Slashdot Mirror
Vast Surveillance Network Powered By Repo Men
v3rgEz writes "Even as some police departments curtail their use of license plate scanning technology over privacy concerns, private companies have been amassing a much larger, almost completely unregulated database that pulls in billions of scans a year, marking the exact time and location of millions of vehicles across America. The database, which is often offered to law enforcement for free, is collected by repo and towing companies eager to tap easy revenue, while the database companies then resell that data, often for as little as $25 for a plate's complete recorded history."
The life of a repo man is always intense.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yup, my SIL got picked off this way. Aparently there are cars that drive through neighborhood recording license plates, and when a license plate matches one that a repo man is looking for, the location is sent forward. She thought she was scot-free because she was living with her BF, but the car got towed anyway. Should have paid her bill...
Or are we all eventually going to end up in some "Orwellian 1984" kinda thing. i.e. Are we gonna have RFID's surgically plugged into us by police states .
Oh wait ...
I was talking with a bunch of folks recently, and I pointed out that consumer debt is relatively new. Sure there were layaway plans and credit with an individual store - your tab, but this huge industry that throws money out left and right to basically make us slaves.
I think many of our societies problems can go back to consumer debt: these invasions of privacy, college costs going through the roof, this treadmill of consumerism: cars, electronics, luxury goods.
All in all, things were a bit better when credit wasn't so easily available.
Before Henry Ford started financing his cars, folks had to have the cash; which made cars a luxury item. And most people had to take public transportation - which was viable because few people had cars. And of course, we wouldn't need all this oil if we didn't have so many cars.
When you sit down and think about it, consumer credit has really distorted our economy. We all have lost the need and desire to save.
The government can't afford to spy on us, but the corporations make money doing it. So they can afford to do it more.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
what else is new
Well, in this case it's some capitalists taking advantage of a business opportunity to spy on you. What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this, when someone wants to look where I've been driving my car.
Which is worse, the government spying on you or business, which then sells the info, perhaps to someone who could be interested in robbing you or kidnapping your child, and using this sort of information as a resource?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Politician runs for office in district A. To meet the residency requirements he claims he lives in his Mom's spare room in District A. License plate scans reveal his car lives in District B - in the parking lot for his mistress's condo.
Or are we all eventually going to end up in some "Orwellian 1984" kinda thing. i.e. Are we gonna have RFID's surgically plugged into us by police states .
You are missing the point, its not the government, its private individuals doing the data acquisition.
Move the camera from the car to glasses, and have the private individual walking through a crowd recording faces, for some commercial reason, rather than driving around recording license plates. Now add private individuals acting as "video vigilantes" recording anything they think suspicious or wrong.
An Orwellian thing may occur simply through our lack of courtesy, a lack of respect for someone else's privacy. Government involvement may not be necessary.
The major problems I see with this is there is no oversight. How accurate are the readers? How accurate are the databases? What recourse is there when they make a mistake? That sort of thing. Without oversight there is vast potential for abuse. The various companies involved need to be licensed and regulated. There needs to be PCI-like compliance for their databases and equipment.
There are lots of other questions here. Parking lots are by and large on private property. These drivers with the scanners are utilizing the private property for profit. I mean, I can't just set up a booth in Walmart's parking lot and start selling stuff. I would need their permission, for starters, and they would probably want a lease, proof of insurance, etc, etc.
My worry is that my car will be mistaken for another car on a repo list and towed somewhere. Then it becomes a legal nighmare getting it back, with no prospect for compensation or damages.
Proverbs 21:19
Open sources scanner software that works with a cheap USB camera and license plate wiki - that stores every scanned tag with number and state data. How fast do you think it would take legislators to decide it was a bad idea and outlaw scanners? Probably a few seconds after one of their own gets asked some embarrassing questions. The best way to fight such privacy threats is to embrace and extend their use to those in power.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Well, in this case it's some capitalists taking advantage of a business opportunity to spy on you. What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this, when someone wants to look where I've been driving my car.
You don't have to sign a release to be recorded in public as you have no expectation of privacy. Unless a law is passed making it illegal use public images to track an individual or vehicle there is nothing to stop this sort of thing.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
what else is new
What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this
No need for you to agree to this. On a public street they are free to collect information. So scanning your license plate and recording the location and time can happen without your knowledge or consent. They can then sell this information to whomever they want. If you don't like it, stay home.
What I find amazing is there is a large segment of the population who will get up in arms over this kind of collection, dig out their pitchforks and storm the castle, but will willingly post GEO tagged photos online to document their "privacy" protest activities. These same people will run Google maps, Wayze or other applications on their smartphone to navigate their way to the protest, then do the same to find someplace to eat, while cranking up the coupon application to find a deal on the sandwich they are hungry for. These folks don't think twice about their privacy in any other context.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The government. Definitely the government.
Last I checked, robbers and kidnappers weren't using drones to send hellfire missiles into American Citizens homes without judicial review.
If the US would get their head out of their asses and realize there needs to be things like privacy laws which dictate what information companies can collect and for what purposes, this would not be an issue.
Right now in the US, anything which restricts corporations right to act like douchebags, and collect and sell your personal information is unrestricted.
And any republican or libertarian who tells you this is fine is a sack of shit.
There's a difference between someone using their camcorder to video tape you, and a person following you everywhere you go with multiple cameras.
I have no problem with a private individual or company doing this.
I have a big problem with the government, who has the ability to deprive me of my posessions, my freedom, and my life, being able to do this.
I wonder how else a private company can work with the government to get around restrictions placed on the government?
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
Not legally.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
. What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this, when someone wants to look where I've been driving my car.
Wait? You actually believe this story?
You've seen one of these so called scanner-cars driving the parking lots?
There simply aren't enough repo men in business to warrant this, and those defaulting on car loans are well known to the banks, they could just go to the house the deadbeat lives in, where they work, or report the vehicle as stolen and let the police handle it.
I'm calling bs on the the entire thing, probably a ploy to drum up scanner sales. Pictures or it doesn't happen.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I don't think we need regulations that prohibit this kind of data collection by private companies or individuals (the government is a different story). Collecting data nonintrusively shouldn't be illegal, because such laws would have all sorts of nasty side effects.
