A police officer, your neighbor, or a random guy on the street can see them. There is no expectation of privacy of your license number. Anyone can take a picture or video of your car, and its license number, on a public street - they can even use a telephoto lens. They can do almost anything they like with the images, including extracting license numbers from the images.
OK, first, let's get rid of this "random person" fallacy - My neighbors/random people have zero interest in what I do from day-to-day, and the feeling is reciprocal, rightly so. If a random person/neighbor were to follow me around everywhere I go, keeping a log of everything I do, regardless of whether or not I am in public, I can have them arrested for stalking/harassment, because it is illegal for people to harass each other in such a way. Not to mention, my neighbors/random people do not profit from the incarceration of myself or anyone else.
In no logical sense are the two (government / private citizens) comparable - Put the strawman down, and step away slowly.
There's nothing in the BoR or constitutional case law that even remotely prevents this sort of monitoring.
Really? So the Fourth Amendment does not state that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?"
Or perhaps you're disputing the idea that surveillance is effectively a search?
Does the Fifth Amendment not say "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself?" Or does tracking my movements, waiting for me to slip up, then using said movements against me somehow not constitute self-incrimination?
Then there's the Sixth Amendment, which states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Kind of hard to do when the "witness" is a software program that is incapable of distinguishing an individual human from their plate number, isn't it? Seriously, how's that supposed to work?
Defendant: Your honor, I would like to bring the database containing my license plate tracking information to the stand, so that it may be cross-examined.
Lemme know how that one works out.
While not directly stated in the Constitution, the "presumption of innocence" has been established as the basis of our laws for quite sometime, and is backed by precedent: "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." - Decision, Coffin v. United States
Tracking systems such as this not only violate our Constitutional right to travel freely without fear of government harassment, they run afoul of the ages-honored tradition of 'innocent until proven guilty.'
There is a way. Stop voting these assholes into office.
Considering that the system is gamed so that "these assholes" are the only ones eligible to run for higher office, I would be remiss if I didn't ask precisely what you suggest as the alternative option...
The law in it's present state allows this sort of monitoring.
Actually, it it doesn't; the only reason the federals get to take carte blanche with regard to ignoring Constitutional limitations is because they hold the states hostage via extortion, i.e. "pass this draconian law / allow us to enforce this unconstitutional law in your state, or we'll pull funding from your critical programs." Personally, I don't imagine any elected President would have the balls to actually pull funding, especially during an election year, but the threat seems to be sufficient to keep the states enslaved, er, in line.
The only out I see at this point is to return power to the states by producing what we need on our own, without federal dollars. Barring that, we're screwed.
We after all do vote for these politicians.
Yup, and it matters not, a single iota. Besides, voting out one lobbyist-controlled, billionaire criminal to replace them with another lobbyist-controlled, billionaire criminal hasn't worked for us yet; what's the point in continuing to flog that poor dead horse?
I know you're trying to be facetious, but if you think about it, private registrations would have one major advantage over government-controlled ones, at least in terms of freedom: Being as the different private registrars would be in direct competition with one another, they would have precisely zero incentive to share information between databases.
No data sharing = no nationwide tracking database.
To avoid this fate we need to convince the nation and our lawmakers to take action on this serious threat to our liberty.
... you're shitting me, right? Asking politicians to not make laws which restrict the freedoms of their people is like asking a mako shark to please not take a chunk out of my ass - neither is capable of understanding either your request, or reason in general.
The best part is...None of this voids the warranty.
It's things like this that make me think this is vaporware. A warranty is a means of reducing support costs. If creating an entirely new case for the product doesn't void the warranty then the people making Ouya are going to have support costs from hell.
The personality types who are most likely to do extensive modification to the device, are equally likely to provide their own support.
Police department policy does not supersede Federal law.
Like I said before, without knowing the full story I could point to section E paragraph 2 which gives the police officer to take that camera legally.
Section E, para. 2:
If a member has probable cause to believe that a camera or other recording device contains images or sounds that are evidence of criminal acts, the member shall request that the person [with the recording device] either:
a. Voluntarily provide the device or recording medium (e.g., the memory chip) to the member; or
b. Where possible and practicable, and in the presence of the member, voluntarily transmit the images or sound via text message or electronic mail to the member’s official government electronic mail account.
c. Consent to take possession of a recording device or medium must be given voluntarily. A member shall not, implicitly or explicitly, coerce consent to take possession of any recording device or any information thereon.
No where does it state that the officers have a right to take the recording device without the owners consent; much to the contrary, it specifically outlines that they may not do so without the explicit, voluntary consent of the recording device's operator.
