[simonjames]

Normally I have nothing against government and crime offices knowing what I am doing as I believe they won't touch me if I am doing no wrong however this article gives me something to be concerned about.

Originally it appeared in the Casper (Wyoming) Star Tribune

[moki]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Normally I have nothing against government and crime offices knowing what I am doing as I believe they won't touch me if I am doing no wrong however this article gives me something to be concerned about.

Originally it appeared in the Casper (Wyoming) Star Tribune

What part of the article do you have a problem with, exactly? I'm not wild about being "spied upon" either, but what's the problem with people reporting suspicious activity if they see it?

[simonjames]

the concern is that under proposed changes people lose the rights they currently have. I don't mind the government knowing everything I am doing but I do mind if they lock me up for 20 days and don't say why they've done it nor will they let you contact anyone.

For example - recently a tourist in South Africa was detained by police without being told why and without even a single phone call because they believed he was wanted in America (I think). And why did they detain him? Same name and approximate age.

These sort of powers are unacceptable - this sort of treatment is unacceptable

[macvillage.net]

I actually kind of like the Gov keeping an eye out like this.

I don't believe much in "Civil Liberties" anyway... to me it's a load of BS... unless your a white middle-upper class male between 18-55... you never had them to begin with.

So what... everyone is now on a more level playing field.

Just put white sheet on top of your head again... and go burn crosses on peoples lawns... always makes them feel better.


Seriously.... "civil liberties" is like "World peace"... good idea... but really a load of BS. This article reads like http://www.kkk.org.

Unless your in that protected class you never had them to begin with.

So stop crying. The only people who have something to worry about, should be arrested anyway.

The complainers are the guilty parties.

[Nicko]

Ah, more slippery slope stuff. IMO the whole thing sounds needlessly invasive and won't accomplish much except breed fear and resentment. Nothing more than a witch hunt.

Kind of reminds me when I was in Pakistan and was taking a tour of a harbor. Scattered around were signs proclaiming that you could be thrown into jail if they caught you taking pictures of it. Its a scare tactic, but does it prevent terrorism? Questionable.

At the rate things are going, in a decade or two everyone in the US will have government controlled cameras watching over them 24/7. But oh I forgot, if you want privacy you must be a terrorist.

[pooka]

Originally posted by Nicko:
At the rate things are going, in a decade or two everyone in the US will have government controlled cameras watching over them 24/7.

In twenty years we'll have something like the surveillance camera network in Britain? Shoot, we are behind.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I actually kind of like the Gov keeping an eye out like this.

I don't believe much in "Civil Liberties" anyway... to me it's a load of BS... unless your a white middle-upper class male between 18-55... you never had them to begin with.

So what... everyone is now on a more level playing field.

Just put white sheet on top of your head again... and go burn crosses on peoples lawns... always makes them feel better.


Seriously.... "civil liberties" is like "World peace"... good idea... but really a load of BS. This article reads like http://www.kkk.org.

Unless your in that protected class you never had them to begin with.

So stop crying. The only people who have something to worry about, should be arrested anyway.

The complainers are the guilty parties.

You need help! If I'm walking down the street with a camera in hand, that doesn't make me a suspected terrorist, and it shouldn't subject me to interrogation, and confinement without being able to seek legal counsel!

[pooka]

Originally posted by KarlG:
You need help! If I'm walking down the street with a camera in hand, that doesn't make me a suspected terrorist, and it shouldn't subject me to interrogation, and confinement without being able to seek legal counsel!

What if we just beat your ass a little and take your money?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by pooka:
What if we just beat your ass a little and take your money?

*high-fives pooka*


I call dibs on his Nike hightops.

[nvaughan3]

For example - recently a tourist in South Africa was detained by police without being told why and without even a single phone call because they believed he was wanted in America (I think). And why did they detain him? Same name and approximate age.

These sort of powers are unacceptable - this sort of treatment is unacceptable

Well until you can come up with something better than "I think", you unfortunately will not recieve much credibility or assert much influence here.