Instead of restrictive regulations, we need legislation that empowers people to protect themselves from this kind of thing. For example, maybe the requirement to display a large identifying string of characters on vehicles should be rethought. We don't require people to wear identifying signs around their necks every time they venture out in the public. License plates just make this kind of data collection too easy.
If our society is unwilling to get rid of license plates entirely, perhaps we could go to electronic ones. Static plates could be replaced by electronic displays that automatically go blank when the car is parked.
Right now the playing field isn't level. Instead of leveling it by taking rights away, we should give people the ability to easily and legally protect themselves.
Or perhaps some out-of-the-box thinking would yield practical countermeasures that are already legal. Of course, then the challenge might be keeping those countermeasures from being outlawed.
Sounds like the case celebs use against paparazzi.
I don't so mind being photographed (or my property automatically scanned) in public but what I do mind is people making a profit on it.
I want the data brokers and/or repo companies to cut me a check every-time a database with my information is used to make money.
Legally there is not and trying to separate the two without stepping on 1st amendment rights would be next to impossible. Also note that the cameras are simply mounted near intersections or other busy areas and plate numbers are extracted. There is no way to differentiate recording at intersections and a gas station on the corner having security cameras, the only way is to make tracking information of a person or their property the property of that person then it can only be released by that person.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
a person following you everywhere you go with multiple cameras.
But, that is not what they are doing.
They are driving through parking lots taking pictures of license plates, then OCRing the images and storing the location and plate information in a database.
If you don't like someone taking a picture of your car, don't park your car in a public place where a picture can be taken of it. If you don't want someone taking a picture of your license plate, figure out a way to obscure it while parked.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Thank (all the gods), this kind of thing is illegal in Finland. And most likely in the EU too.
I will be tracked everywhere all the time with these scanners
Most scanners are mounted on vehicles like parking ticket authorities and tow trucks. The drive up and down the street scanning parked vehicles. There is no way every vehicle will be scanned all the time.
What about stationary cameras?
Where would these tow companies place these stationary cameras and get a lot of coverage? Sure they could try to place them on every light pole but I doubt local authorities would approve. Sure they can scan as people come and go from a lot but if you don't want to be scanned don't use the lot.
I will be tracked everywhere I go
No, your license plate will be tracked when a scanning vehicle comes by or you use a lot that scans. The piece of information that the scanning company does not have is any information about the owner of the license plate. The information can be obtained but only for a few specific reasons. California for example, look at the "Permissible Use" section. I don't see "Because I want to sell tracking information" there as permissible use.
These databases will contain license plate numbers and not people's names.
So, you're saying it's immoral, unacceptable, or unaccepted for me to recognize John's car parked out front of the office, and then (if asked) to say "I think he's here today, I saw his car out front in the public parking lot..."?
I think what you're calling for is a fundamental change to the constitution to recognize an intrinsic right to privacy in public.
What I find amazing is there is a large segment of the population who will get up in arms over this kind of collection, dig out their pitchforks and storm the castle, but will willingly post GEO tagged photos online to document their "privacy" protest activities. These same people will run Google maps, Wayze or other applications on their smartphone to navigate their way to the protest, then do the same to find someplace to eat, while cranking up the coupon application to find a deal on the sandwich they are hungry for. These folks don't think twice about their privacy in any other context.
You don't see the difference? Google Maps, Waze, etc. provide a useful service to the user in return for that information. Repo camera databases don't.
Goddammit, this shit needs to stop NOW.
We need to establish the understanding that there is a significant distinction between OBSERVING and RECORDING.
Yes, it is reasonable to say that you shouldn't expect privacy in a public setting, but this has historically been in the context of observation, not recording. The ubiquity and accessibility of modern recording devices completely alters the dynamic. Observation forgets, relinquishes and carries with it an element of humanity. Recording is cold, factual and unforgiving. This can be useful for some things (court proceedings, for example), but not everything; probably not most things.
No, you shouldn't expect privacy from individuals or the press. Yes, should be able to expect privacy from government and businesses who make recordings to be used against you.
Context is everything.
I know this is simply the stupidest, most trivial gripe anyone could make but I'm going to put it out just the same:
Back into parking spots ALWAYS. Do it for for safety. Do it for your car. Do it for convenience. Do it for 'the children.' And now, do it for privacy.
Many states do not require a license place in the front. I live in one of those states. For those who do, I'm sorry. Lobby for a change. Backing into your parking spots will reduce the likelihood that one of these scanners will record your car's location.
Backing in for safety is good to be sure the spot is clear when you enter it. You have to drive by the spot before backing in, so you know you aren't about to park in a spot occupied by a person, a motorcycle or one of those ridiculous smart cars. What's more, when you depart your parking spot, you will have the clearest possible view as you enter traffic because you don't have to back into a completely invisible and unknown situation. This also allows you to leave much more quickly since you can see where you are going. That's a great plus since quite often people are in a bigger hurry to leave than they are to arrive.
Backing in prevents people from hitting your car accidentally as you back out of parking spaces. Can you tell who is coming through that parking lane as you back out? I've seen too many cars hurt this way and it's tragic. And who has TIME to argue about it when you can just form a habit which prevents it all from happening in the first place?
Backing in means you get to leave going forward. It's not just safer, it's faster. The only potential inconvenience is access to one's trunk or rear storage area. That's probably the only exception to the rule I suppose. If you're planning to load something large, going in forward might be the best way, but it also leave you and your friends and family standing out in the parking lanes waiting for the next jerk-hole to come along and clip you needlessly.
And backing in means you have less risk of accidentally hurting a child. It's never a complete guarantee as kids just go everywhere, but can you say you did everything in your power if you aren't backing in and pulling out forward? It's when backing OUT kids are injured and killed more often. Those read-facing camera systems are really nice, especially for people who are unable to exercise full motion of their spine and neck. For for everyone else, there is no substitute for real eyes on the scene.
And now for privacy? Holy crap. Every day we learn there is yet another jerk-hole out there making money by recording and selling information about you. I wish for these people to die in a fire. They simply have no concept of what harm they are bringing to society. They just care about the dollars they can collect and spend on crap they don't need.
