It only narrows the field, and while you might be right; you might also have overlooked the party responsible.
68. Re:Treaspassing by markxz · 2012-06-03 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  It is possible to measure speed using two cameras a distance apart.
  Average speed camera systems are becoming common in the UK.
69. Re:Treaspassing by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · 2012-06-03 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  1) If this was a police or city camera, it likely wouldn't have been placed that high up since the lower the camera is, the easier it would be to view the license plate. The higher it is, the greater the viewing angle and the slimmer the image of the plate the harder it becomes for a program to correctly distinguish the important features.
  Oh fer crying out loud, just give the footage to the NCIS guys. They can take footage from a 20 year old parking lot camera and enhance it to full high def such that one can easily zoom in on a tiny little license plate and read it easily. In fact, don't bother giving it to them. They probably already pushed 2 or 3 buttons and then typed furiously for 10 seconds and broke all of the security in the entire federal government, took the footage, found the plate, accosted the owner, and have him behind bars.
70. Re:Treaspassing by kheldan · 2012-06-03 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Our Supreme Court is made up of mere men and women, flesh and bone, appointed by other men and women made of mere flesh and bone; none of the above are omniscient, nor omnipotent, and all the above can be removed from their seemingly-lofty positions -- but only when The People wake up, take notice that these individuals are not representing Their interests, and replace them with individuals who do. I still have every hope that the American Spring is coming; change is on the wind all over the world, the U.S. is no exception, and those "individuals" of whom I speak know damned well that it's going to happen, in one form or another, to one degree or another -- and ever like the calcified, they fight the future, fight change, but they will not succeed.
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
71. Re:Treaspassing by ChoGGi · 2012-06-03 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  V-For-Vendetta mask?
  i think you meant
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
72. Re:Treaspassing by pyrosoft · 2012-06-03 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's called a removable battery and virtually all cellphones have one. You drive into a poor signal zone and pop it out, then change direction and head to your destination.
  I have an iPhone, you insensitive clod!
  
  --
  Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
73. Re:Treaspassing by drinkypoo · 2012-06-03 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  If you're trying to hide why would you even have your phone on you?
  Because you might want it later, or because leaving it behind only means that someone might find it and recover your data from it even if you think you have deleted it. Or as normal, you might want to hide some of the time, but not all of the time.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
74. Re:Treaspassing by AJWM · 2012-06-03 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  For utility companies using each other's poles, there are lease agreements in place. Typically one utility will own the pole (electric or phone company) and others (cable, etc) will lease rights to use it. (The owner also has to pay property tax on it. I once architected software to manage a telco's outside plant assets, so I had to know this stuff.)
  So yes, trespassing and in a way theft of service if the use of the pole is not being paid for. Authorization from the city doesn't matter if the city doesn't own the pole, they need authorization from the owner.
  The boxes should, IMHO, have clear identification on the outside of them stating the owner/operator. The red-light cams around here do.
  
  --
  -- Alastair
75. Re:Treaspassing by AJWM · 2012-06-03 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  And vice-versa. You can buy (or could) low-dose codeine-containing pain relievers over the counter in Canada, not in the US. (Higher dose requires a script.)
  Also, [citation needed] for needing a script for Excedrin -- there's nothing in it but acetaminophen (Tylenol), aspirin and caffeine.
  
  --
  -- Alastair
76. Re:Treaspassing by drinkypoo · 2012-06-03 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  I have an iPhone, you insensitive clod!
  By definition if you have bought an iDevice you have volunteered to be spied upon. But in any case, iPhones are still a relatively small slice of all phones sold.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
77. Re:Treaspassing by AJWM · 2012-06-03 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's called a removable battery and virtually all cellphones have one.
  Removable is one thing, and sure, you can remove the battery from any phone that has one.
  Replacing it afterwards in eg an iPhone can be a bit of a challenge though.
  
  --
  -- Alastair
78. Re:Treaspassing by Fnord666 · 2012-06-03 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  if you want a accurate number for how many amps your house has, sum the amps listed on every switch of your circuit breaker (or fuses if you have em) and then imagine this number multiples to many surrounding neighborhoods.
  This is incorrect. The amperage listed on the main breaker in the panel is the true maximum amperage that can be drawn at the same time (assuming a single panel for the home). Just like your Internet connection, your house is "oversubscribed" to your electrical service. What I mean is that the sum of the amperage capacity of all of the individual circuits in your house is much greater than the max amperage of your home's service. As an example a home might have a 200amp service, but may have 15 to 20 circuits rated at 15amps. The assumption is that not all of your circuits will be drawing their maximum capacity at the same time.
  
  --
  'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
79. Re:Treaspassing by AJWM · 2012-06-03 04:34 · Score: 2
  
  If the stuff on the pole is 110V drops to the surrounding houses
  It isn't. For one, drops to houses are 220V three phase, the house splits that into two 110V circuits. For another, that's the voltage that comes out of the "pole pigs", the trash-can sized cylindrical transformers which supply power to several adjacent houses. Transmission voltage between poles is going to be at least 440 V, and often higher.
  
  --
  -- Alastair
80. Re:Treaspassing by AJWM · 2012-06-03 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  +1 insightful, although that's one reason linemen use safety belts.
  
  --
  -- Alastair
81. Re:Treaspassing by rsborg · 2012-06-03 04:39 · Score: 2
  
  Your supreme court agrees you have no expectation of privacy on a public road, now shut the hell up and enjoy your "freedom".
  My right to privacy does not mean that I have no expectation of accountability - especially in terms of city governance, if the city will not avow of the cameras, then how do I know who to impeach or vote out of office in the next election for misuse of funds?
  
  --
  Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
82. Re:Treaspassing by koan · 2012-06-03 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  Behind at home, implying if you're off to do crime don't be stupid and take your cell with you or block the signals if you do.
  
  --
  "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
83. Re:Treaspassing by drinkypoo · 2012-06-03 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Behind at home, implying if you're off to do crime don't be stupid and take your cell with you or block the signals if you do.
  You mean, for example, by removing the battery?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
84. Re:Treaspassing by HArchH · 2012-06-03 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Booth was a patriot? Is an assassin properly called a patriot or more properly a spy?
85. Re:Treaspassing by poopdeville · 2012-06-03 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  Then keep it in a Faraday cage, like the OP does.
  
  --
  After all, I am strangely colored.
86. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  Uff.
  Voltage is (basically) potential energy. Resistance is vaguely analogous to inertia. Current is vaguely analogous to mass.
  If you put a voltage "across" a resistor, a current will flow through the resistor. The magnitude of the current is linear in the magnitude of the resistance. For a fixed voltage, the bigger the resistance is, the smaller the current is.
  I don't see how you expect to become a systems engineer without understanding basic physics. I had to take an advanced undergraduate physics class for a pure math degree. Systems engineering is engineering and applied math!
87. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Uh huh. Which is why this was set up by somebody who is collecting information for extralegal purposes. Such as the CIA or DEA.
88. Re:Treaspassing by nurb432 · 2012-06-03 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  A 3 letter agency doesn't really need to do covertly, they just call up the city, 'we are doing this, don't cut them down or you will piss us off'. Even if they are a 'secret' agency, they have 'a non-secret' front they can use. Especially since its not illegal for them to do this.
  Orwell isn't spinning, hes laughing.. "see, i told you so"
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
89. Re:Treaspassing by Patch86 · 2012-06-03 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  How complex would a system need to be to detect, record and validate not just every UK number plate, but every other international plate too? Or are tourists supposed to be able to travel around the UK on a single tank of fuel? What about vehicles that have no number plates?
  I'll take your word for it as I'm just talking from second hand knowledge, but not that complex really.
  The system wouldn't need to validate number plates- only validate that it could see one, recognise letters, and make a database entry. No need for it to check against any databases, or discriminate against foreign plate systems. Ditto with faces- it's relatively easy for software to recognise a clear shot of a human face now (most fancy digital cameras have this as standard)- it doesn't need to translate that picture into anything, just recognise that it has a clear picture of one recorded. And my guess would have been that whenever the system raises a red flag, it forces the operator behind the till to make a judgement on whether to turn on the pump (i.e., is it a man with a jerry can). Therefore someone with fancy IR-reflective paint on their number plates would raise alarm bells with the operator as soon as he glanced at the image.
  But again, conjecture and hearsay.
90. Re:Treaspassing by Reziac · 2012-06-03 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  And I'm thinkin' that deer-huntin' season is just a few months away.....
  Either we stop this surveillance crap NOW, by any means necessary, or a total surveillance state WILL be our future.
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
91. Re:Treaspassing by Gordonjcp · 2012-06-03 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  I broke tradition with /. and actually asked around - what happens is that the detected plate is logged with a timestamp to help roll back through the CCTV footage from the forecourt, and is checked against a "blacklist" of known drive-offs. If you're on the list, no fuel for you!
  This is what the police did when my sister's car was stolen - since it's flagged as a stolen vehicle on the blacklist DB it would pop up if the thief ever went in for fuel. As it happens, they didn't, so they weren't caught that way. When the car eventually showed up the number was removed from the list.
92. Re:Treaspassing by koan · 2012-06-03 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Does that work with an iPhone? Are you absolutely certain that removing the battery stops it from being tracked? Then by all means do so, I prefer to be certain, so into the box it goes.
  
  --
  "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
93. Re:Treaspassing by Chaos+Incarnate · 2012-06-03 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  New installations are underground, but there isn't any incentive to rip out perfectly good cable and landscaping to move them under ground.
  
  --
  Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
94. Re:Treaspassing by Ken+McE · 2012-06-03 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  You aren't planning on using them in court. You use them to look for vehicles and patterns of interest.
95. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  I must be missing something about how the DEA would be able to see you fill scripts with cheap canadian generics by license plate photos...
96. Re:Treaspassing by Gordonjcp · 2012-06-03 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but it's still all low-voltage stuff and unlikely to be particularly dangerous.
97. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  You should ask a UK citizen this question. They seem perfectly happy with cameras everywhere. I mean EVERYWHERE.
98. Re:Treaspassing by jetole · 2012-06-03 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  You have some good points about why they would prefer to identify the drivers but in a state without front facing license plates, identifying the front of the car without the back just means they have a picture of you without actually knowing who you are or what car you were driving? I think that makes it pretty hard to actually identify who the driver is. I have not seen these front facing cameras in the same neighborhoods (or under the same jurisdiction) as the neighborhoods that have red light enforcement cameras. For example I have seen these front facing cameras all over Fort Lauderdale (I have family there and used to live there for a few years). Fort Lauderdale is part of Broward country, one county north of Miami-Dade county. I have also spotted a couple (literally only a couple) in Brickel village which is part of Miami-Dade just south of downtown Miami (some consider it part of downtown) these cameras are always mounted on the traffic lights facing the front of a car that only has a license plate if it's from outside of Florida. Now the red light ticker cameras on the other hand, which are actually newer as I have watched them appear in many spots all over the city of "North Miami" as well as on the northern part of US1/Biscayne Blvd in the city of Miami. These are pole mounted and produce a bright flash for every picture taken. Additionally there are intermittent street signs advising of red light enforcement where the red light enforcement cameras are. Anyways, my point being, if I was to run a red light where I see these front facing cameras, they will have a picture of my face and that is all of the identifying information they will have on me. They will not have a picture of my plate as it's inaccessible and I find it hard to believe they are off running photo matching on drivers license pics based off of these cameras but I could be wrong.
99. Re:Treaspassing by jetole · 2012-06-03 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Miami cannot place their electric cables or much of any cables underground because ground level is about 5 - 50 feet above sea level. I have a boat dock on the intercoastal canal in my back yard. I live in a city in Miami-Dade called Bay Harbor Islands (google it). I lived on the street Hendricks Isle. in Fort Lauderdale a few years ago which was literally a street and a island at the same time. We also don't have basements here for the same reason and puddle flooding is common during heavy rains and hurricanes. South Florida is flat, there are no hills and there are canals everywhere. This is probably a big reason why Ft. Lauderdale is the yachting capital of the world. Now tell me this is a safe place to put electrical cables underground. Hurricanes and tropical storms are common in south Florida. It's been a quiet hurricane season since 2005 and I've been surprised but I remember before 2005, we'd typically get hit with at least one hurricane a year. So yeah, underground wiring is a high hazard where I live. I remember where I grew up in Canada, just outside of Toronto and everything was underground but I understand why underground wiring cannot be easily run at sea level ground.
100. Re:Treaspassing by jetole · 2012-06-03 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Oh and also the city of Miami Beach as well as the beach in Fort Lauderdale and all similar areas in south Florida (and probably all eastern sea side cities in Florida) are on what is known as the barrier island. It's basically a small width of land running up the eastern coast that ranges in width of 3 city blocks to 20 city blocks with the ocean on one side and the intercoastal waterway canal on the other side.
101. Re:Treaspassing by kheldan · 2012-06-03 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  For purposes of my original comment, include "installing covert cameras without informing the general public" as part of the class of activities covered by the word 'clandestine', as oppposed to things like intersection-watching cameras (which are visibly obvious) and red light cameras (which, as I recall, there were and are news stories about all the time). Also, you have to admit that if the police didn't even know about them until the subject came up and they inquired, then that's pretty clandestine, don't you think? ;-)
  