They sell handguns under the guise of hunting. From an absolutely practical point of view, a handgun is about the worst possible firearm you could use to hunt game. It was initially designed and created to kill people.
In all honesty, the best thing for hunting game would be a bow of some sort, because it's silent. It may not have a mushrooming head, but at least you won't scare away all other game within a kilometer radius.
Someone has obviously never encountered a wild boar...
A) Doesn't matter. The cop still broke the law when he stole the man's camera and subsequently vandalized it to destroy evidence.
B) Knowingly and illegally destroying evidence does not help the cops case; to the contrary, it shows a desire to keep the events hidden from the public, and thus invites suspicion.
As they so oft like to say to we non-LEOs, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.
In my state, residents have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves from armed criminal action, regardless who's committing it... probably explains why we don't get a lot of these kind of stories coming out of the midwest.
Up yours, Barney Fife. You don't want folks getting the "wrong impression" about cops beating the shit out of people or otherwise breaking the laws they swore an oath to uphold? Here's a tip: Stop beating the shit out of people and breaking laws.
“Getting on an airplane shouldn’t amount to forfeiting your security and privacy to anyone, anywhere in the world with an Internet connection,” adds Hubbard.
Right - that privilege is reserved for high-school dropouts with 2 weeks of "training."
Now if the aliens (for the sake of this argument assume they exist... if you don't, feel free to ignore this post and not reply to it) are flying about in their saucers in the atmosphere at high speeds, why haven't people on the ground heard sonic booms? Is there something about the saucer shape that prevents sonic booms from propagating to ground level?
Slashdot Mirror
A police officer, your neighbor, or a random guy on the street can see them. There is no expectation of privacy of your license number. Anyone can take a picture or video of your car, and its license number, on a public street - they can even use a telephoto lens. They can do almost anything they like with the images, including extracting license numbers from the images.
OK, first, let's get rid of this "random person" fallacy - My neighbors/random people have zero interest in what I do from day-to-day, and the feeling is reciprocal, rightly so. If a random person/neighbor were to follow me around everywhere I go, keeping a log of everything I do, regardless of whether or not I am in public, I can have them arrested for stalking/harassment, because it is illegal for people to harass each other in such a way. Not to mention, my neighbors/random people do not profit from the incarceration of myself or anyone else.
In no logical sense are the two (government / private citizens) comparable - Put the strawman down, and step away slowly.
There's nothing in the BoR or constitutional case law that even remotely prevents this sort of monitoring.
Really? So the Fourth Amendment does not state that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?"
Or perhaps you're disputing the idea that surveillance is effectively a search?
Does the Fifth Amendment not say "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself?" Or does tracking my movements, waiting for me to slip up, then using said movements against me somehow not constitute self-incrimination?
Then there's the Sixth Amendment, which states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Kind of hard to do when the "witness" is a software program that is incapable of distinguishing an individual human from their plate number, isn't it? Seriously, how's that supposed to work?
Defendant: Your honor, I would like to bring the database containing my license plate tracking information to the stand, so that it may be cross-examined.
Lemme know how that one works out.
While not directly stated in the Constitution, the "presumption of innocence" has been established as the basis of our laws for quite sometime, and is backed by precedent: "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." - Decision, Coffin v. United States
Tracking systems such as this not only violate our Constitutional right to travel freely without fear of government harassment, they run afoul of the ages-honored tradition of 'innocent until proven guilty.'
There is no way to stop this...
There is a way. Stop voting these assholes into office.
Considering that the system is gamed so that "these assholes" are the only ones eligible to run for higher office, I would be remiss if I didn't ask precisely what you suggest as the alternative option...
The law in it's present state allows this sort of monitoring.
Actually, it it doesn't; the only reason the federals get to take carte blanche with regard to ignoring Constitutional limitations is because they hold the states hostage via extortion, i.e. "pass this draconian law / allow us to enforce this unconstitutional law in your state, or we'll pull funding from your critical programs." Personally, I don't imagine any elected President would have the balls to actually pull funding, especially during an election year, but the threat seems to be sufficient to keep the states enslaved, er, in line.
The only out I see at this point is to return power to the states by producing what we need on our own, without federal dollars. Barring that, we're screwed.
We after all do vote for these politicians.
Yup, and it matters not, a single iota. Besides, voting out one lobbyist-controlled, billionaire criminal to replace them with another lobbyist-controlled, billionaire criminal hasn't worked for us yet; what's the point in continuing to flog that poor dead horse?
My van has a custom built (By me) License plate frame that unless you are DIRECTLY dead on line of sight,all you see is a 1 finger salute.
Lenticular, I assume?