Seriously. Make a new habit if you don't do this already. BACK IN when parking. It's not hard. Just practice at it.
And here's the best mirror-hack of all time for backing in. Most cars these days have a passenger-side mirror and it's used to see cars which would otherwise be in a blind spot. But you don't need to see the sky with it -- just what's on the road. How about angling that mirror down a bit further so you can see more of the road. When backing into a parking spot, you will be able to see the lines of the parking spot on the other side and if you can still see the body panels of your car on that side, you can even achieve perfect alignment every time by checking if you are parallel to the line and how much room you have on the other side. There are thousand-dollar electronic sensors which serve this purpose but all anyone has to do is angle the passenger-side mirror down a little to get the same thing!!
Anyway. I hope someone actually reads this and gets something useful from it.
Sure, legally. At some point such behavior by an actual human being would creep the shit out of you and fulfill the definition of stalking, which is definitely illegal in the US (specifics vary by state). If only such laws could be applied to automated cameras and databases...
But the Democrats who support it will get a pass.
I know... if you have nothing to hide...
TFA states that they drive around apartment complex parking lots and shopping centers. These are private property.
Also, I think it's illegal in some states to obscure your license plate.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Not federally.
FTFY
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I would love to see them get charged with ~200,000,000 counts of stalking... :)
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
Also, I think it's illegal in some states to obscure your license plate.
As far as I know, it's illegal in every state to obscure your plate... while operating the vehicle on a public road.
When parked, not so much. Perhaps a James Bond-style rotating plate, or a cover that slides down over it when you shift into Park?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
They don’t drive into parking lots – they put up cameras along freeways, bridges, and other high traffic areas. It can’t tell where you are parked but it can tell what neighborhood you are in.
Goddammit, this shit needs to stop NOW.
We need to establish the understanding that there is a significant distinction between OBSERVING and RECORDING.
I think the best way to achieve that would be to A) increase awareness of the situation, and B) encourage people to use those same tactics against the people who are invading our privacy for personal profit - When you see some sleazeball cruising your parking lot with a camera, point one right back at him, and upload the images to a public shaming database.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Parking lots are generally considered public areas. Unless there is a sign forbidding photography or something barring entrance, there is nothing illegal or immoral or unethical.
If it is illegal to obscure one's license plate, then using a car cover would be illegal. To the best of my knowledge, it is only illegal to obscure one's license plate while the vehicle is in motion. After, all, if you live in a location that only requires one license plate, it would then be illegal to back into a parking space.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Last I checked, The Gubment isn't using drones to send hellfire missiles into American Citizen's homes without Judicial Review.
Check again; Anwar al Awlaki was an American citizen who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen.
Oh, I get it - you mean they haven't drone-struck (striked?) any American citizen on American soil! Well, technically, that is correct, although I recall it being discussed during the manhunt of Christopher Dorner, and in fact the President and Attorney General have already discussed the legality of such an action - they agree that it would be legal to murder US citizens without trial, on American soil.
Which means it's only a matter of time before it happens. Government types aren't likely to give up a power once they've established it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Sure, legally. At some point such behavior by an actual human being would creep the shit out of you and fulfill the definition of stalking, which is definitely illegal in the US (specifics vary by state). If only such laws could be applied to automated cameras and databases...
If all you do if follow someone on public property you are not stalking them in a legal sense. Trespassing, vandalism, threats, ... must be present for there to be stalking. A protection order would not be written for simply following someone unless it was uncontested.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Ah, no. Go back and Reread TFA (for the first time)
Few notice the “spotter car” from Manny Sousa’s repo company as it scours Massachusetts parking lots,
Private companies do not put scanners in road right-of-ways.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
In the UK places like that are a kind of grey area. They're private places to which the public are [conditionally] admitted.
I think it's similar in the US, no? Mall security can request people to leave[1], and if they don't it's trespass. they have no intrinsic right to be there.
[1] there are exceptions to this. A policy of "No niggers, queers or pope-suckers" is not, generally, legally binding.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Not quite. Paparazzi are intrusive. They get in people's faces and the constant photo flashes are annoying. There are also paparazzi who insist on asking questions (aka TMZ).This is far different than license place scans.
Oh I see the difference, I just don't think folks who get upset about data collection in PUBLIC have a right to complain. Given most of those mindless privacy advocates who didn't read the EULA when installing these applications on their smartphones generally don't understand how they just opted into providing data that is WAY more invasive than some guy in a truck scanning license plates which are in full public view as he drives down the public streets.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
A better simile is a number of people spread out all over the place who take pictures of everyone and sort them by face. No single person is being followed therefore no stalking. The big difference is that most of the time pictures are not being taken. There is no way to know where is person has been between when the pictures are taken. License plate scanners are not everywhere.
If your car is parked in a public place (i.e. the road), you can't cover up the license plate.
Private property (i.e. apartment block parking lot) it's ok.
I have no opinion about the "immoral or unethical" question...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Is that about the place that your car is towed to upon request by the cops, and then you get to there and pay through the nose to get your car back?
No, that's an impound lot.
Repossession men typically work for private companies, like title loan joints.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yes and no. Even though they are private places to which the public is allowed, unless there is something to indicate that no photography is permitted, there is no reason for one not to take pictures, be it of people or license plates. And, security can request on leave for pretty much any reason and have the police come if one refuses and a trespass warrant can be sworn out saying if you return you will be arrested, that again becomes a question of will the action be detected and will it be anything anyone thinks of as untoward.
Basically, while one doesn't have an intrinsic right to be there, there is nothing saying one doesn't have permission to take pictures.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I am doubtful of that. If I park my car and put a car cover on it, it will cover the license plate. And, it would definitely depend on jurisdiction. What is illegal in one town/county/city/state may be legal in the next. A good example of this is the dry counties/towns. My mother lives in a dry county, but a wet town. But, the next town over is dry as well. And, the next county over is wet. And, of course, alcohol is completely legal in the state I live in.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Following someone around on public property is now stalking?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Government can afford to do scanning that doesn't make money.
Government can send people using deadly force after you.