  --
  Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
102. Re:Treaspassing by leptechie · 2012-06-03 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  I absorb your argument (on the placement of cables), and reject it resoundingly. Large swathes of The Netherlands are 5-50 feet below sea level.
  My neighbourhood has been a construction zone for about two years as old apartment blocks are ripped down and shiny new ones erected, all with requisite upgrades to infrastructure necessary to support denser settlements. This involves the use of diggers to create trenches, barriers to prevent seepage and pumps running 24/7 to keep flooding minimised. Water (including central heating or stadsverwarming - municipal hot water), sewage, power, gas and telecoms are all laid down in their respective tracks, covered and never paid attention to.
  The only time cables or poles are visible is when their function specifically requires elevation, such as overhead power for trains and trams, traffic signals and street lighting and, of course, purpose-built camera poles.
  A very interesting interview explores the approach taken here for water management, and the last photo on page one (although unfortunately low-res) illustrates the effect - not a pole or cable in sight. It's actually quite a shock to visit Miami (I was there in March) and see how blighted the average street is.
103. Re:Treaspassing by jetole · 2012-06-03 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  I absorb your argument (on the placement of cables), and, in fact, agree with it completely. What I hadn't considered before replying initially is that you don't see this downtown which is right on the bay. Most of Miami's cables were put in place a long time ago. They didn't put them underground either because the technology wasn't available at the time or it was too expensive. Why do they still exist? Probably because replacing them with underground wiring would be too expensive.
  
  I'm not from Miami and I honestly have never liked the city. I agree regarding how blighted the average street is. I live in a good neighborhood, one of the few where I don't have to worry about running into drug dealers, hookers and general thugs plus homeless people begging for money 2 blocks from a homeless shelter. This is not a city worth visiting. I'm only here for work. Miami is a cesspool.
104. Re:Treaspassing by jamvger · 2012-06-04 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Your supreme court agrees you have no expectation of privacy on a public road, now shut the hell up and enjoy your "freedom".
  My right to privacy does not mean that I have no expectation of accountability - especially in terms of city governance, if the city will not avow of the cameras, then how do I know who to impeach or vote out of office in the next election for misuse of funds?
  Mad Parent upward and onward!
  
  --
  The glass is half glass.
105. Re:Treaspassing by mrchaotica · 2012-06-04 01:06 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps they take two pictures (from two different cameras): one of the driver, and simultaneously one of the license plate. (I imagine they'd need one pic from behind anyway to see the phase of the streetlight -- otherwise, with just a picture of the driver, how do you even prove the light was red?)
  Here in Georgia, they've instead redefined the offense to be an "administrative" or "civil" infraction so that they can cite the vehicle owner without needing the higher burden of proof.
  
  --
  "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
106. Re:Treaspassing by Pf0tzenpfritz · 2012-06-04 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Said in a simpler way: I[Ampere]=U[Volts]/R[Ohms]. The amount of current that will flow through you is -as voltage is constant- indirectly proportional to the total resistance of your body + clothes + floor. It can also not be higher than what the power source can provide for logical reasons. So more amps are potentially more dangerous. Especially if you're around barefoot in a moist, flat area...
  
  --
  Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
107. Re:Treaspassing by Muad'Dave · 2012-06-04 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Huh??? I happen to know that the 3 phase lines in front of my house are 19,900 volts to either ground or phase-to-phase. How's that 'low-voltage stuff'?
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
108. Re:Treaspassing by Gordonjcp · 2012-06-04 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  10kV and down is LV. I'm surprised you've got 19kV running that close to residential properties - even out here in the sticks it's normally only 6kV.
109. Re:Treaspassing by Muad'Dave · 2012-06-04 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, it's a long and sordid story. My church built a new sanctuary and was told that it needed three phase for the air handlers. So out comes the power company (that my father worked for) to install the lines. They ran 2 miles of three phase 19.9kV at no small expense to the church. When the HVAC guys installed the systems, it turns out they didn't need three phase after all. Grrrrr.
  At least when there's a storm and branches fall there's a chance that some houses will still have power if only a phase or two gets knocked out. On the downside I seem to have a lot of low voltage situations where (I imagine) power is being shunted thru some three phase equipment (a motor, perhaps), and back-feeding my phase. It's eerie to have electronic equipment growling at you from insufficient voltage. Thankfully my 20kW generator kicks in after 30 secs or so.
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
110. Re:Treaspassing by netwarerip · 2012-06-04 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Don't tell this guy
111. Re:Treaspassing by idontgno · 2012-06-04 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  You don't pay up front though, that's a stupid idea.
  Stupid as it sounds, the alternative -- not be able to buy gasoline anywhere, because the protocol is absolutely universal in the U.S. -- is far more stupid.
  Yeah, the basic method of dispensing fuel is biased towards people who can swipe debit or credit cards, and as mentioned elsewhere, if you overpay when pre-paying, you go back in and get your change. Inconvenient, but again, considering the alternative... (and no, the alternative isn't magically changing retailers change their risk-avoidance behavior. We don't encourage fantasy thinking here.)
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
112. Re:Treaspassing by dmatos · 2012-06-04 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Confirmation - you still can buy low-dose codeine over the counter. 4mg codeine, 8mg caffeine, 500mg tylenol, in one pill. You can also get asprin-based ones.
  I buy them in 100-count bottles. For back pain.
  
  --
  
  It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
  --Scott Adams
113. Re:Treaspassing by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-05 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Citation Needed? I *LIVE* in Canada!
114. Re:Treaspassing by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-05 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  You can get a ticket for unintentional covering just as easily as intentional covering. 4x4 people in Canada make it a habit of wiping the license plate clean before going back on public roads for a reason. It's not uncommon to get a ticket if the bikes on your bike-rack are partially obscuring it.
115. Re:Treaspassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  It was one of the strange things I found when traveling around America. Well that and everyone expecting you to give them a tip.
Whatever happened to transparency? by JustShootMe · 2012-06-02 10:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not as worried about the existence of the cameras as I am that lots of people seem to know whose they are and no one's telling. That's kind of the antithesis of government transparency. I hope someone sues under FOIA.

--
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
1. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by donaggie03 · 2012-06-02 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, FOIA is a federal law that provides for the exposure of federal information. I don't think anyone can file a FOIA request with the state of New York or any of its counties or cities.
  
  --
  Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
2. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Transparency? What's that? Oh, that's right. Obama was talking it up... just wait to see how flexible he'll become if he gets re-elected. Not that Mitt is going to be any better but Obama had our freedoms in his sights long before he ever took office.
3. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by JoshuaZ · 2012-06-02 11:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Most states have their own versions of FOIA, including New York. See http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/New_York_FOIA_procedures.
4. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:08 · Score: 0
  
  Harry Bushtter and the prisoners of askabamo bay.
5. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by pitchpipe · 2012-06-02 11:14 · Score: 2
  
  I'm not as worried about the existence of the cameras as I am that lots of people seem to know whose they are and no one's telling.
  
  Don't you worry your little head Citizen. They are only there to catch the Drug-Pushing-Pedophile-Terrorist-Atheists. Just Think Of The Children. Do you Hate 'Merica?!
  You and your nasty freedom hating FOIA requests. You probably stick your dick in Mom's Apple Pie!
  
  --
  Look where all this talking got us, baby.
6. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by JustShootMe · 2012-06-02 11:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, but since Mitt isn't going to be any better, according to you, why are you focusing on Obama? Agreed that he is president, but implicit in your statement is an admission that the problem is bigger than Obama.
  
  --
  For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
7. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by AK+Marc · 2012-06-02 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Politics suck. We either get the known failure of Obama, or the guy promising to be a bigger failure. Sadly, I think people will vote for the candidate promising to be a failure. At least there's a chance he'll fail at that and accidentally do something good.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
8. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by donaggie03 · 2012-06-02 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the input. It got me curious, so I checked to see if Texas has a FOIA as well. It turns out we do: The Texas Public Information Act. According to at least one website the TPIA is even stronger than the FOIA.
  
  --
  Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
9. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by JustShootMe · 2012-06-02 11:23 · Score: 2
  
  What do you have against mom's apple pie? It's warm and squishy and... and...
  I'll be in my bunk.
  
  --
  For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
10. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Lakitu · 2012-06-02 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  You shouldn't get all worked up about Obama being "flexible" after the elections. The Russians are upset about the missile shield (not really, they're just using it as leverage as a bargaining chip) and are trying to pressure the USA about it. Obama deflected this by saying "I agree, but these crazy republicans! I need their votes! It will be different after I get their votes."
  ie, he was using the Republicans pressuring him as leverage to pressure the Russians. He's not actually flexible on the idea, and if he were, he wouldn't tell the Russians he was.
  welcome to fucking politics 101.
11. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Dunbal · 2012-06-02 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  I hope someone sues under FOIA.
  And they will receive a heavily (if not completely) redacted document and be told that it was edited in the name of "national security". It's the new way around the FOIA.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
12. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  I don't agree, Obama has failed in some areas, yes. But, he did manage to get Osama, pass Obamacare, ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell and get some banking reform passed.
  There are some pretty appalling failures like his failure to stop using the unconstitutional powers he'd inherited, but I don't think ignoring the good because of the bad is good for the country. We need to look at all he's done rather than just focusing on the bad.
13. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by FudRucker · 2012-06-02 11:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  dont worry, the new boss will be just as shitty as the old boss, at this point in US Politics i do not think voting will fix that corrupted den of vipers in Wash.D.C.
  
  --
  Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
14. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by epyT-R · 2012-06-02 11:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  um what? neither party cares about our freedoms.
15. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  Dream on your going to be able to sue and as soon as the masses of sheep get use to it who are you going to sue then, it will just be policy.
16. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by gnapster · 2012-06-02 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  I like how that is an anagram of PITA. I wonder if that was brought about by some dissenting member of the original Texan committee that came up with the TPIA.
17. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Genda · 2012-06-02 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  More important your name will be added to a list of names of people to watch very closely and now that you have gained nearly no information, they will be spending their learning a whole lot about you.
18. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by cayenne8 · 2012-06-02 12:18 · Score: -1
  
  Not agreeing or disagreeing with your point, but since Mitt isn't going to be any better, according to you, why are you focusing on Obama? Agreed that he is president, but implicit in your statement is an admission that the problem is bigger than Obama.
  Well, at this point, I'd vote for anything....a small soap dish, over Obama.
  If nothing else, we know he's a failure, and what is that saying?
  "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result"
  Voting for Obama again, and expecting any better (I actually would fear worse from him if he's re-elected with no worries of further re-election hanging over him)....would be insanity. by that definition.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
19. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by rrohbeck · 2012-06-02 12:30 · Score: 2
  
  And voting for Romney with the expectation that he wouldn't be any better, i.e. worse, would be what?
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
20. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 12:50 · Score: 0
  
  Obamacare is stupid. It's basically free money for the insurance companies. It's an attack on the middle class too by forcing them to purchase health insurance that they can't afford. I would have supported if it was a publicly-ran thing that didn't result in higher cost for the working class.
  Ending DADT is laudable, but it's a really minor issue in the big scheme. Obama's banking reforms? What banking reforms? Letting Goldman-Sachs cronies into his inner circle?
21. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 12:51 · Score: 0
  
  Romney hasn't been president, but we sure do know how fucked up a president Obama has been. So Obama can be safely crossed of the list of presidential candidates. Just need to consider other candidate(s) now.
22. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 12:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Both the efforts to get Osama and the banking reform passed were in the works before Obama was even nominated. Keep your eye on the ball. No administration starts from scratch.
  