[nvaughan3]

the concern is that under proposed changes people lose the rights they currently have. I don't mind the government knowing everything I am doing but I do mind if they lock me up for 20 days and don't say why they've done it nor will they let you contact anyone.

Tell me exactly what rights you will lose, and where it in the article it states that.

[simonjames]

sorry - I knew it was stupid to present an article like this to DFs like macvillagenut who takes delight in implying people who don't like indiscrimate incarceration must be KKK members

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by simonjames:
the concern is that under proposed changes people lose the rights they currently have. I don't mind the government knowing everything I am doing but I do mind if they lock me up for 20 days and don't say why they've done it nor will they let you contact anyone.

For example - recently a tourist in South Africa was detained by police without being told why and without even a single phone call because they believed he was wanted in America (I think). And why did they detain him? Same name and approximate age.

These sort of powers are unacceptable - this sort of treatment is unacceptable

I don't think this act applies in South Africa, and I don't see what somebody being locked up without cause in South Africa has to do with the US. South African procedures are not like the US'.

No matter what tips the police receive about suspicious activity, there are still standards of probable cause that have to be met. You can't be locked up for 20 days in the US unless a judge or magistrate finds probable cause. The standard is you have to be brought before a judge for that finding within 48 hours for a warrantless arrest, and a judge or magistrate has to have found probable cause for an arrest warrant to be issued. Either way, no 20 day detentions without probable cause are permitted.

[lemondrop]

Israel has WMD. I demand a preemptive strike, and my tax dollars back. It's the free market baby, Israel can't survive without American handouts. Give me back my money and let Israel deal with the wrath of Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

No matter what tips the police receive about suspicious activity, there are still standards of probable cause that have to be met. You can't be locked up for 20 days in the US unless a judge finds probable cause. The standard is you have to be brought before a judge for that finding within 48 hours for a warrantless arrest, and a judge has to have found probable cause for an arrest warrant to be issued. Either way, no 20 day detentions without probable cause are permitted.

Guantanamo? Oh yeah, I forgot. It's not in America. Could you tell me the legal difference between a military base, embassy, and nation(like USA and Iceland). And perhaps also what the legal restrictions are in them(that is if US law is in place in the US embassy in Iceland rather than Icelandic law, as an example). This is something I never really understood.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
Guantanamo? Oh yeah, I forgot. It's not in America. Could you tell me the legal difference between a military base, embassy, and nation(like USA and Iceland). And perhaps also what the legal restrictions are in them(that is if US law is in place in the US embassy in Iceland rather than Icelandic law, as an example). This is something I never really understood.

I'll have to be very brief. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo. A person can't be arrested in the US and packed off to Guantanamo. Enemy combatants captured abroad can, but surely we don't need to go into that whole debate again.

In my post above I was talking about domestic law. I should have thought that was obvious. US domestic criminal procedure is fairly protective of the individual. Probably somewhat more so than most European countries given that we have habeus corpus and the presumption of innocence. European traditions include an inquisitorial criminal justice system rather than the anglo-American adversarial. Neither are police states, however, and the differences can be overstated.

I can't answer fully on the extraterritoriality issue. With respect to embassies, I don't know what criminal law applies. They are generally considered US territory and US law applies. But I don't know the details.

US bases abroad are not considered US sovereign territory (unlike an embassy). As far as sovereignty, they remain part of the country in which they are located. Legally, they are governed by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and the host country. It is a treaty or more often an executive agreement between governments. Each SOFA is separate, and so the specifics vary from country to country. So, for example, whatever rules apply to US troops in Iceland depends on what the US and Icelandic goverments agreed upon.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by moki:
What part of the article do you have a problem with, exactly? I'm not wild about being "spied upon" either, but what's the problem with people reporting suspicious activity if they see it?

Yeah. I think Stalin said the same thing.

Problem number one: End run around the 4th amendment. That ought to be enough, but If you need more than that, let me know.