Government can declare itself immune from the law if it makes a mistake.
It's much harder for non-governments to do any of the above.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Well, in this case it's some capitalists taking advantage of a business opportunity to spy on you. What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this, when someone wants to look where I've been driving my car.
You don't have to sign a release to be recorded in public as you have no expectation of privacy. Unless a law is passed making it illegal use public images to track an individual or vehicle there is nothing to stop this sort of thing.
That law would not be Constitutional in the US.
It's their camera, on their car. You are in a public place. They can record the shit out of you. They can manipulate the recording data however they want. They can sell the data to whomever they want, for whatever price they can get. If the government ban that shit paparazzi would be illegal. Which means that a) it's unconstitutional to stop private companies from creating Big Data, and b) the government doesn't need a warrant to look at records held by Big Data. Which means that opposing a lot of NSA dragnets makes sense, but if you make it impossible for the government to use things like license-plate cameras on it's own they'll simply pay some private business to do it and you've lost privacy rights because the businesses entire job is to violate your privacy rights.
This is actually the Constitutional weakness that always hurts us in the US. Our Constitution restricts the government's use of it's own powers, but it says nothing about what we can do to each-other.
Thank (all the gods), this kind of thing is illegal in Finland. And most likely in the EU too.
By "this kind of thing", you mean using a camera in public, right? Is that really illegal in Europe?
In many countries, it is effectively illegal to take pictures that would compromise privacy of an individual in public. /. incredulity...
Here's a per-country summary in case you are actually interested in learning about this and aren't just spouting typical
Really there's only a right to take a picture in the US.
I don't know about illegal, but it's definitely a huge pain in the ass.
Google StreetView isn't exactly a huge invasion of privacy, but they still had to jump through all kinds of legal hoops to get permission to photograph streets where ordinary people were going about their business.
Following someone around on public property is now stalking?
For particular values of "following someone around," yes, depending on the state you're in. But that's not a new thing, we've had anti-stalking laws in one form or another since the 1980's at least.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Who said anything about using the data against you? It's like a credit reporting database. Sometimes it will be used against people, but sometimes it will be used for them. Yes it could screw you over, but if the PI (or the cop) checks the license plate database and finds out you've been going to work just like you said that's a good thing.
As for the difference between "observation" and "recording," that won't happen without a Constitutional Amendment.
Goddammit, this shit needs to stop NOW.
We need to establish the understanding that there is a significant distinction between OBSERVING and RECORDING.
I think the best way to achieve that would be to A) increase awareness of the situation, and B) encourage people to use those same tactics against the people who are invading our privacy for personal profit - When you see some sleazeball cruising your parking lot with a camera, point one right back at him, and upload the images to a public shaming database.
And how will public shame work on repo men?
In some states it is already illegal to put any kind of cover over a car's license plates.
The law originated with the louvered covers that were designed to block off-angle observation (so that the stationary radar gun wagons by the side of the road could not get a clear pic of your license plate as you sped by).
> recall signing any sort of release
The Republicans decided long ago that only the rich and famous have the right to privacy. That is why those people can take our pictures without a release, but to take the picture of someone in power, the photographer must have prewritten permission or face beating and/or prison time. I know here in Seattle that the SPD takes photography very seriously. Simply having a professional looking camera can earn you time in jail. In the view of the conservatives that rule this city, we don't have the right to take pictures.
Goddammit, this shit needs to stop NOW.
We need to establish the understanding that there is a significant distinction between OBSERVING and RECORDING.
I think the best way to achieve that would be to A) increase awareness of the situation, and B) encourage people to use those same tactics against the people who are invading our privacy for personal profit - When you see some sleazeball cruising your parking lot with a camera, point one right back at him, and upload the images to a public shaming database.
And how will public shame work on repo men?
I'm picturing a nice banner across the top of the public-facing website: THESE PEOPLE ARE PROFESSIONAL THIEVES! DO NOT TRUST! DO NOT ALLOW ONTO YOUR PROPERTY! With a fair amount of FUD following, something that will get property owners good and freaked.
On top of that, if you can get enough plate pictures to draw up a nice little map of all their travels, their... potentially questionable activities may take care of the problem; I imagine a repo-man's wife, upon perusing the site, asking her husband why he was at her sister's house for 2 hours when he was told her it would be a 'late night at the office.'
Just spitballin'
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yeah, I did the standard Slashdot thing – comment first then read the article.
As for Companies not putting scanners on right of ways – it is not a issue. They either rent space from the municipality or the put the cameras on private property that overlooks said roads. From my understanding – which is 2nd hand – this is where most of the data comes from. (And there have been cases where unauthorized cameras have been found attached to bridges where the owners have not been forthcoming.)
Even HuffPo got it right, outside of the sensational article title.
"The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder wrote.
In short, he said he could imagine such a situation, but it'd take something akin to Pearl Harbor or 911 to even get into the realm of speculation.
Last I checked, The Gubment isn't using drones to send hellfire missiles into American Citizen's homes without Judicial Review.
Check again; Anwar al Awlaki was an American citizen who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen.
Oh, I get it - you mean they haven't drone-struck (striked?) any American citizen on American soil! Well, technically, that is correct, although I recall it being discussed during the manhunt of Christopher Dorner, and in fact the President and Attorney General have already discussed the legality of such an action - they agree that it would be legal to murder US citizens without trial, on American soil.
Which means it's only a matter of time before it happens. Government types aren't likely to give up a power once they've established it.
Two points:
1) It's not murder if it's legal, by definition, so you've inserted your conclusion into your argument.
2) If cops can kill a guy in a shoot-out, why wouldn't they have the ability to kill him with a sniper rifle? If they can do it with a rifle, why can't they do it with the mechanical aid of a scope? If they can use that mechanical aid, why can't they use the mechanical aid of a drone?
The key question here has nothing to do with drone technology, it's do the cops/Army/etc. ever have the ability to blow the shit out of some dude who is not actively trying to kill them. And they do. If they have an honest belief that you're an insane serial killer who will open up on the next person you see, they can take your ass out. If they turn out to be wrong your family will get a really nice settlement check, but that doesn't mean they all get arrested for murder.