  As for ObamaCare? Seriously? ObamaCare is nothing more than a bailout for "big pharma" in the guise of a social program for Joe Sixpack. I know this, I work for big pharma and the CEO of my little slice of the healthcare pie didn't even try to hide how pleased he was with the outcome of the legislation. Oh, our stock is also at an all time high as well as cash flow. If ObamaCare was going to be putting things right for The Little Man(tm) than why is it that the healthcare field is booming right now and they're only ramping up for even more business as the costs of healthcare to the individual continued to rise at a record pace? I know this for a fact. I'm in the middle of it.
23. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by dtmancom · 2012-06-02 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  That would be hope, and change.
24. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 13:37 · Score: 0
  
  Don't Ask/Don't Tell was a Clinton administration program that simply acknowledged that there were gay people in the U.S. military and that it was stupid to kick them out. The status quo ante would be to have those in the LGBT community have the snot beaten out of them and summarily kicked out of the military with a dishonorable discharge and no legal recourse to broken limbs or other health problems resulting from that discharge process. Don't Ask/Don't Tell at least made it illegal to physically assault a fellow soldier/marine/airman/sailor, particularly because of sexual orientation. It was simply a policy of keeping it to yourself, where it generally ought to be in most social contexts anyway even if you enjoy heterosexual relationships.
  Seriously, I don't understand why it was considered such a bad program or why Obama needed to make such a big deal about ending the program other than to acknowledge the progress it may have made or that it wasn't going far enough. Instead it was treated as an evil concept that should be stomped upon and destroyed as a horrible idea. That it needed to be tweaked and reformed is true, but that isn't what was portrayed.
  The banking reform is bad and didn't solve any problems other than expand the number of lawyers a bank needs... great for big banks and awful for small banks, making the rich get richer and the poor treated even more like trash in ever larger institutions that don't care about ordinary folks. It didn't even stop the real abuses that caused the economic collapse in the first place.
  I'll grant Obamacare did something useful: It likely will push the whole healthcare system over the edge in terms of the serious reform it needs. There are some serious problems in the healthcare industry in America, and while Obamacare didn't solve a single one of them I think in the long term it will act as a catalyst to make the changes that really do need to be made. It will just suck being a medical doctor over the next decade or so though while those reforms happen, and suck even more if you actually need some medical care from those doctors.
25. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-02 13:37 · Score: 2
  
  The only change would be the pennies in your pocket. That's all of what would be left of your savings after Romney finished off the rest of the 99%
  At least Obama is likely to leave you with a quarter or two.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
26. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Transkaren · 2012-06-02 13:48 · Score: 2
  
  Obamacare could have - should have - been a lot better, but it's probably better than no change in the area. At least it's gotten people *talking* about health care reform... and if it gets stopped by the S.C., I would be willing to bet good money on a new version with a public option being put in place within a year or two.
  
  --
  -If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
27. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by machine321 · 2012-06-02 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  If nothing else, we know he's a failure, and what is that saying?
  Sure, but he's _my_ failure! That's got to be better than any failure you put forward.
28. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by EvanED · 2012-06-02 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  It was simply a policy of keeping it to yourself,...
  What about the discharges caused when a third party outed someone?
  Saying DADT just meant you had to keep it to yourself is dishonest. Not to mention inconsistent, or heterosexual people would be kicked out for revealing that, e.g. going "hey guys, check out this photo my girlfrend sent me."
  
  Seriously, I don't understand why it was considered such a bad program...
  Without even getting into whether it was fair, because we're expelling people who are qualified? From positions where we lack people? Surely you remember the stories about how the CIA or whatever was really looking for people who could translate Arabic at the same time we were discharging someone under DADT.
  Just because DADT was an improvement over what came before doesn't mean it was a terrible policy.
  
  Instead it was treated as an evil concept that should be stomped upon and destroyed as a horrible idea
  It kind of was a terrible idea that should be stomped on. Not the most terrible idea we've had, but still pretty darn bad.
29. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  Romney would be better simply because they are essentially the same, but Romney would be hobbled by hopes for a second term. A second-term Obama would have no such handicap.
30. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by MagusSlurpy · 2012-06-02 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  But it's also gotten people to stop caring about health-care reform, because now health care is "fixed," though it's nothing more than a band-aid on a hemorrhaging stump. As far as democrats are concerned, the poor people have been saved, and the only reason they EVER bring up PPACA anymore is to point out that Obama fathered it, and that he is amazing.
  Meanwhile, my insurance is 30% higher than it was two years ago, and provides me no more benefit than it did before - except that if I decide to drop it, and put that money into a savings account for a "rainy day," I get pretty much that entire savings taxed away anyhow.
  
  --
  My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
31. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 16:06 · Score: 0
  
  The only change would be the pennies in your pocket. That's all of what would be left of your savings after Romney finished off the rest of the 99%
  At least Obama is likely to leave you with a quarter or two.
  Obama left us with Hoax and Blame.
32. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 16:55 · Score: 0
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, FOIA is a federal law that provides for the exposure of federal information. I don't think anyone can file a FOIA request with the state of New York or any of its counties or cities.
  You are correct, sir. FOIA is composed of section(s) of the USC, and only applies to federal agencies. I'm not sure about NY, but in CA where I work, the CPRA (CA Public Records Act) provides MORE access than FOIA would, if it applied to state/local agencies. YMMV.
33. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by BitZtream · 2012-06-02 17:35 · Score: 0
  
  But, he did manage to get Osama
  No he didn't. The military got Osama, he got the reports about it and got to watch them do it, he had no actual useful part in it other than not telling them they couldn't do it.
  
  pass Obamacare,
  Yea, its fucking awesome that I get fined if I don't have health insurance, and taxed extra if I take the company health insurance because its 'too good'. You can shove Obama care up your ass, the solution is to not make it a legal requirement for everyone in the medical industry to charge more for less which is essentially what happens.
  
  ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell
  Who cares? Why is your sexuality coming up when you're working? Don't ask don't tell is great ... both ways, I don't really give a fuck if your straight either cause I'm more concerned with not getting shot while you wax on about equality.
  
  get some banking reform passed.
  Are you fucking kidding me? If by banking reform you mean made it easier for the banks to walk away as legalized criminals then sure.
  
  --
  Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
34. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by catmistake · 2012-06-02 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  Obama had our freedoms in his sights long before he ever took office.
  Actually, your half-witty cynicism notwithstanding, you are correct. President Obama is indeed a Constitutionalist and of the best variety of those: he is an academic. Before you condemn a single person as architect of the failure to achieve all imaginable unrealized goals, consider how difficult it is to become the President of the United States, that one must make uncountable compromises to achieve it, and continue making compromises to maintain it. If anyone in the US government is, as a private individual, fully supportive of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and has a deeper understanding of what our Founders intended than you or I ever will (unless you are not just an idealist or anarchist and in fact a student of law or possibly a member of Congress), it is Barrack Obama. Yet, as the President, as the man that holds and represents the Office and the government and the citizens of the United States, he does not have the luxuries we do as citizens that may protest against certain things our government must do. Unlike you or I, President Obama must lead and maintain unity. Nothing is simple. Try not to reduce the complexities of statesmanship and leadership to a single, unrealistic goal that hasn't entirely reached the fruition of your own idealized standards.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
35. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by catmistake · 2012-06-02 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  wow... yes, mods... truely insightful... FudRucker must be a beltway insider to have this kind of seeringly perceptive insight.
  /wtf mods?? +5? really?
  O.o
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
36. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by TheCouchPotatoFamine · 2012-06-02 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  oh yes, I see, so you have no confidence of joining one of these institutions and making them better -- you can't conceive of anyone like you doing it, either. They sure could use people like you, couldn't they? People who care? But you'd rather post how little anyone cares (a flawed supposition), then fail to post how little you care in return.
  That's not any answer worth +5.
  
  --
  CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
37. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by AK+Marc · 2012-06-02 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  Obamacare is worse than doing nothing. It's corporate welfare for the insurance companies. That's all he could get passed because he refused to stand up for what he promised. Making criminals out of uninsured Americans is so far from what was promised I wouldn't consider it addressing that campaign promise.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
38. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 21:55 · Score: 0
  
  "I don't really give a fuck if your straight ..."
  Or if you can spell...
39. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by arkane1234 · 2012-06-02 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  Deh terk arrrre jarbs!!
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
40. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by arkane1234 · 2012-06-02 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  you realize the medicare reform act doesnt have any activity until 2014, right?
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
41. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by drinkypoo · 2012-06-02 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  HOPE you don't get indefinitely detained
  CHANGE policies very little
  YES, WE CAN incarcerate over 1% of our population
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
42. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by shiftless · 2012-06-02 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  If anyone in the US government is, as a private individual, fully supportive of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and has a deeper understanding of what our Founders intended than you or I ever will (unless you are not just an idealist or anarchist and in fact a student of law or possibly a member of Congress), it is Barrack Obama.
  LOL
43. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 00:10 · Score: 0
  
  What's wrong with Atheists!!?
  We simply think that people talking to imaginary entities are crazy and stupid provided they are over 10 yrs old. Talking to yourself is fine.
44. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Always vote against the incumbent unless they did a particularly good job.
45. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by JustShootMe · 2012-06-03 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that people talking to imaginary entities are crazy and stupid. The debate is whether they're imaginary. You can't prove they are.
  
  --
  For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
46. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Raenex · 2012-06-03 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  It kind of was a terrible idea that should be stomped on. Not the most terrible idea we've had, but still pretty darn bad.
  Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a good compromise for the times and a halfway step to the full solution we have now. The time was right to change it, and the Republicans can't even use it as a political stick because the majority of Americans are for it.
47. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by Raenex · 2012-06-03 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  he had no actual useful part in it other than not telling them they couldn't do it.
  That's a bullshit way of spinning it. He was the one who had to authorize it, and would have owned the failure if it had gone wrong, like Jimmy Carter's failure with the Iran hostage rescue.
48. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by catmistake · 2012-06-03 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  LOL
  Exceptionally well argued, sir. Certainly, you are a master of rhetorical persuasion.
  
  --
  The Admin and the Engineer
49. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by epyT-R · 2012-06-05 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say they didn't care. It's quite obvious that the majority in either camp is not interested in individual liberty. The majority in each are far too interested in dictating behavior en masse in ever more subtly different ways, while wealthy lobbyists dictate the direction of both. you can't make change within a bought institution unless you can outbid the highest bidders.. I can't.
50. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by epyT-R · 2012-06-05 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  sorry for the ambiguity.. by 'care' I meant "I" not "they" in my reply.
51. Re:Whatever happened to transparency? by TheCouchPotatoFamine · 2012-06-09 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  you can't. WE can. that's always been the formula.
  
  --
  CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
This isn't the Black Chamber by JoshuaZ · 2012-06-02 10:49 · Score: 1

My first thought was that the Black Chamber might be implementing their own version of SCORPION STARE, but then it occurred to me that they wouldn't be this incompetent about it. So maybe there's some other party involved- it is still possible that these are loaded with basilisk technology.
1. Re:This isn't the Black Chamber by Sancho · 2012-06-02 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Could be that someone wants us to think that Black Chamber is implementing SCORPION STARE. Or it could just be trials. Regardless, someone is apparently worried about CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN.
Get a bat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 10:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

And start smashing. See who comes calling.
1. Re:Get a bat by stevegee58 · 2012-06-02 11:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Even better: find one, dismount it and take it home to have a look at it.
  Much more interesting.
2. Re:Get a bat by donaggie03 · 2012-06-02 11:01 · Score: 2
  
  Destruction of public property, vandalism, etc. These are the charges I WOULD have been concerned about 15 years ago. Now, I'd have to worry that following your suggestion would lead to some type of retarded terrorism charges. I'd hate to start smashing and see that the people that come calling are the NSA or Homeland Security.
  
  --
  Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
3. Re:Get a bat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Or put grease on the lens. They will need to send someone out to clean it, and probably will end up being a smaller fine. Record them as they fix it and see who their plates are licensed to.
4. Re:Get a bat by donaggie03 · 2012-06-02 11:09 · Score: 2
  
  Another idea: Either these things are network connected, or they aren't. If they aren't they must be storing the pictures and someone has to come around frequently to download the information. If they are connected to a network, I'm sure some leet haxor wouldn't mind wasting a few hours trying to track some IP addresses and whatnot (not that I'm recommending it or anything).
  