OK. Then there's this:
http://www.darpa.mil/iao/

And who's heading up that one? One of the sneakiest and tenuously scrupled folks ever to be allowed back under the federal wing time and again, the joker who really ought to be in prison 6 or 7 times over: The Big Poindexter hisself.

And all of this is somehow... accepted. All of this is somehow legitimized.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:



Seriously.... "civil liberties" is like "World peace"... good idea... but really a load of BS. This article reads like http://www.kkk.org.

Unless your in that protected class you never had them to begin with.

So stop crying. The only people who have something to worry about, should be arrested anyway.

The complainers are the guilty parties.

Hm. Spoken like someone who has really never had his civil liberties tinkered with. Like someone who may need to take a quick look art history. Like someone who just may take the whole thing for granted. Like someone who is pretty complacent with this state of affairs- even the ones he describes.


Hm. Guilty. Only those who have something to worry about...In which case they should be... what... tossed into the clink anyway? Well that kind of goes a bit against our entire legal system, don't you think?

I am DEEPLY concerned about these sly little initiatives... pray, what is it that I am guilty of? Should I be arrested as well?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Tell me exactly what rights you will lose, and where it in the article it states that.

Privacy. Once that is gone, it is a real short tumble to the loss of most other rights.
We are talking about privacy and this governement seems to be looking for every loophole it can find. Utilizing private citizens as spyware end runs around the 4th. Not to mention, humanity has a lousy history with government sanctioned neighbor spying. We can start in Danvers Massachusetts 300 years back and go from there.

I am completely astounded at an apparent lack of discomfort with these policies.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'll have to be very brief. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with Guantanamo. A person can't be arrested in the US and packed off to Guantanamo. Enemy combatants captured abroad can, but surely we don't need to go into that whole debate again.

In my post above I was talking about domestic law. I should have thought that was obvious.

.... snipped .....

Thanks Simey. I never really understood this(not that I completly understand it now). I refered to Guantanamo just as an example of your government bypassing laws, be it international laws or domestic. I'm not saying it is illegal, I'm just saying that I doubt it is legal. If you know what I mean. When your government has been increasing these "sidesteps" you shouldn't be surprised to see your rights at home decrease. We have the case with illegal immigrants, we have Guantanamo and now it is your turn.

But thanks again for the explanation.

<arnold>I'll be back.......</arnold>

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Hm. Spoken like someone who has really never had his civil liberties tinkered with. Like someone who may need to take a quick look art history. Like someone who just may take the whole thing for granted. Like someone who is pretty complacent with this state of affairs- even the ones he describes.


Hm. Guilty. Only those who have something to worry about...In which case they should be... what... tossed into the clink anyway? Well that kind of goes a bit against our entire legal system, don't you think?

I am DEEPLY concerned about these sly little initiatives... pray, what is it that I am guilty of? Should I be arrested as well?

Spoken like someone who never really had them... hence doesn't really care.

Civil liberties vary from person to person.... Some had them, some have them... some never did.

Now everyone is on a level playing field.

Now what's wrong with a level playing field?

It's not like you really lost anything. It's that you never really had anything.

Loss = suffering.
Never had = never knew.

Perhaps that's why an African in the desert wouldn't mind a stream to drink out of... and a rick American woudn't drink out of anything less than a Poland Spring bottle?

It's different standards.

It's a loss for some... but not all. To think it's a loss for all is a major misnomer.

[maxelson]

Whoa. Man. Read what you wrote.
Slave: always beena slave: never had liberty: cannot miss what he never had.

A few thoughts:
Level playing field? In what reality? I must be mistaking your meaning. Would you mind clarifying? You yourself allude in your first post to a lack of level playing field.

Second: what does "certain inalienable rights" mean to you?

Third: just a guess, but have you been contemplating the Matrix?

[davesimondotcom]

The real question is, how does something that was originally published in the Casper, WY newspaper get republished at an Austrailian site so that we can all discuss it!? Wow.

