But govt doing the same thing is ok in most people's book. Look at many cities and the CCTV cameras everywhere, nobody has much issue with those, but if a private citizen points a camera at someone, that's terrifying / criminal to people.
Officer safety is priority #1 for the police. Tactically, use of SWAT for raids makes sense. Though from the cato map, it does have its costs http://www.cato.org/raidmap
He did not shoot back but he did have an AR15 pointed at the door when SWAT broke in. What would you have the police do when faced with an assault rifle, at a place housing a suspected trafficker. He was later shown to be innocent, but at the time he was thought to be involved with the operation (which involved his family members).
Whenever I use a company's service, I will assume they (have):
1. Given the govt a backdoor 2. Sold all my private data to whoever will pay 3. Track me with cookies etc best they can. 4. Given the govt all my passwords (maybe even sold my passwords to customers)
Perhaps you didn't know, the US wasn't a police state until the 20th century. Most locales didn't have any police. Our govt wasn't set up to be a police state (precisely the opposite, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the federal govt).
From wikipedia
"In 1789 the US Marshals Service was established, followed by other federal services such as the US Parks Police (1791) and US Mint Police (1792). The first city police services were established in Philadelphia in 1751, Richmond, Virginia in 1807, Boston in 1838, and New York in 1845. The US Secret Service was founded in 1865 and was for some time the main investigative body for the federal government."
So sleep is more important than finding an abducted or missing child? What kind of self absorbed useless garbage inhabit NYC? Reminds me of the opening scene in Boondock Saints when nobody would help a screaming murder victim. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwIJ9pRWBpo
"Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei led us to this perfect day"
From wiki- The world is managed by a central computer called UniComp which has been programmed to keep every single human on the surface of the earth in check. People are continually drugged by means of monthly treatments (delivered via transdermal spray or jet injector) so that they will remain satisfied and cooperative "Family members". They are told where to live, when to eat, whom to marry, when to reproduce, and for which job they will be trained. Everyone is assigned a counselor who acts somewhat like a mentor, confessor, and parole agent; violations against 'brothers' and 'sisters' by themselves and others are expected to be reported at a weekly confession.
I'd like to spy on some people, give me access damnit!
How long before the current administration uses this against their political foes, if they haven't been already? They send the IRS after political opponents, why would the NSA be any different?
Who cares, most people in this country are statist/authoritarians. I'm glad the govt is sucking them dry, spending $600k on facebook likes and **** like that. They voted these people in, they should reap the misery they produced.
Indeed. I was looking through my HS yearbook from ~1998, the girls seem different from today. Girls now talk as if they were mentally retarded- "OMG," "like totally," etc. It wasn't as bad back in the 90s. Seems like the average female IQ is dropping. Just look at the average girls Facebook feed- nothing but brain dead attention whores.
I bet you were one of the types that argued "govt doesn't have the capability to collect data on everyone, it would be too much, too vast of a project."
Might even go as far as to say you work for govt or are a bootlicker.
Trust a random post on the internet, yeah ok. It its not weasel words, its an outright lie.
James Madison would ask the question, why on earth is govt having something to do with linux? Call me skeptical, but constitutionally, it is not allowed.
Federal govt is not allowed to do anything not explicitly stated in the constitution (though you legal scholars would be right in saying states are not bound as such). Read the words of the father of the constitution http://constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
Saying the third party (probably LP) would be the same is just skirting blame that you voted for one of the two parties in place. "It be no different if I voted third party."
Its the most common answer I get when I debate someone and I point a lie/flaw in their candidate. It exposes their lack of research into their candidate and blissful ignorance they continue to shield themselves with.
"They're all corrupt." No they're not, just the ones you're pulling the lever for
Privacy from the govt. Bill of rights applies to the govt, not private people or businesses.
And if you really knew your constitution, bill of rights applied only to the federal govt (Barron 1833). Though Clarence Thomas in McDonald vs Chicago (2010) said that the 14th amendment incorporates the bill of rights fully against the states.
How about you take your authoritarian ideas back to a socialist country from where it came? I don't like what google has become any more than the next guy, but the law/police/courts/legal-system/govt isn't the way to do it. There's something called choice.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that may be true, but that concedes your main point that there is an individual right and gets to the separate question of whether the regulations at issue here are reasonable.