Well, pardon me for not feeling that Eric Holder is the most trustworthy person when it comes to respecting the rule of law; his track record to that end kinda sucks.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Keep in mind that it doesn't take a lot to make this story true.
Say there's a really big mall that has hundreds cars in the lot on a typical Saturday. Somebody's probably behind on his car payments. If you have a database of cars that you can legally repo, a license plate reader, and 10 minutes you can probably find a car to repossess. OTOH idling in front of this one guy's house will only result in a repo if he's been stupid enough to park where you can see him. A repo-man repeats that process in 5-6 malls every weekend for a month and you've got a database that would be quite interesting to any number of people.
For example, say one of the malls includes a hotel. A wife hiring a PI to figure out whether her husband is actually going on business every weekend on business like he says would pay good money to find out whether his car is parked in the lot of the hotel he's got a receipt from.
Or take law enforcement. If the cops have a suspect whose alibi is he was at one of your malls, which he drove to in his car, then it would be really helpful for them to have access to your database.
Goddammit, this shit needs to stop NOW.
We need to establish the understanding that there is a significant distinction between OBSERVING and RECORDING.
Yes, it is reasonable to say that you shouldn't expect privacy in a public setting, but this has historically been in the context of observation, not recording. The ubiquity and accessibility of modern recording devices completely alters the dynamic. Observation forgets, relinquishes and carries with it an element of humanity. Recording is cold, factual and unforgiving. This can be useful for some things (court proceedings, for example), but not everything; probably not most things.
No, you shouldn't expect privacy from individuals or the press. Yes, should be able to expect privacy from government and businesses who make recordings to be used against you.
Context is everything.
Agreed- I can imagine, however, that if the ball started rolling to enact restrictions, law enforcement would find a way to twist the common-sense arguments you make above, in order to legally restrict the public from recording officers.
So, you're saying it's immoral, unacceptable, or unaccepted for me to recognize John's car parked out front of the office, and then (if asked) to say "I think he's here today, I saw his car out front in the public parking lot..."?
This is a good point, however society must decide what differences exist between your scenario above, and the recording and permanent storage of all (most?) of John's car's locations via automated recognition technology. The information stored for John's car includes not only discrete locations but information about John derived by the mining/analysis of patterns certainly contained therein as well.
I think the subject may be more nuanced than you imply.
If they have an honest belief that you're an insane serial killer who will open up on the next person you see, they can take your ass out. If they turn out to be wrong your family will get a really nice settlement check, but that doesn't mean they all get arrested for murder.
Maybe they should?
I mean, if the County Sheriff, looking for an insane serial killer, executes a no-knock warrant on my house in error, then storms into my bedroom and kills me because "I may have been reaching for a gun".... The shooter(s), as well as the idiot(s) that screwed up identifying the correct street address should be prosecuted for murder- they should have to take responsibility for their actions. Prosecutions for murder in this type of case have not, and will never, ever happen. Ever.
I think it likely that in the same scenario, if I was scared awake by someone kicking down my door at 3AM, and fearing a home invasion / robbery I grabbed a rifle and killed the men barging into my bedroom, I would likely spend many, many years in jail, if not for murder then for some other charge.
From reading about a fair number of scenarios just like this, it seems that while law enforcement would prefer for this not to happen, once it actually does... LE closes ranks to protect the guilty at the expense of justice- just like the bad guys do. There might be a lot fewer screw-ups if they actually had to take responsibility.
I'm a little tired of this.
Is there a difference between someone using their camcorder and someone outfitting a fleet of vehicles with cameras to record your license plate, location, and time/date? Yes - the fleet is able to track you without alerting you so easily.
Should I expect that the government be permitted to track my activities in public without a warrant? No.
Why should I expect a business to be permitted to do the same thing?
And why should I permit such a business to do this for profit? I should not. While this considered to be 'in public', most parking lots are actually private property.
This seems wrong a level that trouble me greatly.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Well, in this case it's some capitalists taking advantage of a business opportunity to spy on you. What bothers me is I don't recall signing any sort of release on this, when someone wants to look where I've been driving my car.
You don't have to sign a release to be recorded in public as you have no expectation of privacy. Unless a law is passed making it illegal use public images to track an individual or vehicle there is nothing to stop this sort of thing.
Recording, no.
Publishing, yes.
Selling, yes.
Australia solved this problem years ago, we cant stop people from recording in public so we give our implied consent to be recorded in public. However we can stop people from publishing or selling those images and any related data about me without my express consent, more over, it's easy to find and charge them when they sell data.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Your theme music would be more like this.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
A Kinect and other sensors could be used to scan -everything- in public places. Eventually it will be possible to infer the health of politicians, the mood of CEO's, the anger level in police, and the amount of panic everyone feels in an economic recession. There are no laws at all about scanning people and anything else in public with sensors (except microphones and sometimes cameras). Add some machine learning and imagine the databases you could build and sell!
So... something that happens every 70 years or so? Forgive me if I'm not reassured.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
...then it means the suspect is actively attacking, right at that moment; i.e., the lives of officers or third parties are in immediate danger.
Because it WASN'T A GODDAMNED SHOOTOUT, YOU FASCIST TWAT!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's happened where I work (a suburban office park in a middle-class area). I didn't understand why the car was driving around at the time, but in retrospect this was why.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No, taking pictures in public is explicitly allowed in Finland. Collecting data about people is not.
"There's gonna be a meter
on your bed
that will disclose
what everybody knows"
- L. Cohen 1988
How often do you put a cover on your car when parking on the street?
If you're worried about it just put a post-it note over one of the letters on your plates each time you park on a public street.
It would be cool if we could track the trackers, and post their location on maps in real time; showing where they troll for cars, where they park at night, what donut stores they frequent. After all, the license plate trackers are plainly visible, anybody could see them and remember where and and when they did.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
that is horrible, has to secure private infor.www.szwelder.com
Complete and utter bullshit. I think you may have set a record...four sentences, with four complete fabrications.
Just another day in Paradise
i watch tmz a lot, and can vouch for the fact that they get up in peoples faces and ask them provocative questions to try to get a rise out of them.