I know you're trying to be facetious, but if you think about it, private registrations would have one major advantage over government-controlled ones, at least in terms of freedom: Being as the different private registrars would be in direct competition with one another, they would have precisely zero incentive to share information between databases.
No data sharing = no nationwide tracking database.
and it's not even Quezovercoatl
I think you have your serpents of legend a bit confused
alter, alter! not 'change'...
Perhaps he-sa tryin' to be avoidin' LucasArt lawyerin'!
The best part is...None of this voids the warranty.
It's things like this that make me think this is vaporware. A warranty is a means of reducing support costs. If creating an entirely new case for the product doesn't void the warranty then the people making Ouya are going to have support costs from hell.
The personality types who are most likely to do extensive modification to the device, are equally likely to provide their own support.
Like I said before, without knowing the full story I could point to section E paragraph 2 which gives the police officer to take that camera legally.
Section E, para. 2:
If a member has probable cause to believe that a camera or other recording device contains images or sounds that are evidence of criminal acts, the member shall request that the person [with the recording device] either:
a. Voluntarily provide the device or recording medium (e.g., the memory chip) to the member; or
b. Where possible and practicable, and in the presence of the member, voluntarily transmit the images or sound via text message or electronic mail to the member’s official government electronic mail account.
c. Consent to take possession of a recording device or medium must be given voluntarily. A member shall not, implicitly or explicitly, coerce consent to take possession of any recording device or any information thereon.
No where does it state that the officers have a right to take the recording device without the owners consent; much to the contrary, it specifically outlines that they may not do so without the explicit, voluntary consent of the recording device's operator.
What kind of fucking retard are you letting mislead you about macroeconomics?
Whoever it is I suggest you find someone else because you are a woefully misinformed dumbass.
Speaking of retarded dumbasses...
What do you think causes recessions, Einstein, if not bad decisions? Fucking elf magic?
I've been trying to train my 3-year old to bring me my target pistol on command, but she keeps getting the words "gun" and "beer" mixed up.
Doesn't sound like a bad problem to have.
They sell handguns under the guise of hunting. From an absolutely practical point of view, a handgun is about the worst possible firearm you could use to hunt game. It was initially designed and created to kill people.
In all honesty, the best thing for hunting game would be a bow of some sort, because it's silent. It may not have a mushrooming head, but at least you won't scare away all other game within a kilometer radius.
Someone has obviously never encountered a wild boar...
Fail #3,
There is no such thing as a safe gun. Only a safe operator.
So what you're saying is that a fully automatic uzi is just as safe as a bolt action rifle?
No, what he's saying is that an inanimate tool is only as safe as the human handling it.
Not a difficult concept.
Problem solved: Don't let kids in your house.
Works for me!
A) Doesn't matter. The cop still broke the law when he stole the man's camera and subsequently vandalized it to destroy evidence.
B) Knowingly and illegally destroying evidence does not help the cops case; to the contrary, it shows a desire to keep the events hidden from the public, and thus invites suspicion.
As they so oft like to say to we non-LEOs, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.
Yes, it is.
In my state, residents have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves from armed criminal action, regardless who's committing it... probably explains why we don't get a lot of these kind of stories coming out of the midwest.
Anybody else smell bacon as they read this post?
Up yours, Barney Fife. You don't want folks getting the "wrong impression" about cops beating the shit out of people or otherwise breaking the laws they swore an oath to uphold? Here's a tip: Stop beating the shit out of people and breaking laws.
I dunno, the UK's trying for that title...
Disclaimer: I'm British.
Glad to see I'm not the only person who recognizes the race between the UK and US governments, to see which one can repress it's citizens the most.
“Getting on an airplane shouldn’t amount to forfeiting your security and privacy to anyone, anywhere in the world with an Internet connection,” adds Hubbard.
Right - that privilege is reserved for high-school dropouts with 2 weeks of "training."
Have you tried turning her on and off again?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that turning her on is why he needs a manual.
slashdot won't allow
an ASCII middle finger
in my post for you
Watch out for that proprietary connector, it's a little .. wider .. than a standard connector.
No worries, it has rounded corners.
I think you've been unfairly tagged on the flamebait item...
Considering that /. is supposedly a nerd haven, and I was essentially paraphrasing Heinlein... yea.
Now if the aliens (for the sake of this argument assume they exist... if you don't, feel free to ignore this post and not reply to it) are flying about in their saucers in the atmosphere at high speeds, why haven't people on the ground heard sonic booms? Is there something about the saucer shape that prevents sonic booms from propagating to ground level?
Supercavitation, maybe?
Methinks you would be better off asking that question on ATS' forums...