  --
  Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
5. Re:Get a bat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Paintball guns work better than grease. Especially when it's dangerous to get physically close to the camera.
6. Re:Get a bat by jamesh · 2012-06-02 11:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Real guns work even better than paintball guns... just sayin.
7. Re:Get a bat by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-02 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Much more likely you would just disappear. Charges are too much bother.
8. Re:Get a bat by AK+Marc · 2012-06-02 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  And if they are network connected via wireless (encrypted 4.9MHz, possibly illegal for you to listen to enough to track down the HQ)?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
9. Re:Get a bat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  A word to the wise:
  Take the camera down, put it in a Faraday cage immediately, then take it somewhere to dismantle and analyze it -- inside another Faraday cage. If it belongs to a three-letter government agency, then it may well have a GPS receiver in it and if you don't take precautions it'll lead them right to your doorstep.
10. Re:Get a bat by cayenne8 · 2012-06-02 12:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Real guns work even better than paintball guns... just sayin.
  Yeah, but you can get in trouble for shooting guns in public....how about some of those extremely high powered lasers you can buy off the internet...I'd have to guess a blast of one of those would burn out any sensors on the cameras beyond repair.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
11. Re:Get a bat by jamesh · 2012-06-02 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  Real guns work even better than paintball guns... just sayin.
  Yeah, but you can get in trouble for shooting guns in public....how about some of those extremely high powered lasers you can buy off the internet...I'd have to guess a blast of one of those would burn out any sensors on the cameras beyond repair.
  I'm Australian so I don't have first hand experience with the laws in America, but was under the assumption that firing a gun in a public place wasn't really a big deal, but shining a laser at something was an act of terrorism and you'd be in big trouble.
12. Re:Get a bat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on the jurisdiction. In small towns and rural country you can get away with shooting guns (as long as it's not destroying property). It's frowned upon (by law) in big cities.
  You can shine a laser at anything but aircraft and other people's eyeballs.
13. Re:Get a bat by ShanghaiBill · 2012-06-02 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Depends on the jurisdiction. In small towns and rural country you can get away with shooting guns
  Even in rural areas it is usually illegal to shoot a gun near a paved public road.
14. Re:Get a bat by mariox19 · 2012-06-02 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Have you been to upstate New York? It's pretty rural, and even a bit Good-Ole-Boyish. Shooting street signs with shotguns is a teenage prank. It's only a matter of time until they start with these cameras.
  
  --
  quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
15. Re:Get a bat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 13:44 · Score: 0
  
  You can get in trouble for BB and paintball guns too. Some jursidictions consider these "firearms" because they "fire" a projectile from the barrel and can cause injury.
16. Re:Get a bat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 13:57 · Score: 0
  
  Would a solid metal box do for transport? (Just curious. Not even in the right country.)
17. Re:Get a bat by DanielRavenNest · 2012-06-02 15:03 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Some spray paint works equally well. For deniability, dip a rag in dirty water and just smear the lens. Then just wait to see who comes to fix it. For added fun, set up your own counter-camera nearby to monitor the first camera repair.
18. Re:Get a bat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  Posting Anon for a reason. A company that I cannot name, who sells traffic cameras, puts LoJack transmitters in them. You take their cameras, someone will definitely "come calling."
19. Re:Get a bat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 16:54 · Score: 0
  
  But make sure to set up another camera watching that one so you can see who comes to smear something on the lens of that one. And then make sure to set up one watching that one...
20. Re:Get a bat by IonOtter · 2012-06-02 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  Not illegal to shoot near, illegal to shoot from or across.
  
  --
  [End Of Line]
21. Re:Get a bat by funnyguy · 2012-06-02 17:44 · Score: 1
  
  So uhm, where is the power source? Either these things have some of the most awesome power efficiencies ever discovered or someone is swapping the batteries on a routine basis or they are plugged in. Just cut the battery wires if you plan to steal it. It is probably programmed to come right back to life when you get it safely home and have removed the GPS module.
22. Re:Get a bat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 20:02 · Score: 0
  
  No. Near. Within 500 ft, typically.
23. Re:Get a bat by Patch86 · 2012-06-02 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  Just curious, but in this day and age (with ubiquitous mobile broadband, satellite internet, and uncountable wifi hotspots) why would it not be networked?
24. Re:Get a bat by drinkypoo · 2012-06-02 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  No. Near. Within 500 ft, typically.
  [citation needed]
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
25. Re:Get a bat by fnj · 2012-06-03 02:07 · Score: 2
  
  I don't think pointing your own gun or laser at a fascist CAMERA is a very smart thing to do. It might be transmitting in real time. Hell, it's not even smart to recommend it. I certainly don't. It is easy, however, to imagine other ways - strictly as a mental exercise.
  Right now the fascists are in hog heaven because they have a monopoly on drones. However, it's pretty easy for citizens and bands of citizens to manufacture their own drones at a cost of 1% or 0.1%, maybe 0.01% of what those morons pay for theirs. Just imagine a sky black with rebel drones taking out the fascist drones and cameras.
  Just sayin'. Get the popcorn; the show could be interesting.
26. Re:Get a bat by Ken+McE · 2012-06-03 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  You won't get a black SUV with a DHS logo on the side. You'll get an old pickup with some local contrator. The guy in the truck may just have a work order.
27. Re:Get a bat by Ken+McE · 2012-06-03 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  No one will come around to download anything. It would be expensive and labor intensive. Operating costs would exceed purchase and installation. They communicate, either by radio or by wire. The one in the picture has an omnidirectional radio antenna on top. You're going to have a heck of a time following that.
28. Re:Get a bat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 23:35 · Score: 0
  
  For added fun, set up your own counter-camera nearby to monitor the first camera repair.
  Quis custodiet-cam ipsos custodes-cam?
29. Re:Get a bat by Tommy+Bologna · 2012-06-04 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Once liberated, quickly tie the camera to the undercarriage of an interstate tractor trailer or toss it into the open bed of a railroad gondola car.
30. Re:Get a bat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  The anonymous coward above is not me.
  That is something I did not know. Crazy americans with guns.
open records request by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 10:52 · Score: 5, Informative

File an official request demanding that they release any pertinent information related to the owner/operator of those cameras. There is no legal basis for them to deny you that information (operational security or an active investigation).
1. Re:open records request by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 15:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, you are being too reasonable... Put on a performance withing view of the camera, then sue them for copyright infringement. The John doe subpoena should take care of it.
2. Re:open records request by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  There might be. This is within 100 miles of an international border. They passed that law some years ago (to make us safer), that suspends most civil rights and liberties of those within this 100 mile strip along our northern and southern borders.
they're all over main roads in England by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 10:55 · Score: 0, Troll

Basically everyone driving a car in England non-locally is tracked as they move around the country.
It's yet another reason I refuse to drive.
But if there is genuinely no knowledge of who they belong to in the US, someone should destroy one (on the basis of reasonable belief that it is a dangerous unauthorised addition to utility poles). The resulting court case would either reveal the owner or confirm that it is something thoroughly extra-legal.
They have to possess some sort of information... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-06-02 11:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

These camera units have to have some sort of clue about their owner(unless they are configured in the not-so-terribly-useful 'record only to local storage, somebody climbs up when it is time to collect" mode). Are they connected to fixed wiring? Do they have a data radio of some flavor? WiFi? Cellular? Any SIM card to be pulled? Serial numbers, vendor information, dates of manufacture, etc, etc.

Unless somebody went to considerable trouble to do this in some deep-black-ops kind of way, they should leak clues like a sieve once somebody just gives the cops the finger and takes one apart...
Obvious by stevegee58 · 2012-06-02 11:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's DHS. Canadian border right?
1. Re:Obvious by questionsaddict · 2012-06-02 11:09 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, just got off the phone with them and they told me it's al qaeda again... Oh you, Al Qaeda
2. Re:Obvious by donaggie03 · 2012-06-02 11:11 · Score: 2
  
  I agree. Fed involvement would also explain why the police chief is being so hush hush about the owner and why the data isn't being used in traffic court.
  
  --
  Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
3. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  St Lawrence is indeed on the Canadian border.
  Alternatively, set up your own hidden camera to monitor an existing one 24/7.
  Take the existing camera offline.
  Record who comes to repair it.
  Post video to YouTube.
4. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  I would guess DEA. the War On Drugs(tm) has not ceased one bit with even the changing of the guard. if anything, they are digging in even more, even in spite of the states' wanting to legalize and stop the 'war'.
5. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  Well, considering that the Canadian federal government quadrupled duty-free exemptions for visits of 48h or more, if the DHS wanted to track foreign cars in St-Lawrence Country, they could just put one camera up at BJ's, another at the mall, another at the Walmart Supercentre, another at Home Depot, and another (though not technically in St-Lawrence Country) at the Akwesasne Casino. Oh what the hell, include one at the Harte Haven Mall for the cheapskates who shop at Big Lots.
  I'm going camping in the Adirondacks next weekend, I'll put a smiley face sticker on my trailer's licence plate so the guy monitoring the cameras can have a nice day.
6. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 15:23 · Score: 0
  
  I live in St. Lawrence County, since Border Patrol sets up regular random checkpoints on all the main roads in the county looking for suspicious characters, it would not surprise me if they were the agency that did this. I've seen a number of cars turn around and run the other way when they see the checkpoint ahead. These cameras are probably checking the many side roads that these checkpoints miss. And they can run 24/7.
7. Re:Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 23:34 · Score: 0
  
  you forgot
  ???????
  and
  Profit
DEA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:05 · Score: 0

DEA
1. Re:DEA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:16 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I live in Watertown, which is in the county south of St. Lawrence. Our local online newswank (newzjunky.com) has a few stories confirming this--federal grants funding license plate readers used by law enforcement for various and sundry tracking tasks, including mapping drug runners and catching local burglars.
2. Re:DEA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  As someone who spent the last 6 years up in Pdam this was my first thought as well...
3. Re:DEA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  Quote: "It's the DEA. Doing the same thing outside of California. Logging traffic to find patterns of drug runners across the border."
  One more intolerable price of prohibition. Add it to the list.
4. Re:DEA by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-06-02 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's the DEA. Doing the same thing outside of California. Logging traffic to find patterns of drug runners across the border.
  ANPR seems like a huge violation of both the right to travel freely and the right to be free of unreasonable searches. We've gone from a model where license plates were used after the fact of a crime to where they are used when there is absolutely no suspicion of wrong-doing. That's not the bargain we signed up for when license plates were first made mandatory.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
5. Re:DEA by stox · 2012-06-02 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  6 years in Potsdam? May God pity your soul.
  
  --
  "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
6. Re:DEA by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-02 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  Oh Pooh.
  From http://www.jphs.org/people/2005/4/14/james-michael-curley-and-the-5-license-plate.html
  âoeFather of the American License Plateâ is probably not how Henry Lee Higginson would choose to be remembered. âoeFounder of the Boston Symphony Orchestra,â perhaps, or âoeCivil War heroâ would be more to his liking. But in fact it was Major Higginson, the prominent banker and philanthropist, who first recommended that the state put a numbered plaque on each motor vehicle.
  Higginson hated the automobile. As the twentieth century dawned in Boston he was in a state of high complaint about the rudeness of the unlicensed âoeautomobilistsâ whizzing past his front door at 190 Commonwealth Ave. (in both directions on both sides of the avenue). At his summer home in Manchester, Massachusetts He even arranged to set up an elaborate network of timing devices in order to prove that over half of that townâ(TM)s motor traffic was routinely exceeding the speed limit of 15 miles per hour. But how to determine the identity of the offending motorists?
  It was to address this question that Major Higginson submitted a petition to the Massachusetts legislature in January of 1903 âoeRelative to licensing Automobiles and Those operating the Same.â Since Higginson was perhaps the most influential private citizen in the Commonwealth at the time, his petition was sure to get prompt attention.
  The story goes on from there and gets tied up in the politics of Boston of the time (Famously Corrupt).
  So the intent of ANPR is little different indeed from the motivations that first led to license plates.
7. Re:DEA by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-06-02 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  So the intent of ANPR is little different indeed from the motivations that first led to license plates.
  What?
  You just disproved your own claim. The guy wanted to catch people who had committed a crime, he didn't want to record all the people who were not committing crimes.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Nobody's telling and it's obvious why by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:06 · Score: 0

If those cameras were installed without permission on poles owned by the utility company then it's trespassing. If they were installing unauthorized equipment which could have been malicious or caused damage to the power grid or other utilities, then it's a matter of national security.
Either way, they do have the power to retain information pertaining to a criminal investigation (which at this point is certainly warranted considering the above reasons).
Means for the Ends by TemperedAlchemist · 2012-06-02 11:07 · Score: 0

It could be part of a scientific study. I could see benefits in trying to observe driver behavior without the drivers knowing.
But it's all speculation at this point, we should refrain from jumping to conclusions.
1. Re:Means for the Ends by Apuleius · 2012-06-02 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  This is why scientists have to get their studied approved by institutional review boards: to make sure the study subjects don't have their rights violated.
  So I doubt this is being done for science.
2. Re:Means for the Ends by donaggie03 · 2012-06-02 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, if the data is being collected by scientists conducting a study, I find it diffictult to determine whose rights are being violated. If the data is not being used by law enforcement, then I would say that scientists have a right to take pictures of passing cars (if they have permission to install the cameras of course).
  