MR. DELLINGER: Well, the different kind of right that you're talking about, to take this to the question of -- of what the standard ought to be for applying this, even if this extended beyond a militia-based right, if it did, it sounds more like the part of an expansive public or personal -- an expansive personal liberty right, and if it -- if it is, I think you ought to consider the effect on the 42 States who have been getting along fine with State constitutional provisions that do expressly protect an individual right of -- of weapons for personal use, but in those States, they have adopted a reasonableness standard that has allowed them to sustain sensible regulation of dangerous weapons. And if you - CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is -- what is reasonable about a total ban on possession? MR. DELLINGER: What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only an the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's been considered especially -- especially dangerous. The CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers?
MR. DELLINGER: No, it's not, and the difference is quite clear. If -- if you -- there is no limit to the public discourse. If there is an individual right to guns for personal use, it's to carry out a purpose, like protecting the home. You could not, for example, say that no one may have more than 50 books. But a law that said no one may possess more than 50 guns would -- would in fact be I think quite reasonable.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Okay. I would like to talk about the standard and my light is indeed on, so let me do that.I think there are several reasons why a standard as we suggest in our brief rather than strict scrutiny is an appropriate standard to be applied in evaluating these laws. I think first and foremost, as our colloquy earlier indicated, there is -- the right to bear arms was a preexisting right. The Second Amendment talks about "the right to bear arms," not just "a right to bear arms." And that preexisting always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.
Slashdot Mirror
People get very mad when an average person spies on them (check out that surveillance man http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CONgeNlxVug)
But govt doing the same thing is ok in most people's book. Look at many cities and the CCTV cameras everywhere, nobody has much issue with those, but if a private citizen points a camera at someone, that's terrifying / criminal to people.
Yeah, look how they caught the boston bomber before he struck, after the KGB told us he was a danger.
The Federal/State governments are what need regulating. Seems like the govt has become Skynet, an omnipotent self perpetuating force.
How was Swartz charged with unauthorized access when he had a JSTOR account?
Feature required by FISA court, gagged. NSA programmers did the work, in a joint venture with Google.
Officer safety is priority #1 for the police. Tactically, use of SWAT for raids makes sense. Though from the cato map, it does have its costs http://www.cato.org/raidmap
He did not shoot back but he did have an AR15 pointed at the door when SWAT broke in. What would you have the police do when faced with an assault rifle, at a place housing a suspected trafficker. He was later shown to be innocent, but at the time he was thought to be involved with the operation (which involved his family members).
I will never again trust another company.
Whenever I use a company's service, I will assume they (have):
1. Given the govt a backdoor
2. Sold all my private data to whoever will pay
3. Track me with cookies etc best they can.
4. Given the govt all my passwords (maybe even sold my passwords to customers)
Perhaps you didn't know, the US wasn't a police state until the 20th century. Most locales didn't have any police. Our govt wasn't set up to be a police state (precisely the opposite, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the federal govt).
From wikipedia
"In 1789 the US Marshals Service was established, followed by other federal services such as the US Parks Police (1791) and US Mint Police (1792). The first city police services were established in Philadelphia in 1751, Richmond, Virginia in 1807, Boston in 1838, and New York in 1845. The US Secret Service was founded in 1865 and was for some time the main investigative body for the federal government."
So sleep is more important than finding an abducted or missing child? What kind of self absorbed useless garbage inhabit NYC? Reminds me of the opening scene in Boondock Saints when nobody would help a screaming murder victim. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwIJ9pRWBpo
This Perfect Day by Ira Levin
"Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei led us to this perfect day"
From wiki- The world is managed by a central computer called UniComp which has been programmed to keep every single human on the surface of the earth in check. People are continually drugged by means of monthly treatments (delivered via transdermal spray or jet injector) so that they will remain satisfied and cooperative "Family members". They are told where to live, when to eat, whom to marry, when to reproduce, and for which job they will be trained. Everyone is assigned a counselor who acts somewhat like a mentor, confessor, and parole agent; violations against 'brothers' and 'sisters' by themselves and others are expected to be reported at a weekly confession.