A policy of "No n-words, q-words or catholics" is not, generally, legally binding.
actually no, it's expressly prohibited by the civil rights act, which itself is an implementation of the 14th amendment. so it is very illegal to do so and will get your ass sued.
Don't be stupid. The US Constitution doesn't restrict my swinging my fist, yet if on Federal land I swing my fist through the space occupied by your face every judge will rule I'm in the wrong. Perhaps you'd just say it was unconstitutional for the government to interfere with my punching you in the face?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
So, you're saying it's immoral, unacceptable, or unaccepted for me to kill John while in public on the streets of Washington DC and tell you about it?
I think what you're calling for is a fundamental change to the constitution to recognize an intrinsic right to life in public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I suspect that a straying wife or husband might be murdered by a spouse if knowledge that the car has been parked at a lover's home. But i don't think the practice of data collection and sale should be banned. After all that plate is public in nature and view. It is far worse when only the government has the right to use such tools. And for civilians you just might save your teens life if you find that he is visiting a drug house etc.. Car insurance companies might offer cheaper policies to those not prone to parking near places that serve booze. In other words it is not all bad news. The public also needs to consider the positive consequences of allowing study of others habits.
I saw his car in the parking lot yesterday, too, so I'm pretty sure he was here yesterday.
As has been often lamented around here, a crime doesn't automatically become more heinous simply because a computer (or other technology) is involved. (Think... bank robbery by "hacking" instead of walking in with a note.) By the same standard, an acceptable act really doesn't become unacceptable just because it's automated.
If it's OK for me to drive around looking for someone's car, it is similarly OK for you to do the same. If it's OK for me to take pictures (or videos) while on a public street, it's OK for you to do the same. I'm pretty sure that if you or I found something interesting in our travels, we could take out our notebooks and write something about where we where, and when, and what we saw. We don't get to say that it's not OK for another private individual to drive around and take pictures just because they're going to use a computer to review the pictures and possibly highlight features of interest.
You say the subject may be more nuanced than I suggest; I don't think so. If action A is acceptable, and action B is acceptable, and action C is acceptable, how could doing all three together be unacceptable?
That depends on the circumstances.
If John was posing an imminent threat to your life, then you might have a justifiable self-defense excuse.
In our society, killing people, in general, is illegal (and immoral, and unacceptable, and unaccepted).
The United States Declaration of Independence specifically lists "life" as an inalienable right, and last I checked, DC was within US jurisdiction. Further, the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution already recognizes an intrinsic right to life ("...nor be deprived of life... without due process of law.").
No fundamental change is necessary; it's already in there.
Well, lets see.
The first stalking law was passed in 1990.
http://www.victimsofcrime.org/... pg 10
EVERY stalking law has some phrase saying that the stalker has to terrorize the stalkee.
Walking around on public property is not terrorizing. Even if you're watching one person all the time.
Public property is ... wait for it ... open to the public.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I was talking with a bunch of folks recently, and I pointed out that consumer debt is relatively new. Sure there were layaway plans and credit with an individual store - your tab, but this huge industry that throws money out left and right to basically make us slaves. photocall barato photocall para bodas
I can vouch for it second-hand. my SIL got her car repossessed even though she moved in with her bf so the repo men couldn't find her. she found out a scanner car had been trolling the neighborhoods and found her car.
I can see how it would be profitable, because you don't have to scan ALL neighborhoods, just shitty ones. it's like you don't fish in the entire ocean, just the parts where you know there will be fish.
I wasn't focusing on the technological aspect of it, even though technology does enable the large volume of data captures.
I guess what I was trying to say was that instead of one (or two, or three....) capture(s) of John's car's location in a public space, there is, in this situation, a concerted effort being made to capture all of the locations, whether by video or notebook. I was implying that the "nuances" of volume and intent of the behavior should be considered, and not so much the technological means with which the behavior is executed- and by saying this, I'm not demanding that the repo company's behavior be condemned out of hand, even though I personally don't like what they're doing.
The situation is a relative microcosm of organizational behavior that's becoming common in our society, and should have all the pieces picked apart, laid out on the table and thought about very carefully. The laws and customs surrounding the observations of others in public were cast back in a time where it was relatively uncommon to follow a bunch of people and write down all of their locations, then sell the information to someone else- it may have happened now and then, but not often.
Everyone's trying to couch their arguments, for or against, in the context of what "public" and "private" used to mean- I say that we need to scrub back down to the metal and reconsider what these terms mean in 2014. You know, even as I write that, a feeling surfaces, unbidden, of indignation that I might likely be screwed under any new definitions, but these terms still need new, solid definitions within our new technological context. That context is very different now, and instead of trying to bolt a modern suspension and computer-controlled engine onto a Ford Model T, we need to design a new car that fits the new world we live in.
I'm saying that while I personally feel that mass collection and analysis of my public locations unethically exploits our outdated laws and customs that were designed for a different world: Enough of the knee-jerking, in either direction. It's time that we stop, take our time and really think this stuff through, make new laws that fit the times, strictly enforce these laws, and move on.
As a side-note and completely unsubstantiated, I get the feeling that the organizations with skin in the game would rather keep things in flux, on the off-chance that any new laws addressing the issue might curtail their activities.
It's time that we stop, take our time and really think this stuff through, make new laws that fit the times, strictly enforce these laws, and move on.
This is a reasonable viewpoint.
As we're thinking this through, however, we need to be extremely careful about what parts are actually undesirable. We probably don't want to create a society where it's technically illegal to sit in a park and write poems inspired by people passing by, or to take photos that happen to include a license plate or a person, or to get them published in a magazine.
We need to figure out what the "bad" part is, and restrict only that.
EVERY stalking law has some phrase saying that the stalker has to terrorize the stalkee.
Well pardon me for calling that hyperbole, since I'm pretty sure you haven't read every single stalking law put on the books in 30 years overnight.
Regardless, how is "terrorize" defined? Because if a state designates "following someone around with the intent to track their movements" as terrorizing, well, you're on the wrong side of the law.
Walking around on public property is not terrorizing. Even if you're watching one person all the time.
Public property is ... wait for it ... open to the public.
Yea, you've thrown that non sequitur out several times.