Maybe those of us in small states DO have some influence.....nah!

And who is in charge of acronyms in Congress?

Senator: We need to call this bill the APPLE PIE Act...

AcronymGuy: I'll get right on it, sir! A is for Appropriate.... P is for Procedure...damn, two Ps in a row. This is going to be hard!

[Sven G]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The real question is [...]

IMHO, the real (or fundamental, or basic, or whatever you call it) question is: why don't most people realize that we are heading towards some (both new and old) form of neo-fascism - and, above all, why don't they/we/I at least try to react in some way...?

P.S.: Hint: maybe we are all more or less psychologically (not only externally, but also self-) manipulated - and, thus, not really free...

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
*high-fives pooka*


I call dibs on his Nike hightops.

Don't wear Nikes! I'm not into impressing you!

[voodoo]

APPLE PIE act (made me laugh. thanks dave!)

Absolutely
Prevaling
Protection
Law
Enforcement

Patriotic
Initiative
Entrenchment

act

[nvaughan3]

still waiting on a detailed list of what enumerated rights you will lose.

[maxelson]

I gave you one.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by maxelson:
I am completely astounded at an apparent lack of discomfort with these policies.

Perhaps that's because we have yet to see any meaningful stories of law-abiding citizens being rounded-up for frivilous reasons.

The only people who have something to fear are those who have something to hide (ie. they are doing something illegal). So stop downloading bomb-making manuals, stop joining kiddie-porn clearinghouses, and stop visiting the 'How to Join Al Qaeda' website.

[maxelson]

Are you kidding. Honestly.
First off, the "we have yet to see" argument is just plain wrong. To be perfectly honest, I suspect you may be defending this not because you think it is a good idea, but because the leader of your party is working so hard to implement it. So. the IAO. TIPS. Eagle Eyes. PATRIOT. CARNIVORE. Being told by the AG (in so many words) that questioning these things is... unpatriotic and downright subversive demonstrates NOTHING to you.

Hm. So. Just because you are "guilty of nothing" means you take no issue with the gov't poking its nose into your transactions, asking your neighbors to keep an eye on what THEY may think is suspicious, tracking your movements on computers... all of this... you have no issue with any of this? Really. 4th amendment (and don't go getting all semantic on me... don't go giving me the "where does it SAY that..." crap. This stuff is DESIGNED to end run the 4th. WHat other need would there be?) means nothing to you? It will, one day. ANd then you'll wnder what happened to it. Please feel free to blame yourself.
Power. It is Power. Information is Power. Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely- and never has a truer thing been said.
You better start asking some questions, friend. And not just of your government (and it is your DUTY as a citizen to question). Perhaps you need to be asking some questions of yourself.

You know, if we had this conversation 10 years ago, I tihk I'd be thinking this was all a little on the paranoiac side. Not now.

You have "yet to see"... Oh, my friend. Let the world keep going in this direction and you WILL see it. And what will you do then?

Kiddie porn? Is that all you think it is? Oh, brither. You really need to do some research. IAO will know when you- an average Joe- rents a car. When you purchase a computer. When you up your insurance. When you fly from Boston to SanFran. And so. WHY would they need that information? To protect you? Wow.
You think they are only looking at you if you are doing illegal activity? No, kid. They are looking at what you DO. WHere you GO. How you GET there. If the information can be tracked, they will track it. THIS is what Carnivore and IAO were DESIGNED for.

[Lerkfish]

The fallacy here is to assume this will only affect those guilty of crimes. Obviously, whether someone commits a crime can only be determined AFTER their privacy has been breached.

let us not forget the lessons of the KGB. At its height, the government had to employ enough people to spy on their own people. It became a cottage industry, and one of the largest employers.

Imagine how much time it would take to track what EVERYONE does, all the time, every day. Even if you automate some of it, a human at some point will have evaluate the reams and reams of material.

[voodoo]

One garguntan automatic database.

Kinda like Google, but not.

I don't care much for the idea.