And you're not in control of your encrypted data if you used Microsoft.
I'd like to spy on some people, give me access damnit!
How long before the current administration uses this against their political foes, if they haven't been already? They send the IRS after political opponents, why would the NSA be any different?
Who cares, most people in this country are statist/authoritarians. I'm glad the govt is sucking them dry, spending $600k on facebook likes and **** like that. They voted these people in, they should reap the misery they produced.
Indeed. I was looking through my HS yearbook from ~1998, the girls seem different from today. Girls now talk as if they were mentally retarded- "OMG," "like totally," etc. It wasn't as bad back in the 90s. Seems like the average female IQ is dropping. Just look at the average girls Facebook feed- nothing but brain dead attention whores.
I bet you were one of the types that argued "govt doesn't have the capability to collect data on everyone, it would be too much, too vast of a project."
Might even go as far as to say you work for govt or are a bootlicker.
Trust a random post on the internet, yeah ok. It its not weasel words, its an outright lie.
James Madison would ask the question, why on earth is govt having something to do with linux? Call me skeptical, but constitutionally, it is not allowed.
Federal govt is not allowed to do anything not explicitly stated in the constitution (though you legal scholars would be right in saying states are not bound as such). Read the words of the father of the constitution http://constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
Saying the third party (probably LP) would be the same is just skirting blame that you voted for one of the two parties in place. "It be no different if I voted third party."
Its the most common answer I get when I debate someone and I point a lie/flaw in their candidate. It exposes their lack of research into their candidate and blissful ignorance they continue to shield themselves with.
"They're all corrupt." No they're not, just the ones you're pulling the lever for
Are ebay bucks taxable under income?
Privacy from the govt. Bill of rights applies to the govt, not private people or businesses.
And if you really knew your constitution, bill of rights applied only to the federal govt (Barron 1833). Though Clarence Thomas in McDonald vs Chicago (2010) said that the 14th amendment incorporates the bill of rights fully against the states.
How about you take your authoritarian ideas back to a socialist country from where it came? I don't like what google has become any more than the next guy, but the law/police/courts/legal-system/govt isn't the way to do it. There's something called choice.
From Heller vs DC oral arguments:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that may be true, but that concedes your main point that there is an individual right and gets to the separate question of
whether the regulations at issue here are reasonable.
MR. DELLINGER: Well, the different kind of right that you're talking about, to take this to the question of -- of what the standard ought to be for applying this, even if this extended beyond a militia-based right, if it did, it sounds more like the part of an expansive public or personal -- an expansive personal liberty right, and if it -- if it is, I think you ought to consider the effect on the 42 States who have been getting along fine with State constitutional provisions that do expressly protect an individual right of -- of weapons for personal use, but in those States, they have adopted a reasonableness standard that has
allowed them to sustain sensible regulation of dangerous weapons. And if you -
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is -- what is reasonable about a total ban on possession? MR. DELLINGER: What is reasonable about a
total ban on possession is that it's a ban only an the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's been considered especially -- especially dangerous. The CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers?
MR. DELLINGER: No, it's not, and the difference is quite clear. If -- if you -- there is no limit to the public discourse. If there is an individual right to guns for personal use, it's to carry out a purpose, like protecting the home. You could not, for example, say that no one may have more than 50 books. But a law that said no one may possess more than 50 guns would -- would in fact be I think quite reasonable.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Okay. I would like to talk about the standard and my light is indeed on, so let me do that.I think there are several reasons why a standard as we suggest in our brief rather than strict scrutiny is an appropriate standard to be applied in evaluating these laws. I think first and foremost, as our colloquy earlier indicated, there is -- the right to bear arms was a preexisting right. The Second Amendment talks about "the right to bear arms," not just "a right to bear arms." And that preexisting always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf
Seems reasonable. License, permit and databases aren't infringement as the supreme court has found.
"I will not comply" - Bama-Shooter (police officer/site staff)
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1429118_I_will_not_comply_.htmlhttp://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1429118_I_will_not_comply_.html
“But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what's in it....” - Nancy Pelosi