  --
  Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Higher powered lasers... by gstrickler · 2012-06-02 11:08 · Score: 4, Informative

...can burn out some CCDs, or at least temporarily "blind" them.
And now I'm expecting a visit from DHS for disseminating easily available info. It's been nice not knowing you.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
1. Re:Higher powered lasers... by couchslug · 2012-06-02 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  A pinhole in a non-obvious device could conceal a laser until the kill, and a conventional laser weapon sight could be boresighted beforehand to assist aiming. Put a camera behind the laser sight, and you could aim it remotely....
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
2. Re:Higher powered lasers... by cayenne8 · 2012-06-02 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  A pinhole in a non-obvious device could conceal a laser until the kill, and a conventional laser weapon sight could be boresighted beforehand to assist aiming. Put a camera behind the laser sight, and you could aim it remotely....
  You know..if you could rig this up with some auto tracking and aiming gear....I'd be VERY interested in this...to blow out all traffic cameras in the area around here....
  For educational purposes only, of course.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
3. Re:Higher powered lasers... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  There was mention a while back about theatres using a device to detect the reflections from smuggled-in cameras, and automatically aim a low-power NIR laser to blind it.
  With a laser of respectable power level, that could be useful in this context.
DEA by Sensi · 2012-06-02 11:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's the DEA. Doing the same thing outside of California. Logging traffic to find patterns of drug runners across the border.
Re:They have to possess some sort of information.. by RenderSeven · 2012-06-02 11:16 · Score: 2

Looks like a standard cellular antenna on top in the photo, so very likely a SIM card. Serial number on the camera and processor. And very likely a sticker in the cabinet that says "If found please Return to DHS. And keep your mouth shut Or Else". Although wouldnt surprise me if the phone was already ringing on the Captains desk when the box showed up.
Since the camera are trespassing . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:20 · Score: 0

Geeks can gather them all up and do IP sniffing on them and such then publish the results in the NYT and see how deep it goes by if the article gets published or not . . .
1. Re:Since the camera are trespassing . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  It's like one of those movies where the set or the simulation starts to fray at the edges. The surveillance state is so pervasive in so many ways, the stuxnet escapes Iran because of a faulty update, surveillance cameras being discovered on "civilian roads" surveilling ALL civilians. What's next, the RPV's that HAVE been already deployed over cities augmented by a vast array of censors, doing zero tolerance convictions of all crimes by everyone with no need for a trial because all evidence is collected all the time? This isn't fiction. It's reality.
  JJ
UR A BUNCH OF PUSSIE ROCKWELLS THE LOT OF U !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:25 · Score: -1

Nobody's watching you !!
1. Re:UR A BUNCH OF PUSSIE ROCKWELLS THE LOT OF U !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 22:20 · Score: 0
  
  bullshit... i am.
Sauce for the goose... by Dutchmaan · 2012-06-02 11:25 · Score: 1

If being constantly monitored has the aim of keeping a local populace in line, imagine what it would do for our politicians...
Follow The Rules by Dripdry · 2012-06-02 11:25 · Score: 1

Who will watch the watchers?
Why, us of course! Why don't we just do what the government TELLS US to do and monitor everything around us, like this stuff, so that when push comes to shove we have evidence of who is doing stuff like this.
We keep digging in our heels, but why? If they want massive surveillance let us give it to them and see the shithammer that comes down sooner or later.

--
-
1. Re:Follow The Rules by Dripdry · 2012-06-02 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  replying to my own post, sorry. I sort of meant the above sarcastically, but I've said before: Giving others exactly what they want is inevitably their undoing. If we want the system to change let's just do what they *say* we're supposed to, wholeheartedly, and see the mess that's created.
  Let's give DHS everything they want. Let's surveil everything, all the time, 24/7. Let's ENCOURAGE them to come in and monitor everything all the time. Have DHS at everything intersection in the whole damn U.S. and watch the system come to an immense, bureaucratic halt. Lobby Congress for huge increases in military spending, enormous social cuts that would make a Neocon's dick hard, incredible monitoring of every move made by every citizen, all the time.
  Then sit on it for a little while until the entire mess implodes on itself.
  I welcome some alternate points of view, because on one hand I think it could work, on the other there's the natural tendency to think it would make the situation infinitely worse and even harder to reverse course in the future.
  
  --
  -
2. Re:Follow The Rules by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 15:10 · Score: 0
  
  I like where you're going with this, but the problem is you're assuming that the system will grind to a halt for lack of resources.
  Now which sounds more likely, the situation you posit (implosion) or an enormous growth of DHS and assorted similar leeches to cover the shortage?
  Do you really think anyone in the system will admit a mistake and retreat to "reasonable" expenditures?
  Where do you think the money to do all this will be coming from while we wait for the forthcoming implosion?
  
  I'd love to see it happen, but what you're proposing just doesn't seem that likely.
Re:They have to possess some sort of information.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:27 · Score: 0

It probably says "Property of the FBI" on it. That's how they know who to return it to and also why they won't say.
Just by posting this... by bjdevil66 · 2012-06-02 11:30 · Score: 2

...you're risking the security of the country. Americans can't handle the truth, and the less they know about the dark side of terrorism or the drug trade flowing into the US, the better. It's easier to deal with in obscurity than with the partisan press making it hard for the security of our country to be kept up.
(I kid, but the sad part is that there are some out there that would actually agree with that sentiment 100%...)
1. Re:Just by posting this... by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-02 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Of course. It's always blame Canada.
2. Re:Just by posting this... by bytesex · 2012-06-02 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties - you want them on that wall.
  
  --
  Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Homeland Security! by gti_guy · 2012-06-02 11:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

Homeland Security agressively patrols that area since it borders Canada and has a international crossing at Cornwall. I've been stopped at road blocks hosted jointly by NYS Police & Homeland Security. The State Police stayed in the background while my car was singled out by Homeland Security for a walk-around sniff by their dog and an uncomfortable amount of questioning. I'm an old Unix admin who does not resemble a terrorist in the slightest. Also worth noting that that St. Regis Native American Reservation sits on both sides of the border there. Perhaps someone is trying to keep tabs on them??
1. Re:Homeland Security! by cayenne8 · 2012-06-02 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Homeland Security agressively patrols that area since it borders Canada and has a international crossing at Cornwall. I've been stopped at road blocks hosted jointly by NYS Police & Homeland Security. The State Police stayed in the background while my car was singled out by Homeland Security for a walk-around sniff by their dog and an uncomfortable amount of questioning. I'm an old Unix admin who does not resemble a terrorist in the slightest. Also worth noting that that St. Regis Native American Reservation sits on both sides of the border there. Perhaps someone is trying to keep tabs on them??
  I wonder by what authority they are stopping you? I mean...you don't have to answer their questions from what I've seen on other videos at the southern border. Can you just ask them if you're being detained...and if not...you'd like to go about your way?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
2. Re:Homeland Security! by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-06-02 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm an old Unix admin who does not resemble a terrorist in the slightest.
  I dunno...
3. Re:Homeland Security! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 20:58 · Score: 0
  
  You are already detained and are trying to make sure you are free to go. Quickly the sniffing dog comes close and they make him signal. Now you're screwed.
4. Re:Homeland Security! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  This happens along the border with Canada in the state of Maine too. I don't know the specifics but DHS and border patrol setup roadblocks along the interstate some 50-100 miles inland from the border and stop all traffic and single out some cars for more intensive searches. We got stopped then searched once come back from a camping trip... we were an interesting bunch of post-college young males, some US citizens, some student visa foreigners, and one of us was even a secret service agent, but we all got stopped and searched.
  Long story short, apparently someone gave DHS the ability to stop and search anyone they want within a certain distance from the border, which I think is like 100 miles. I feel bad for people that live within 100 miles form the border. It must be like living in a police state.
5. Re:Homeland Security! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 17:20 · Score: 0
  
  I'm an old Unix admin who does not resemble a terrorist in the slightest.
  Well, the beard doesn't help.
an easy fix would be by FudRucker · 2012-06-02 11:35 · Score: 2

shoot em with a painball gun, just hit the lens, paintball wont cause permanent damage but it would force the owners to send out a crew to clean them, do it enough times and the cameras are no longer cost effective to the ticket happy privateers

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
1. Re:an easy fix would be by misexistentialist · 2012-06-02 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  The CIA would ID you using drones and satellites and send a wet team that would make it seem like you died in an masturbation mishap.
2. Re:an easy fix would be by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 12:04 · Score: 0
  
  Unless there's more than one camera monitoring the same intersection.
  *shutter clicks*
  Hey... guess who just got a ticket for vandalism?!
3. Re:an easy fix would be by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  They can't stop all of you. There's not even one cop for every 1000 citizen in the US. If Americans really felt oppressed and wanted to take their freedom back, there's little the government could do to stop them.
4. Re:an easy fix would be by PPH · 2012-06-02 14:07 · Score: 1
  
  The person wearing a bandanna and 'Anarchist Black'.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
5. Re:an easy fix would be by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 17:40 · Score: 0
  
  I would love to see if the camera manages to take a picture of the paintball hurtling toward it.
6. Re:an easy fix would be by ThatsMyNick · 2012-06-02 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  So they would have someone masturbate me to death. Now that would be a heavenly way to die.
7. Re:an easy fix would be by drinkypoo · 2012-06-02 23:13 · Score: 2
  
  An EASY fix? Ever fired a paintball gun? Most of them aren't that accurate. You'd probably do a lot of firing, risking notice.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Mount it in your bathroom by swb · 2012-06-02 12:32 · Score: 5, Funny

And let them watch you shit.
1. Re:Mount it in your bathroom by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  Best slashdot comment ever.
2. Re:Mount it in your bathroom by sonamchauhan · 2012-06-02 19:20 · Score: 2
  
  I think, that's called ... prison.
3. Re:Mount it in your bathroom by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  Hmmmm..
  Walk - People do still walk and use the footpath in America?
  Bicycle
  Horse and Buggy (or this outlawed)
  The best one would be to get a sheet of plastic in the form of a fighter jet or spaceship and go past.
  Historians should build a Greek Wooden Horse - That would test them!
Akwesasne Reservation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 13:31 · Score: 5, Informative

They are watching for smuggling, both ways. Into and out of Canada.
The reservation is on both sides of the river.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akwesasne
http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2009/07/more-from-the-frontier-largest-northern-new-york-drug-bust-ever.html
This is just what they catch, and they aren't looking too closely, or haven't in the past. Very quiet there. I'm very familiar with the area and it has always been a smugglers paradise, prohibition til now. A lot of old Victorian houses up there have secret hidden rooms. If you ask the homeowner why they are there, they usually claim for the underground railroad. BS, these houses were built after the civil war, and most in the 1920's. Huge fortunes were made moving booze.
Everyone there knows what's going on. My best estimate is that 50% of the imported drugs on the east cost come in to the country from there.
There was also a huge case in the late 90's where a 1-2 billion dollar a year cigarette smuggling ring (moving the cigs north, into canada) was broken up. Phillip Morris had several execs indited.
Big business.
My guess on the agency, in order of likelihood.
DEA
ATF
Border Patrol
FBI
DHS (using parts of the above)
Canada, with support from any of the above.
The Usual Suspects by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 13:40 · Score: 0

A President.
A National Security Advisor.
The National Security Council.
The Director of Central Intelligence.
The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
[The Directors of the Drug Enforcement Agency or the Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearms would never be 'in the loop' on this because they are 'on the take' of money from the Mexican Mafias and would 'cry like little girls' when they 'bungled up' a simple op that even an idiot inmate from any decent prison in the USA could have done at a very large reduction in the money that was actually wasted by them and not on the behave of the peoples of the USA, excluding the Federal Government and States employees who are 'on the take' as well.]
Looks like the 'Drone Program' is coming home to a crater beneath your feet (speaking in future-tense for the killing of USA citizens on USA soil that the above named are all to eager to accomplish in order to ensure the re-election of the current POTUS before Novermber 2012 [Obama's October Supprise]).
Desperation, like that during the last hours of Adolph Hitler and his Nazi Third Reich is the 'mindset of the day' for the Obama Administration and his 'Unelected Nazi Government' of the USA.
Just a little boat ride 'cross river Styx for these 'perverts 'n Governance'.
Ah! A little 'going away present' will be added in the [ redacted ].
LoL
License plate masking by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 13:43 · Score: 0

I wonder if those license plate masking will work with these cameras? Yes, I know that it is illegal in some places, but rebellion against big brotherism is necessary at some point for some people.
1. Re:License plate masking by arkane1234 · 2012-06-02 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  not any better than the other cameras... i.e. it wont.
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
More info please? by pbjones · 2012-06-02 13:45 · Score: 1

how do you know that they read number plates? may be your basic CCTV?