We're not talking about "walking around," we're talking about following someone. And if "following someone" falls into the local, legal definition of stalking and/or harassment, you're going to find yourself on the wrong side of the law. It's not black-and-white like you're trying to make it out to be, but if you disagree, here's an experiment - go to the nearest high school, wait until school lets out, pick a target of the opposite sex, and proceed to follow them around, photographing them and keeping track of their locations. After all, it's perfectly legal, right?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If doing something once is OK (acceptable, moral, etc), how is it wrong to do it a million times?
If two wrongs don't make a right, two rights don't make a wrong. (Scale as needed.)
It's really not stalking - stalking is generally targeted at a specific person. This isn't targeted at anyone in particular; it's an attempt to gather general data to learn things. I think we usually call that "science".
Well perhaps you could show me ONE "local, legal definition" that says you can't ONLY follow someone on public property.
As another poster pointed out, private investigators would be filling up our jails under these supposed statutes.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Well perhaps you could show me ONE "local, legal definition" that says you can't ONLY follow someone on public property.
Well, I'm not going to honor your new goalpost location of "ONLY... on public property," since that was never a criteria, but here's an excerpt from Ohio's anti-stalking law:
Further down the page, "menacing by stalking" is given a few definitions:
Note the emphasized statements; also note that they do not specify whether the stalking behavior occurs on public or private property. Basically, if I catch you following me twice "within a reasonable amount of time," and I feel like the action of you following me is threatening, I can have you arrested for stalking.
As another poster pointed out, private investigators would be filling up our jails under these supposed statutes.
In some cases, they are. But most states require private investigators to be licensed, putting them in a different class than regular, non-licensed persons. It's basically the difference between practicing medicine with or without a license - one is legal, the other is a serious infraction with consequences to match.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Goal post moving?
Holy fuck dude. I said this yesterday:
Following someone around on public property is now stalking?
And you found a statute that DOESN'T define stalker actions as an example of stalker actions? What the actual fuck dude.
And "filling up our jails" = 1 guy got arrested?
Just drop it, crazy person.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Goal post moving?
Holy fuck dude. I said this yesterday:
Following someone around on public property is now stalking?
That statement by no means indicates exclusivity. Regardless, I answered your question.
And you found a statute that DOESN'T define stalker actions as an example of stalker actions? What the actual fuck dude.
And "filling up our jails" = 1 guy got arrested?
Just drop it, crazy person.
Look, you asked for "ONE "local, legal definition" that says you can't... follow someone on public property."
I gave you what you asked for, and now you call me a crazy person, because the reality of the situation doesn't match the worldview you want to have?
Hate to break it to ya, bro, but the crazy one in this conversation? It ain't me.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person.
If you read carefully you will see that the person must knowingly cause mental distress which is defined here.
"Mental distress" means any of the following:
(a) Any mental illness or condition that involves some temporary substantial incapacity;
(b) Any mental illness or condition that would normally require psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services, whether or not any person requested or received psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services.
That means the prosecutor must prove that you were following a person with the intent to intimidate or cause mental harm. I am intimately familiar with this law as I live in Ohio and have a crazy neighbor (back yard) that would drive by my house and dump trash in my yard, walk by my house dump trash and put tree branches behind my car, dump soda on my car, which I caught on camera. The prosecutor said that they could only get him for littering because he didn't cause mental distress or threaten me.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
You should read the actual law not somebody on the internet's interpretation of it. Below is the relevant section of the actual law.
No person by engaging in a pattern of conduct shall knowingly cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the other person or cause mental distress to the other person.
If you read carefully you will see that the person must knowingly cause mental distress which is defined here.
"Mental distress" means any of the following:
(a) Any mental illness or condition that involves some temporary substantial incapacity;
(b) Any mental illness or condition that would normally require psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services, whether or not any person requested or received psychiatric treatment, psychological treatment, or other mental health services.
That means the prosecutor must prove that you were following a person with the intent to intimidate or cause mental harm. I am intimately familiar with this law as I live in Ohio and have a crazy neighbor (back yard) that would drive by my house and dump trash in my yard, walk by my house dump trash and put tree branches behind my car, dump soda on my car, which I caught on camera. The prosecutor said that they could only get him for littering because he didn't cause mental distress or threaten me.
Maybe the prosecutor doesn't like you. My mother-in-law is dealing with a similar issue, only the perpetrator in her case is a city cop, whose illegal activities are being covered for by the local mayor.
FWIW, if you were a young woman, I bet they'd have been a bit more keen to take your story seriously.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Wait, so you think a 'definition' without definitions is a definition?
Yeah, you're crazy.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
So if the cops were in a shoot-out with somebody they could call in drone support?
And they never have the ability to shoot anyone who isn't actively killing people?
You'll note that the first statement is you agreeing with me. The second is simply false, because the authorities can shoot lots of people who aren't currently actively attacking anyone. You'll note that Federal troops spent approximately zero battles during the Civil War sitting around waiting for the rebels to shoot because they were not allowed to attack unless somebody was in great danger. It wasn't unknown for them to accidentally shoot innocent civilians. And no Federal Court insisted that the Army was now an evil tool of oppression, so it should be abolished, and the rebels should keep their slaves.
Now we've got many fewer enemies, and the process for finding them is much more complicated because they don't all wear the same shirt, but that just means that there's a lot of internal process the Executive branch has to go through before OKing the target.
My position here is a lot more limited then you're assuming. I've said jack-squat about Obama's actual decision to use drones to kill American citizens. I haven't told you anything about whether I agree with the decision to kill All Awlaki without trial. What I've said is that it isn't, by definition, illegal for the Feds to blow the shit out of somebody who is a threat to the United States. And that's simply true. Circumstances exist that allow the feds to do exactly that.
Police never have the AUTHORITY to shoot anyone who isn't actively attempting to kill people. That's the important issue here: authority, not "ability." Without authority, the use of force is criminal.
Are you really too stupid to know the difference between police and the military?