[tie]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I don't believe much in "Civil Liberties" anyway... to me it's a load of BS... unless your a white middle-upper class male between 18-55... you never had them to begin with.
...
Just put white sheet on top of your head again... and go burn crosses on peoples lawns... always makes them feel better.

LOL, this is fabulous. I need to start a new nick to posts things like this.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by maxelson:
IAO will know when you- an average Joe- rents a car. When you purchase a computer. When you up your insurance. When you fly from Boston to SanFran. And so. WHY would they need that information? To protect you? Wow.
You think they are only looking at you if you are doing illegal activity? No, kid. They are looking at what you DO. WHere you GO. How you GET there. If the information can be tracked, they will track it. THIS is what Carnivore and IAO were DESIGNED for.

They can find all that out anyway. The difference now is that the warrant issuing and intelligence gathering process will be streamlined to take advantage of technology. If the authorities can locate a suspect within hours or days vs. weeks or months (or years - see Mr. "Bomber" Rudolph), then we will all be safer.

You act as if there are going to be dedicated government employees watching your every move in real time. Unless you are a prime suspect, or are willing to personally pay one government employee to watch you, that's never going to be the case.

Everything else in today's world has been streamlined, benefitting from technological advances. There's no reason law enforcement should not enjoy similar benefits and improvements.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by maxelson:
I gave you one.

You gave a broad and vague reason, and did not enumerate exactly how that is happening, or where in the article you are basing your argument on. We already have signficant challenges to our privacy-such as when police can arrest two gay men for having sex after breaking into their house by mistake. According to FindLaw,

Privacy is a concept composed of several aspects. 160 As a tort concept, it embraces at least four branches of protected interests: protection from unreasonable intrusion upon one's seclusion, from appropriation of one's name or likeness, from unreasonable publicity given to one's private life, and from publicity which unreasonably places one in a false light before the public.



Now my question to you where exactly in the article do you think the program will violate one of the four above tenets?

[maxelson]

Screw the aritcle. The article is a commentary. The article is an Op Ed. I fail to see how the article has any bearing beyond the informational. I am giving you the danger in specific as it relates to the REALITY OF THE ACTS. Are you asking me how these acts and initiatives will curb privacy of the citizenry? Is that what you want to know? My answer: a loop holed end run around the 4th amendment. As I have said. How does it do this? It uses the populace as the tool. Law enforcement is subject to the 4th. Governement agents must abide it. The populace need not and information gathered by them can be utilized- take the example of the infamous "black bag" in the Von Bulow case. The search of the rooms at the mantion in Newport was conducted by a PI and Sonny's kids. They were able to collect "evidence" and have it admitted into court. Of course, as you know, a state cop or FBI agent could not without a search warrant (which, you may recall, could not be obtained due to lack of due suspicion). Ultimately, and correctly, I think, that evidence was eliminated. It was a blatant attempt to get around the 4th. So, too, is the Eagle Eye initiative.

I base my argument on a direct linking of what the Eagle Eye program does, what it askes of citizens, what it is intended to do and an understanding of what the 4th amendment is there for- hell, even your own supplied definition of privacy. It was not a hard process. It was perfectly logical. One can easily apply the same thought process to PATRIOT, TIPs, The IAO, Carnivore, etc.

I must be missing your point, because I see this all pretty much as common sense.

As for invasions of privacy that already exist- you think this is OK? I am not sure I understand the point you are making. It seems to me that you are implying that since it already occurs, we should have no trouble with a furtherance and continued loss of that privacy. Please clarify.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
They can find all that out anyway. The difference now is that the warrant issuing and intelligence gathering process will be streamlined to take advantage of technology. If the authorities can locate a suspect within hours or days vs. weeks or months (or years - see Mr. "Bomber" Rudolph), then we will all be safer.

You act as if there are going to be dedicated government employees watching your every move in real time. Unless you are a prime suspect, or are willing to personally pay one government employee to watch you, that's never going to be the case.