--
There was an unknown error in the submission.
not available? by ridgecritter · 2012-06-02 13:46 · Score: 1

I went to the link, and saw the PhotoBlocker product line. Interesting. But I get a 404 error on all of their "buy" buttons. Even more interesting.... /adjusts tinfoil hat/
1. Re:not available? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  Reviews on Amazon suggest that it doesn't work: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000EQUFHS?tag=biswinsu-20
^^^^^^ MBCD ^^^^^^ by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 13:47 · Score: 0

Most Beautiful Comment of the Day!!!
Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by drnb · 2012-06-02 13:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

And voting for Romney with the expectation that he wouldn't be any better, i.e. worse, would be what?
It would be sending a message to politicians: perform or be thrown out. No consideration for party, no consideration for platform, no consideration for being a nice guy, etc. Pure performance.

Politicians will not change their behavior until they fear for their jobs. As long as voters are loyal to political parties, platforms, etc things will not change. Politicians need to feel that there is no base they can rely upon.

Also consider that if you are loyal to a party or platform you are essentially irrelevant. One side can count on your vote and the other side can do nothing to get your vote. Both can ignore you (in their actions, they will probably say the right thing in speeches) with no real negative consequences.
1. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by rrohbeck · 2012-06-02 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Cut your nose off out of spite?
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
2. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by forgoodmeasure · 2012-06-02 14:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Generally speaking, that's a reasonable position. The twist is that the US system is designed for consultation and compromise. So the Republicans want one thing, the Dems the other and they're suppose to split the difference.
  What the Republicans have discovered is that compromises tend to make the President look good. So they've stopped compromising. Mitch McConnell has been pretty explicit about this: he will only sign off on a Dem proposal if it's something, "...I and my members would do anyway..." http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/mitch_mcconnell_the_most_hones.html Most Democratic systems work this way: members of the majority coalition support each other and the minority lodges objections. Therein lies accountability: if you don't like the coalition, throw them out.
  The problem in the US is that the minority party can sabotage and obstruct and reap electoral benefits when the other side fails to get anything done. Indeed, economic sabotage becomes a viable strategy, which explains Republican resistance to stimulus packages and textbook economics: what's in it for them?
  At any rate, if you truly believe what you say, you should vote for Romney, a Democratic House and a Republican Senate. That is, throw the bums out in the legislature *and* the executive. Frankly, I find this nuts: I only support pro-Science parties which for the past 10+ years excludes the GOP. Too bad our winner-take-all voting system blocks the emergence of more choices: a European style conservative party would earn my consideration.
3. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  "It would be sending a message to politicians: perform or be thrown out. No consideration for party, no consideration for platform, no consideration for being a nice guy, etc. Pure performance."
  Nope. Whoever wins, there'll be some 'obvious' reason concocted. Not necessarily maliciously, but because the media is just too lazy and the American public too spoon-fed for "there are a lot of complicated factors at work and we're not exactly sure why people voted the way they did." Most likely Obama will win "because of continued right-wing focus on social issues at the expense of economic policy" or Romney will win "because of dissatisfaction with Obama's economic policies and continued shift leftward on social issues."
  ~nougatrocity, not cowardly so much as too lazy to register just to post one comment
4. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by BlueStrat · 2012-06-02 16:54 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Generally speaking, that's a reasonable position. The twist is that the US system is designed for consultation and compromise. So the Republicans want one thing, the Dems the other and they're suppose to split the difference.
  What the Republicans have discovered is that compromises tend to make the President look good. So they've stopped compromising.
  Compromise is all well and good, except when someone demands you compromise your basic principles.
  Say, party 'A' wants to imprison the entire black population. Party 'B' says "NO!". Party 'A'' then proposes a compromise...just imprison half the black population. Party 'B' says "NO!" again, based on the same principle. Party 'A' then proclaims party 'B' is unreasonable and refuses to compromise.
  This is basically what's been happening in Washington DC:
  ---
  Obama & Progs - "Let me put this in your mouth"
  TEA - "HELL NO!!"
  Obama & Progs - "C'mon, let me!"
  TEA - "HELL NO!!"
  Obama & Progs - "Ok then, compromise with me...just the tip."
  TEA - "HELL NO!!"
  Obama & Progs - "SEE!?!? Those TEA Party Terrorists and Republicans are all inflexible Right-Wing nutcase fanatical ideologues that won't compromise even a tiny bit, and they're racist homophobe gay-bashers too!!!"
  ---
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
5. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by myowntrueself · 2012-06-02 17:30 · Score: 2
  
  Politicians will not change their behavior until they fear for their jobs. As long as voters are loyal to political parties, platforms, etc things will not change. Politicians need to feel that there is no base they can rely upon.
  
  But politicians already do fear for their jobs and they do change their behavior accordingly.
  The problem is that the people who have the most influence over the politicians job-keeping potential are not the voters. The people with the real influence are those that make the campaign contributions and the people who manipulate the media image of the politicians.
  The media isn't run by the government; the government is run by the MEDIA. How is this not obvious? Democracy has already been subverted, what you have today is not democracy, if anything its 'mediacracy'.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
6. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by drnb · 2012-06-02 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  The true currency of politics is votes, not money. Money is just a tool to influence voters *while* voters are in an apathetic mood. No amount of money spent on TV commercials can change the mind of a voter who is committed. The problem is not money, it is getting voters to realize their folly of volunteering to be irrelevant by being loyal rather than demanding performance.
7. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by drnb · 2012-06-02 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  Cut your nose off out of spite?
  Nope, its a short term price to achieve change. The price is greater to continue the status quo that leads to a majority of voters being irrelevant due to their loyalty.
8. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by drnb · 2012-06-02 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  Actually my opinion is meant to apply to all politicians, not just the President. The problem is we need a phase where all politicians who are not truly serving the public's interest are thrown out. They need to be reminded of who is really in charge, the voters. Votes are the true currency of politics and it is still one person one vote.
  
  If someone is serving their church rather than the public they should be thrown out. To say the GOP is anti science sounds like a political talking point from the Dems. There are people of faith who also believe in science. Various Christian churches believe that scientific observation and discoveries are not in conflict with religion. If I remember correctly the scientific process was established by scientists who were not only usually men of faith but sometimes actually members of the clergy. The problem is one of perception, the crazy ones are the ones who get all the media attention. Its just a part of the system for manipulating voters, to scare you into being a good little loyal party member despite your disappointments in the party. Honestly, I heard it all before. Ronald Reagan was going to turn the United States into a theocracy. Bill Clinton was going to turn the United States into a socialist state. Its just BS to keep the base loyal.
9. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by drnb · 2012-06-02 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  "It would be sending a message to politicians: perform or be thrown out. No consideration for party, no consideration for platform, no consideration for being a nice guy, etc. Pure performance."
  Nope. Whoever wins, there'll be some 'obvious' reason concocted.
  No. If the voters vote for presidents, senators, representatives, governors, state legislatures, etc based upon only whether they believe these people are acting in the public interest(*) then it won't matter what story they try to spin. Besides, the politicians will still know why they are losing and that is the key element of this approach. Getting the politicians to fear the voters once again. To stop having 2/3rds of voters volunteering to be irrelevant by being loyal.
  
  (*) FWIW, I am not suggesting voting out politicians merely for disagreeing with you. If they have an honest rational belief that a different path serves the public good that is not an instant disqualifier. Its just the ones that are bought and paid for by some special interest that I want to see gone.
10. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 20:33 · Score: 0
  
  Ahaha. You're still in high school, aren't you?
11. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by gd2shoe · 2012-06-02 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  And who do you propose to tell them that they should wake up? The media?
  I want to agree with you, but it is an uphill battle. As myowntrueself (607117) said, the media exerts strong influence on the government. Every time politicians step out of line, they've got to throw the media power brokers a bone to keep them happy. The fact that we're at the oligopoly stage, and haven't yet reached the monopoly stage is our one saving grace.
  But no, the media wants us to remain dumb and compliant. If they taught us otherwise they'd lose much of their power.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
12. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/front
13. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, the only problem is getting everyone to agree on what "performance" actually means. Free health care for everyone? pro/anti this or that political hot button issue? A tv in every household? Ask 200 people what's most important to them and you'll get 200 different answers.
14. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by drnb · 2012-06-03 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  I agree its an uphill battle. However I think it is a matter of having conversations like this one outside of traditional media channels. Facebook, twitter, etc have shown such communications can be successful even in an environment of state controlled media.
15. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by Raenex · 2012-06-03 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  I can't hear you because you've got a cock in your mouth. Please move to Somalia and call back when it has been replaced with one in your ass.
16. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by Raenex · 2012-06-03 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is we need a phase where all politicians who are not truly serving the public's interest are thrown out.
  Please define "truly serving the public's interest" in a way that the public agrees on for the whole range of issues that politicians deal with.
17. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by drnb · 2012-06-03 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, the only problem is getting everyone to agree on what "performance" actually means. Free health care for everyone? pro/anti this or that political hot button issue? A tv in every household? Ask 200 people what's most important to them and you'll get 200 different answers.
  Actually its not so hard. What you are describing is loyalty to a platform and such loyalty also makes you irrelevant, your vote is safe for one side and unobtainable to the other. I think that needs to be put on hold for the short term, until politicians get the message as to who they work for, until they consider the interests of the voters above all other interests. What I am suggesting is that performance is entirely defined by working for the public good. Legitimate, well reasoned and rational differences on a topic should not disqualify a candidate for one's support. If both candidates are working for the public good - rather than self interest, party interest or special interests - then one having a plan you prefer is fine. But we have to first get the politicians to a state where they believe that no amount of money and TV ads will save their butts if they do not put the voter's interests first. They have to relearn that the true currency of politics is votes. That is a prerequisite for true reform.
  
  On a related note. For those in a leadership positions, president, speaker of the house, president pro tempore of the senate, senate and house party leaders, etc - they need to go if they are unable to lead and move issues forward too. They often cry the other party is obstructionist but in truth they have a hand in that obstructionism to some degree. Demonization of the other side, exclusion of the other side (essentially poisoning the well for a piece of legislation), etc. The fact remains that as leaders it is their job to avoid and overcome such things. The current leadership seems more concerned with serving political bases and special interests, all deserve to be replaced, just like those in non-leadership positions that are simply being obstructionist. Repeat as necessary until they relearn who they work for.
18. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by Reziac · 2012-06-03 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  Politicians will not change their behavior until politics is no longer a full-time job.
  FTFY.
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
19. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by BlueStrat · 2012-06-03 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  u mad?
  Strat :D
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
20. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by HiThere · 2012-06-03 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  You're making the (I believe false) assumption that what they want is different. AFAIKT the only difference is that the two parties are attempting to appeal to a different block of voters. But they don't really care! They are supported financially by the same funding groups, and neither will do anything that might antagonize those groups. Which means that the only difference is the rhetoric. And the ways in which they oppress the populace, but even those are tightly constrained by their supporters.
  E.g.: I recently predicted that if Romney gets elected he will NOT cut Medicare more than symbolically. This is because it would antagonize his backers in the pharmaceutical industry and in the health insurance industry.
  I don't really want to find out whether my prediction is correct, because in some ways the Republicans *do* act significantly worse than the Democrats, from my point of view. But this is so minor, that I'm planning on voting 3rd party this year, just as a "A plague on both your houses" kind of statement. I know it won't do any good, but I sure can't vote for Obama, after he signed that bill saying that he had the right to kill anyone he felt like without trial, notice, or appeal.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
21. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by myowntrueself · 2012-06-03 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  The vote is a form of currency.
  Just as advertising shapes and manipulates patterns of spending money so it shapes and manipulates patterns of spending votes.
  
  --
  In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
22. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by Raenex · 2012-06-04 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  no, r u?
23. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by drnb · 2012-06-04 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is we need a phase where all politicians who are not truly serving the public's interest are thrown out.
  Please define "truly serving the public's interest" in a way that the public agrees on for the whole range of issues that politicians deal with.
  See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2891157&cid=40202673
24. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by Raenex · 2012-06-04 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  Actually its not so hard.
  It is hard and no amount of hand-waving is going to change that. A politician is going to have to make decisions on a wide spectrum of issues, and some of those they're going to vote conscience, some they're going to consider the electorate, some they're going to consider their corporate sponsors, and sometimes they're going to vote to compromise to get something rather than nothing.
  About the only candidate who is consistent is somebody like Ron Paul. Are left-leaning Democrats going to vote for him, given that he is generally against government assistance? No. Are Republicans going to vote for him, because he is anti-regulation of drugs and isolationist in military stance? No. Am I going to vote for him, given that I have a Libertarian bent? No, because I think his position on gold is looney and I'm afraid pulling our military out of everywhere will have a destabilizing effect.
  So now in the current election, the only real choices are Obama and Romney. If you vote for somebody else, you are throwing your vote away. Until you change the winner-takes-all, majority rules system nothing is going to change that.
  But even if the system was changed, you are always voting for the lesser of evil, because there is no perfect candidate who is going to behave to your criteria consistently, and other voters have different criteria.
25. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by drnb · 2012-06-06 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Actually its not so hard.
  It is hard and no amount of hand-waving is going to change that. A politician is going to have to make decisions on a wide spectrum of issues, and some of those they're going to vote conscience, some they're going to consider the electorate, some they're going to consider their corporate sponsors, and sometimes they're going to vote to compromise to get something rather than nothing.
  No. It is not hard. As I said ... legitimate, well reasoned and rational differences on a topic should not disqualify a candidate for one's support. On any of the scenarios you mention, if the candidate can articulate a well reasoned rational explanation for their vote then they are doing their job properly.
  