The government also has to abide by the Geneva Conventions. Either the target is an enemy soldier and the Geneva Conventions apply, or he is not a soldier and US criminal law (including the 5th Amendment) applies. There is no other category. Obama (and GW Bush before him) might have claimed there was, but both of them are war criminals.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
He was doing the same thing to my other neighbors too, they were both young women living together. They wouldn't even use their back yard so their mental distress could be proven, the prosecutor still wouldn't do anything. When they went to get a protection order because they couldn't get him charged their lawyer advised them that dumping refuse and walking by their house was not enough and advised them to settle on a civil no contact agreement (basically a toothless agreement that will agitate the magistrate enough that they might lower the bar for a protection order).
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Wow, that's fucked, man. Sounds like your neighbor and this prosecutor have some sort of conflicting interest.
Hopefully Ohio at least has a half-decent castle law...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Police never have the AUTHORITY to shoot anyone who isn't actively attempting to kill people. That's the important issue here: authority, not "ability." Without authority, the use of force is criminal.
You're mistaken. Arkansas cops recently opened up on a guy who was driving away from them, allegedly because because they soberly considered the situation and decided that the odds of him killing somebody were high, but probably because some rookie panicked and the vets decided riddling the dude was the popular thing to do; yet none of them has been charged with a crime. It's likely none will ever be charged with a crime. The wrongful death lawsuit from the driver's family is almost certainly gonna get thrown out by the Supremes.
The victim wasn't actively trying to kill anybody, he was actively trying to get the fuck away and in the process he was likely to kill somebody. His girlfriend/passenger was also totally innocent of intending to kill anybody. And due to the magic of prosecutorial discretion, even if the Supremes change their minds and rule the deaths were not justified nobody will ever go to jail for the crimes.
Are you really too stupid to know the difference between police and the military?
Keep in mind that the military actually have fewer powers to use force on civilians then the police do. The posse comitatus act that allowed the KKK to drastically reduce the south's black population in the late 19th bans them from almost all law enforcement duties. But that act only applies within the 50 states.
As for powers to kill, they're quite similar. If you're in the military and you're not in a war-zone you don't get to shoot. Period. It doesn't really matter whether you hit your target, if you're on a base in Germany and you open fire on the local Imam you're going to Leavenworth. If you're in a war-zone you have to be able to prove you had some good reason to believe every shot you made wasn't heading towards some innocent person. It's generally easier to satisfy the brass that you had reason in the war-zone, because they wouldn't be giving you the extra pay if they didn't expect somebody to shoot at you, and they don't have the resources to investigate every single shell fired, but that doesn;t mean the legal theory is any different.
The government also has to abide by the Geneva Conventions. Either the target is an enemy soldier and the Geneva Conventions apply, or he is not a soldier and US criminal law (including the 5th Amendment) applies. There is no other category. Obama (and GW Bush before him) might have claimed there was, but both of them are war criminals.
Dude,a treaty? Seriously?
Without an enforcement mechanism a treaty is a press release. This is because treaties are agreements between sovereign states, and sovereign states are allowed to do anything they want. That's the definition of sovereign. For example, they can re-define words. If Obama decrees Al Awlaki is an enemy combatant, because American English the name "Al Awlaki" has always been a synonym for "enemy combatant," it doesn't matter that that's ridiculous BS. Under international law, as Head of State of a Sovereign nation, he can do that, and the only people who can argue the point are other
First, in general, I am not mistaken. If the district attorney is complicit and refuses to prosecute, that only means it is a miscarriage of justice, not that it is any less inherently criminal.
Second, in this particular case the guy was in fact actively attempting to kill people (according to the news article, at least): "Mounted cameras from three police vehicles, led by Officer Vance Plumhoff, show Rickard weaving in and out of traffic, then ramming a police car head-on. The Honda is later surrounded and as the suspect tries to back up, he sideswipes another cop car, and almost strikes one of the officers." Before he rammed the police car, shooting was not justified. After, it was (as long as the guy continued to drive recklessly... if he slowed down the chase, e.g. OJ-style, shooting would stop being justified).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
First, in general, I am not mistaken. If the district attorney is complicit and refuses to prosecute, that only means it is a miscarriage of justice, not that it is any less inherently criminal.
I love arguing the Constitution with my fellow Americans.
They are truly convinced that the major story when the American government represses somebody isn't that the American government repressed somebody, it's that their post hoc rationalization "proving" a 225-year-old document banned this specific form of repression wasn't followed to the letter.
It never seems to occur to them that if one asshole Prosecutor can turn the entire system into a dictator's best friend, it follows that an elaborate and inefficient system of Checks and Balances is basically a really good way to generate pretentious BS.
Countries run by Prime Ministers protect freedom quite well with minimal checks and balances. Most of them have Constitutions that are difficult to change (not all: the UK Constitution could be replaced by simple majority vote in Parliament), and all have Court systems enforcing said Constitutions; but they do not have a bunch of elected institutions specifically designed to thwart each-other.
Second, in this particular case the guy was in fact actively attempting to kill people (according to the news article, at least): "Mounted cameras from three police vehicles, led by Officer Vance Plumhoff, show Rickard weaving in and out of traffic, then ramming a police car head-on. The Honda is later surrounded and as the suspect tries to back up, he sideswipes another cop car, and almost strikes one of the officers." Before he rammed the police car, shooting was not justified. After, it was (as long as the guy continued to drive recklessly... if he slowed down the chase, e.g. OJ-style, shooting would stop being justified).
You're vastly over-stating the case. He wasn't trying to kill people (first degree murder), he was trying to get away and didn't care if he hit them (involuntary manslaughter). His Girlfriend was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Al Awlaki was trying to convince people to engage in terror attacks in the US (conspiracy to commit a variety of crimes, including murder). All the collateral victims of the strike against him are the girlfriend.
The could argue the semantics of whether blowing up Al Awlaki was like shooting this dude with each-other for decades and never come to a sensible conclusion. Which is why the Courts won't step on Obama's toes and rule that he was wrong to blow the shit out of Al Awlaki.
Separation of Powers restricts all branches, which means that as long as the President can make a case that isn't obvious BS the Courts are not allowed to step on his toes. Congress could, by gutting funding for the CIA drone program and starting some nasty committee investigations, but they ain't gonna do that for Al Awlaki.