Everything else in today's world has been streamlined, benefitting from technological advances. There's no reason law enforcement should not enjoy similar benefits and improvements.

No spacefreak: I "act" as if now all of this information will be gathered in one place. I "act" as if all of this information can now be gathered without thought to the 4th amendment. I "act" as if there will be a central bank of intelligence. I "act" as if I am being spied upon when there is NO JUST CAUSE to do so. No warrant is needed. None.

To quote Lerk: "The fallacy here is to assume this will only affect those guilty of crimes. Obviously, whether someone commits a crime can only be determined AFTER their privacy has been breached."

Again: gathering evidence PRIOR to a crime? And this has no flavor of 1984 for you? "Sure! We're just streamlining!" What is the next process in "streamlining"?



And I need only worry if I am doing something wrong? Man- back to your history. Look at the history of US.

Let this stuff continue, and how long will it be before my criticism of the system be recorded? It ain't a hard leap. After it is recorded, how long before it is acted upon? After all, what other REASON is there to record my statements? What other REASON is there to log my car rental or my book purchase or my internet searches? What REASON, space?

Checks and Balances. Do you understand that?

[Lerkfish]

(homer simpson) I got quoted....cool....ooooooo, do-nuts......(/homer simpson)

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by maxelson:
After all, what other REASON is there to record my statements? What other REASON is there to log my car rental or my book purchase or my internet searches? What REASON, space?

Don't ask me, ask your car rental company, Amazon.com, or your ISP, because they are already logging it.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Don't ask me, ask your car rental company, Amazon.com, or your ISP, because they are already logging it.

And the Government IS NOT at the moment. Which is the POINT.

C'mon. As if you see no difference.

[nvaughan3]

Screw the aritcle. The article is a commentary. The article is an Op Ed. I fail to see how the article has any bearing beyond the informational.

Well godamm then, I never should have posted in this thread in the first place then.

I am giving you the danger in specific as it relates to the REALITY OF THE ACTS. Are you asking me how these acts and initiatives will curb privacy of the citizenry? Is that what you want to know? My answer: a loop holed end run around the 4th amendment. As I have said. How does it do this? It uses the populace as the tool. Law enforcement is subject to the 4th. Governement agents must abide it.

OK, lets take a look at that.


TThe 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.


Now, my question is what exactly under the proposed programs would violate this? I dont want ranting and screaming, I'm genuinely interested in hearing exactly how it violates that. Or does it not-as you imply it being a "loophole"? You first said privacy, which is not specifically part of the 4th ammendment.

I base my argument on a direct linking of what the Eagle Eye program does, what it askes of citizens, what it is intended to do and an understanding of what the 4th amendment is there for- hell, even your own supplied definition of privacy. It was not a hard process. It was perfectly logical. One can easily apply the same thought process to PATRIOT, TIPs, The IAO, Carnivore, etc.

Lets look at the given guidelines for "eagle eyes". It should be noted again, it appears to pertain only to military members.


Suspicious activity that should be reported can be classified into six broad categories:

-- Specific threats: any threat received by any means that contains a specific time, location, or area for an attack.

-- Instances of any out-of-the-ordinary person or persons monitoring activities and/or recording information. Such activity may include the use of cameras, note taking, notes on maps or drawings, hand-drawn maps or diagrams, and the use of binoculars or other vision-enhancing devices. It could also be as simple as seeing the same unknown vehicle parked in your area without explanation.

-- Any attempts to obtain security-related information – or even basic information about the base – by anyone who does not have the appropriate security clearance and the need-to-know. Known as “elicitation,” these attempts may be made by e-mail, fax, telephone, in person, or through the mail.

-- Any attempts to measure security-reaction times or strengths and weaknesses; any attempts to test or to penetrate physical security barriers or procedures; any attempts to acquire or duplicate uniforms, badges, passes, or other security-related documents.

-- Repetitive activities: any two or more suspicious activities by the same person and/or vehicle in a one-month period.