  But even if the system was changed, you are always voting for the lesser of evil, because there is no perfect candidate who is going to behave to your criteria consistently, and other voters have different criteria.
  Again. It is not about agreeing with the candidates decisions. Its about whether the candidates decisions are rationally in the public interest.
  
  More importantly, in the short term the point is to communicate to politicians that those not making rational votes, not offering defendable positions, are going to be voted out, that they have no loyal base who will overlook indefensible votes. In other words the politicians need to re-learn that the true currency of politics is votes and that no amount of campaign contributions will save them. Once candidates are in such a frame of mind then picking the candidate based upon one's preference for their positions is fine. However this is the long term goal. Applying this long term strategy now merely preserves the status quo of 2/3rds of voters being irrelevant.
  
  You can not escape the fact that loyalty to a platform makes 2/3rds of voters irrelevant. Ignored by their party because their vote is safe, ignored by the other party because their vote is unobtainable.
  
  In summary. We need to do something radical to regain control. Once we have regained control we can give proper attention to specific positions on issues. However letting such positions dominate *now* merely perpetuates the current failed system.
26. Re:Party loyalty means you can be ignored ... by Raenex · 2012-06-06 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  As I said ... legitimate, well reasoned and rational differences on a topic should not disqualify a candidate for one's support.
  Of course it should. Like I said, I find that Ron Paul has the most integrity out of any candidate running, but I'm still not going to vote for him because I find his positions on gold and isolationism disastrous, though his reasons are at least defensible, even if I resorted to calling them looney earlier.
  
  More importantly, in the short term the point is to communicate to politicians that those not making rational votes, not offering defendable positions, are going to be voted out, that they have no loyal base who will overlook indefensible votes.
  The problem with your plan is that the voters are not a uniform block that are going to agree with your criteria, hence you're trying to "boil the oceans". Your "long term strategy" just doesn't work because you can't get enough buy-in for the short term.
  It's like when Nader was running in 2000 and 2004. All he did was serve to bleed off votes for the left, and they ended up with Bush in tight elections. Nader's position was that both sides were so similarly bad that it didn't matter, and he even got Michael Moore to agree with this and campaign for him in 2000, but in 2004 he was literally on his knees begging Nader not to run. That's real-world politics.
  
  You can not escape the fact that loyalty to a platform makes 2/3rds of voters irrelevant. Ignored by their party because their vote is safe, ignored by the other party because their vote is unobtainable.
  True to a certain extent, but also wrong because what tends to happen is that when the base is upset they just stay home instead of voting due to apathy or don't encourage others to vote. That's why political pressure from the base works to get many issues pushed through.
  This is why I think a change to the voting system from majority, winner-takes-all to some other system like borda voting is an attainable strategy to kill the stranglehold of the two-party system. It's a simple process issue voters can get behind and get enacted via referendums.
Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-06-02 13:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Is this USA that we are talking about?
Is this USA where the RULE OF LAW takes precedence ?
Is this the one and only USA where Liberty is everything?
How come the Americans just sit there and do nothing when some nefarious 3-letter-agencies get to do whatever they want, whenever they want, where-ever they want?
If you guys in America are really concern of human rights, start to fight for your own human rights !!

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2012-06-02 13:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  if you fight for your rights, they take you away in the night (its the law... no joke)
2. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by sincewhen · 2012-06-02 18:09 · Score: 2
  
  get to do whatever they want, whenever they want, where-ever they want
  Land of the free.
  They didn't specify who would be free to do what to whom.
  
  --
  -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
3. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 18:53 · Score: 0
  
  What's the old saying ???????
  Oh yeah welcome to America!! You never had any of the mentioned things you pointed out.
  Why do protestors that are against war, (peacefully protesting by the way, not all of them do this) being tasered and beaten and arrested, but you get the idiot tea baggers or those that are extremists when it comes to guns protesting and they are fighting with not only themselves but anyone else who asks them a reasonable question and they get nothing?
  Follow the red shiny ball, either that is buying a house then getting taxed out the ass for owning one. Or buying the latest electronic gadget that keeps you looking modern, ect.. You can talk about things using the internet but as long as you do not expose the wrong agencies, or go any where near the long list of things that could make you a communist, or terrorist.. Even the media is worthless, they talk about free press but they report nothing but BS, or make up BS, anytime they did try to report anything worthy they got warned to shut up about it. The Press is a corrupt corporation in it for money and solely money.
  I always felt the whole communism thing was bullshit, the irony is how the government tried to then dictate what you as a citizen could be allowed to talk about or act upon, only if you followed there "guidelines", and this idea is totally not related to some of the ideas behind communism?? Same with terrorism now, I am not naive I know there are groups whose sole purpose or belief is to destroy everything because they feel it is gods will, they started out as Christians, now it is just about every religion doing it.
  I have to give the agencies credit they have managed to keep the unwashed masses playing with the red ball, while they pass laws, or create "outside threats" to pass more laws and eventual control over any group (like it any group would ever be able to form as a positive threat under current laws) or revolution that could threaten the check and balances of power. Some people see this most do not, or they simply do not care and are concerned with themselves. The Hippie Movement was a prime example or a group who felt they should truly live free, but the government, and the shit stain known as the press had all kinds or propaganda against the movement used military raids against them (unconstitutional by the way to use military force against its own citizens), not all of them were druggies or drug users, few were.
  I could go one step further, and claim this is why you have educational institutions, to make sure the unwashed masses stay dumbfounded. Even colleges keep everyone thinking the same way, you do get ideas and different directions but few step outside what they were taught.
  This is also bullshit because I do think people can learn or get an understanding of how government really works, but again you have been forced to work your ass off just to stay alive with a roof over your head, unless you can find a way to gather large groups of people together and to get others that are busy with there lives to help in some form or another things will continue to get worse.
  For some reason I like to say one thing then argue with myself.
4. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Zemran · 2012-06-02 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry? Have you been asleep for the last 10 years?
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
5. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-06-02 21:30 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Sorry? Have you been asleep for the last 10 years?
  I've been observing a big irony in progress ...
  The more Hillary Clinton championing "Human Rights" for people outside of USA, the less "Human Rights" was left for people staying INSIDE the United States of America
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
6. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by arkane1234 · 2012-06-02 21:52 · Score: 2
  
  I think you're lumping the entire 2000-2012 with hillary... since not much human right stuff has happened within America in the last 4 years.... sure, there were protests, but that was towards capitalist companies. There weren't any massacres or human rights violations. At least not on a large scale, since obviously there's bound to be a single person case somewhere in nearly every country.
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
7. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by shiftless · 2012-06-02 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  Your balls must be at least "this big" to fight for your rights. Pussies need not apply
8. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Gordonjcp · 2012-06-02 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  I always felt the whole communism thing was bullshit, the irony is how the government tried to then dictate what you as a citizen could be allowed to talk about or act upon, only if you followed there "guidelines", and this idea is totally not related to some of the ideas behind communism?
  No, not in the slightest. That's some of the ideas behind totalitarianism. Communism doesn't necessarily imply totalitarianism, but it's a convenient excuse for it.
9. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  Such as the right to record in a public place?
10. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · 2012-06-03 02:37 · Score: 2
  
  I used to do that. But I got tired of being thrown in jail for various random charges.
11. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · 2012-06-03 02:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Here's the part I like. Thirty years ago we railed on the soviet union for attacking other sovereign governments and forcing their way of government on them, for imprisoning people without rights or due process, and for a long ugly war in Afghanistan where many civilians were killed in a fairly pointless war. Oh, and for taking away civil liberties from their people and suppressing people with the 'wrong ideas' or for practicing religion. This is how we demonized them to support the spending on covert and direct operations and a military build-up that cost trillions.
  Today we attack other sovereign nations and force democracy on them, we put people up in Guantanamo Bay, and we've had a long ugly war in Afghanistan where many civilians were killed in a pointless war. We've systematically removed rights from our citizens and given them to the police to suppress wars on drugs, terrorism, or whatever the money-waster flavor of the month is. We suppress people with the wrong ideas, and as a Christian nation that was founded by people fleeing religious persecution, we're rather un-christian-like in our treatment of non christians. Now the muslim extremists demonize us on the same grounds that we demonized the Soviets over.
  So we were either wrong then, or wrong now. Maybe both.
12. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by mgcarley · 2012-06-03 04:18 · Score: 2
  
  ...and as a Christian nation that was founded by people fleeing religious persecution...
  I'm not confident that is entirely accurate. Suuuuuuuure, it's the story you get told at school, but... you know.
  The pilgrims went so that they could persecute, not because they were being persecuted. If they were "fleeing", it's because they failed to push around those damned liberal English (and in some cases, later the even more damned liberal Dutch as well) in to taking up their moralistic ideals... If anything, history suggests they were more or less deported.
  It seems the whole country has been built on and has been supporting this kind of behaviour for centuries.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
13. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, but it's not liberty for you. It's liberty for the lawmakers and the Government agencies to do precisely whatever they feel like doing.
14. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by hey! · 2012-06-03 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the rule of law as it has been settled over the last couple of centuries doesn't consider suspicion a burden to the target. That's because when the Bill of Rights was framed the cost and difficulty of surveillance was so high it was assumed not to be a serious threat to liberty. And that's where the current understanding of the US Constitution's limitations on police remains to this day. The law hasn't adjusted to the fact that it's now possible to *mechanize* suspicion and surveillance through cameras, software, networks and databases.
  In fact this problem predates technological advances. The emergence of a government with powerful, permanently constituted security agencies is something the founders never dreamed of. That is the problem with "original intent"; in many situations what the founders might have intended is a matter of speculation. For example we now accept that 4th Amendment protections protect people in public places (Katz v. United States, 1967) but for a long time the limitation to a person's home, self, and papers was taken literally (Olmstead v. United States, 1928).
  It is certainly not true that three letter agencies can do whatever they want, wherever they want; but the limitations the Constitution specifically puts on them do not cover their current capability to infringe on individual liberties, and the courts thus far have declined to check them under the Ninth Amendment or through extensions of other amendments..
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
15. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Raenex · 2012-06-03 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Thirty years ago we railed on the soviet union for attacking other sovereign governments and forcing their way of government on them, for imprisoning people without rights or due process, and for a long ugly war in Afghanistan where many civilians were killed in a fairly pointless war. [..] Today [..]
  The Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan is often called their own "Vietnam War". The US has a long history of invading countries and forcing governments on them. You want "imprisoning people without rights or due process"? The US did that to a whole population of people in World War II (internment). That's just scratching the surface. Learn some history. It isn't pretty.
  I'm not condoning, excusing, or trying to single out the US here. I'm just pointing out that we shouldn't forget mistakes of the past or assume that today's situation is genuinely unique.
16. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Reziac · 2012-06-03 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  While you are correct (yes, my long-ago history teachers gave us the real story, not the sanitized one), the principle is still the same: "We left so we could do as we want, not as other people dictate. What we *want* is to dictate what others are allowed to do."
  I'd say that our new class of surveillance overlords have a great deal in common with those early colonists. And we should give them the same choice as did the fed-up Dutch: "Either take the next ship out, or walk into the ocean. We've had enough of your shit."
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
17. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Grishnakh · 2012-06-03 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  When did Hillary Clinton ever champion human rights? She was pissed when Mubarak was forced out of power in Egypt, and now she's working on helping the Myanmar government commit genocide against minority groups there so that American corporations can come in and take advantage of the resources there.
  Our national politicians (Republican or Democrat) don't give two shits about human rights, they only care about helping their corporate buddies make more money as the American Empire spirals downhill. Go read about the decline of the Roman Empire; we're repeating much of what happened then.
18. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Grishnakh · 2012-06-03 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Here's the part I like. Thirty years ago we railed on the soviet union for attacking other sovereign governments and forcing their way of government on them, for [many other things]
  Yes, but even before that, way back in 1953, the USA overthrew Iran's democratically-elected government and installed a puppet dictator named "the Shah". The USA has been a bunch of hypocrites for a very long time.
19. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by starakurva · 2012-06-03 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  As long as we have Hot Pockets, Auction Hunters, and instant pr0n from a multitude of electronic devices, Amerikkkans don't care what else happens...
  
  --
  All you need is lurv.
20. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by HiThere · 2012-06-03 10:47 · Score: 2
  
  There was more than one group. I suspect that you are correct about the Puritans, but they aren't the only group. E.g., the Quakers (Society of Friends) settled Pennsylvania, and they weren't interested in discriminating against anyone except the atheists and the agnostics. The Hessian mercenaries just wanted a place they could earn a living. The Oglethorpe colony in Georgia were there because they were sentenced to "Transportation for Life" (as later happened in Australia). Etc. (Sorry, I can't remember all of the early groups.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
21. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-06-03 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  When did Hillary Clinton ever champion human rights?
  
  That's not what the Main Stream Media is portraying Hillary Clinton
  Almost every other day she will appear on the TV screen screaming about "Sufferings of Human Rights Abuses" of people in Syria, people in Cuba, people in Iran, people in China, and so on ....
  
  --
  Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
22. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Grishnakh · 2012-06-03 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, that's part of her carefully polished public image, but it's all lies, because she doesn't actually do anything for those people. Actions speak louder than words.
  Note, however, that things won't be any better with whomever Romney selects as Secretary of State, if he gets elected. It'll all be more of the same.
23. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 23:42 · Score: 0
  
  and as a Christian nation that was founded by people fleeing religious persecution,
  You almost had me....then you spouted THIS claptrap and voided your entire arguement.
  the USofA is not, never has been, and never will be a Christian Nation.
24. Re:Where the hell Liberty has gone to ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you're just a pinko, then, and now.
  America won, deal with it.
SCOTUS by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2012-06-02 13:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

But the liberal minority of the court has expressed a willingness to revisit that law, and the court itself is concerned enough with the implications of modern technology that it has actually ruled against GPS-tracking drug dealers for long periods of time.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
1. Re:SCOTUS by HArchH · 2012-06-03 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  But the liberal minority of the court has expressed a willingness to revisit that law
  That's the trouble with liberals. They are always ready to revisit SCOTUS decisions. But when a new nominee is presented for confirmation they all start screaming about the importance of stare decisis in fear that the court might revisit a decision the liberals all love. Specifically, Roe v. Wade.
  Is a card laid played or not? (That's a rant in the form of a question. It's not a question.)
  And it's always funny to read the comments about freedom and laws from the loud mouthed UK crowd who dont even have a constitution and have lived in a totolitarian state for over a thousand years.
2. Re:SCOTUS by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2012-06-03 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  > That's the trouble with liberals. They are always ready to revisit SCOTUS decisions.
  Not really. Fourth Amendment law has been contracting since the civil rights era, and while people on the court are highly intelligent and want to decide in favor of their points of view (which they believe are right), they go to great lengths to avoid overturning former SCOTUS opinions. Neither liberals or conservatives are more hesitant about doing that.
  However, the reasonable expectation of privacy standards stem from an era when most people shared a single telephone line with their neighbors, so the court is concerned with how tech changes privacy--not just the liberal minority. But at least part of the liberal minority has expressed a willingness to revisit some of the extant fourth amendment law, some of which--to be fair--is kind of silly and should be revisited, and some of which merely needs to be changed to reflect a newer world. That doesn't mean the conservative minority doesn't feel the same way, they just haven't expressed it.
  
  --
  -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
3. Re:SCOTUS by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-06-03 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if I'd rely on the liberal wing to "save you". A few years ago the SC ruled IR scanning devices could not be used to "see" inside a building without a warrant, even though they were just passive scanners. The majority and dissent were a mixture of liberal and conservatives, confounding the usual analysis.
  Conservatives often stand up for fundamental rights when liberals do not, and vice versa in other things.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
4. Re:SCOTUS by AK+Marc · 2012-06-04 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Why should the conservatives express it? They just quietly sabotage the liberals. If the liberals succeed, then the conservatives claim they helped and/or play down the significance. If the liberals fail, then the conservatives come out of the closet and use their lack of support as a basis to prove the liberals caused the failure due to inability to work across party lines, and the only party that gets things done is the conservative party.
  
  From my view, both parties know politics is broken. It's just that the liberals try to improve things and fail, while the conservatives try to break things and succeed.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
The machine is watching you by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 14:42 · Score: 0

every move you make... the machine is watching
So you're saying collusion? by QuietLagoon · 2012-06-02 15:20 · Score: 1

'Massena Police Chief Timmy Currier said he returned it to the owner, but wouldn't say how he knew who the owner was, nor would he say who he gave it to
To whom does Mr. Currier report? (OK, I'll guess... the people of his district) Did any of those persons ask him who the owner was? If he refused to answer to those to whom he reports, there is a very large problem here.
lol by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 15:42 · Score: 0

Silly child, we are not like the Nazis. The Nazi had a central leader of absolute power; we get to vote on the flavor of our Nazi leadership. We also have some ineffective token outsiders. It all gives us way more freedom than the Nazi gave their people.
Besides Nazi do brash extreme things without letting people adapt, we slowly progress along those ideals so people have time to adjust to it. Finally, the Nazi believed in race superiority which is scientifically unfounded; we instead have social darwinism which is totally logical because we all know people with money are better than those without money!
Here's a clue by eclectro · 2012-06-02 16:48 · Score: 1

The DEA is apparently installing cameras along some freeways.

--
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Whose Cameras Are Watching New York Roads? by Jessified · 2012-06-02 18:30 · Score: 1

sibilance
1. Re:Whose Cameras Are Watching New York Roads? by vandamme · 2012-06-04 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  sibilance = brotherhood + sisterhood, right?
2. Re:Whose Cameras Are Watching New York Roads? by Jessified · 2012-06-04 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, it was a reference to the show "Person of Interest," which is about a state with constant surveillance and a "machine" [predictive algorithm] which can predict human plots based on perfect intelligence. The machine is secret and only a select few know what all the cameras in New York (and around the world) are actually being used for.
Spelling Nazi by gd2shoe · 2012-06-02 19:58 · Score: 1

Yeah, that is feeding the troll, but I feel for your predicament.
It doesn't matter how nice you are. He doesn't care. You misspelled a word, and he feels so special that he found it.
Dude this is the Internet. I'm one of the rare individuals that proof-reads his own posts, and even I misspell things here. It's OK. The world hasn't ended, nor will it.

--
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
1. Re:Spelling Nazi by Genda · 2012-06-04 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  We live in a world full of coincidence and paradox. If I have the power to clean up a mess then I will, take that opportunity. The only thing worse than discovering you've insulted a future boss or Father-in-Law is to find that you've precipitated a chain of events that lead to creating a Paul Lazzaro to your Billy Pilgrim.
Of course tha yanks always blame Canada by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 20:33 · Score: 0

You've got a Queen as head of state and don't waste money electing rabid Presidents - can't have that!
I mean,. what sort of faggot country would have a queen as their head of state?
Parable of the school yard by gd2shoe · 2012-06-02 20:50 · Score: 1

Three kindergarteners are eating lunch. Bill is a bully, and punches Jim in the face. Tom feels sorry for Jim, and shares his dessert. It tastes good, but Jim still has a black eye.
The next day it happens again, and Tom still feels sorry for Jim. He shares his dessert again. This also tastes good, but now Jim has a bloody nose and still has a black eye.
On the third day, Tom doesn't have a dessert to share with Jim. Bill hits Jim hard in the jaw, and leaves a bruise. Tom feels that Jim must have a dessert to make him feel better. He pushes Sally over, takes her dessert, and gives it to Jim. Jim is confused, and a little scared. He doesn't want to offend Tom. Tom has been nice to him, and he doesn't want to be pushed down. Sally's dessert smells very good. He says nothing, and eats the dessert.
Jim's eye, nose, and jaw still hurt.
Tell me: What should Tom have done? What about Sally? What about Jim? There are no right answers, but some are better than others.
(Make no mistake: there are wrong answers.)

--
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
1. Re:Parable of the school yard by iserlohn · 2012-06-02 21:19 · Score: 2
  
  Thanks for posting the origin story for Kill Bill.
  
  --
  :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
2. Re:Parable of the school yard by shmlco · 2012-06-03 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's a fairly elaborate straw man scenario you've set up in an attempt to "prove" some point.
  Where's that part about how the teacher drags Bill off to the principle's office for discipline?
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
3. Re:Parable of the school yard by gd2shoe · 2012-06-03 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  It's not all that elaborate.
  Technically, it's not a straw man argument. That would be if I portrayed your position in a manner that is easy to knock down. I didn't portray your views at all. I portrayed mine.
  I didn't set it up to prove anything. Analogies prove nothing. I only set it up to communicate something. Did you understand?
  To your question: Have you never wanted to tell someone to "grow up"? Sometimes it seems there are no adults in this world. Sometimes we act like it.
  (If you really insist on having a teacher in this scenario, assume they're incompetent and not paying attention; oh, and Jim's parents are borderline child-neglectors. This is really over-thinking the analogy. All analogies break if examined too closely.)
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
4. Re:Parable of the school yard by shmlco · 2012-06-04 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that you setup a specific scenario with a deliberately limited menu of inputs and available options, in an attempt to portray an analogy to the existing situation. The problem is, as you admitted, the analogy breaks down rather quickly the moment one attempts to step out of the box, which in turn suggests that it's not even a close analogy to the question at hand.
  Real world solutions to problems tend to be a bit messy, and, as you indicated, often have no right answers. But some are better than others, and typically more than just one answer is needed.
  
  --
  Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
5. Re:Parable of the school yard by gd2shoe · 2012-06-04 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite. I picked a deliberate set of motivations. I didn't give any options at all. I presume they exist. I can come up with several. I assume that you could too, if you wanted to. But more important, did you understand?
  It's not that the analogy breaks down, it's that you deliberately grabbed an element that has no likeness to reality. I don't expect God or space aliens to force us to play nice. It would be a good deus ex machina, but I wouldn't hope for it.
  Dude, every analogy breaks down quickly when you step out of the box. Yes all of them. Yes, very quickly. This one is more robust than most. You're just trying to find the easy answer, when there is none.
  And yes, the actual problem will require more than one solution. We've already had a couple of great ones, and a few terrible ones.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
watch the watchers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 21:35 · Score: 0

Pull one down. Open it up. Install a small battery powered GPS, accelerometer and camera that transmit via mobile phone to a live Internet stream. Return it to the site in a state that externally looks like it needs a laboratory service. ....and wait.
They are to stop the tinfoil smugglers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 23:07 · Score: 0

You can't say "tinfoil hat time" when the Aluminum plants in Massena are shutdown and the all of the routes of transit
are being monitored by (hidden) cameras. The goal is to keep people from protecting themselves with tinfoil hats.
Pretty soon, the supermarkets will suddenly be "out of aluminum foil". Then the New World Order will fully come out
of the closet....Be scared, very scared....
Update to the story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 00:38 · Score: 0

"Most of the “mystery” license-plate reading cameras that appeared recently on utility poles along major North Country highways were installed by law enforcement searching for drug runners and aliens."
http://northcountrynow.com/news/cameras-along-north-country-highways-part-franklin-county-border-task-force-innitiative-058645
Hot gloves. by CrAlt · 2012-06-03 01:09 · Score: 1

http://www.amazon.com/OTC-3991-12-Hybrid-Electric-Safety/dp/B004GDSPLS
Even the lowest end of hot gloves are safe at 110/220.
There are 2 levels of power on the poles in most places. The high voltage at the top (primary) and the lower voltage (secondary) down lower. This is what feeds the houses. As long as you don't cause a short there isnt much danger if your careful. Just look at the rampant power theft that goes on in Mexico and India. They don't even have hot gloves and get away with it often.
Clipping some power leads on to a 110 line isn't that big of a deal as long as you know what you are doing.

--
I have to return some videotapes...
Who owns them? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 03:08 · Score: 0

The way I understand it is David Gant sp blocked NY from having red light cameras for years.
One of the people that worked for him got a job for a manufacturer of the cameras.
They were not the kind what, 90% of the rest of the US uses, and then suddenly Daviv Gant supported using red light cameras in NY as long as they met specifications that happened only to be met by the company now employing his former staffer.
So, I'd guess, it's related to that.
I mean, if anyone knows I'd say David Gant would.
Paintball by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 04:34 · Score: 0

I can't think of a better purpose for a paintball gun
I hope we'll have new robotic overlords! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 08:08 · Score: 0

If 'nobody' owns these cameras then that means they belong to 'everyone'. And since I'm part of everyone I guess keeping those cameras for myself wouldn't be a crime.
Re:Trespassing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 23:30 · Score: 0

Interesting but unlikely. I doubt that the power company as an organization has any interest in making a point about mystery cameras, and I doubt that any individual employee has the authority to take the initiative on this.