-- Suspicious activities/incidents: any activity that does not specifically fit into the previous categories yet it is a concern to you. Some examples of this are thefts of uniforms, ID cards, or vehicle decals from your vehicle, home or office.



Now, what exactly in here violates any of your claims against unreasonable search and seizure? Or even does a loophole around it?

As for invasions of privacy that already exist- you think this is OK? I am not sure I understand the point you are making. It seems to me that you are implying that since it already occurs, we should have no trouble with a furtherance and continued loss of that privacy. Please clarify.

No, I'm saying that both your right to privacy and the rights enumerated under the 4th ammendment that are not hard and fast rules set in stone.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by maxelson:
And the Government IS NOT at the moment. Which is the POINT.

C'mon. As if you see no difference.

I see no problem with the government being able to obtain (electronically) expedited warrants to accumulate and analyze such data for law enforcement purposes.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
Now, what exactly in here violates any of your claims against unreasonable search and seizure? Or even does a loophole around it?

Bingo. This should be interesting...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Topic: you are being spied upon

*takes out willy, and does the helicopter dance*

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
*takes out willy, and does the helicopter dance*

bizarro... what do you mean Z?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
bizarro... what do you mean Z?

Do I really need to go further into detail?

[maxelson]

I am completely unsure of how my post does NOT answer your questions. I have elaborated.

The article is a fine conversation starter. A place to begin. It is still Op Ed and leads one onto a process of thought. I am sorry if my process of thought is objectionable to you. In future, it would be helpful if you would lay down ground rules for those of us who have a tendency for free thought- you know- to keep us within your guidelines.

4th- unreasonable search ans seizure. Correct? Implications include reasonable expectation of privacy, correct (the courts have defined and supported it so)? Allowing information obtained via another citizen which would otherwise be inadmissable if procured by an official is an end run. Correct? Are there MORE ways I can explain it to you or am I misunderstanding your question?
Eagle Eyes is an offshoot of TIPS, correct? This pertains only to the military? Why? Are there not systems already in place to handle this? Long standing systems? They are called Threatcons. Alpha, Beta, Charlie, Delta and whithin these are called for hightened levels of observation and vigilance. "Suspicious Activity" is already well defined on military bases (at least it certainly is on the base where I work) and there is a culture supported by a sign at EVERY turn to report said activity immediately. And it was all there LONG before 9/11. My thought is: why the redundancy? There are already redundancies. My concern is that this program find its way into the civilian world, and why would it not? Far off, you say? It was already introduced once. Rebranded and introduced again. More of these programs just keep popping up. And these programs DO exist and are NOT going away. See my list.

Screaming? Yelling? Ranting? I think you may be seeing what you wish to see. Don't be so patronizing. I am glad, space, that I can be of interest for you. TO answer you post: you have no problem with the obtaining of WARRANTS. YOUR words. We are not talking about WARRANTS. I have no problem with WARRANTS either. I DO have a problem with the governemt gathering information about ANY private citizen without just and reasonable cause.


Next. The gathering of information by the government about and of the citizenry as a matter of course prior to any criminal offense. Lemme get this COMPLETELY straight. You have NO issue with this. Answer simply with a yes or no.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Do I really need to go further into detail?

regarding "takes out willy, and does the helicopter dance", details may be unnecessary, but if you like you could explain the general meaning.

[nvaughan3]

The article is a fine conversation starter. A place to begin. It is still Op Ed and leads one onto a process of thought. I am sorry if my process of thought is objectionable to you. In future, it would be helpful if you would lay down ground rules for those of us who have a tendency for free thought- you know- to keep us within your guidelines.

I was under the impression from your posts that you were relying on the article to support your claim that it violated either privacy or unreasonable search and seizure regulations. Thus my reason for further questioning the article.

4th- unreasonable search ans seizure. Correct? Implications include reasonable expectation of privacy, correct (the courts have defined and supported it so)?

Reasonable expectations of privacy depend on what situation you are in. You cannot boil that down to a single sentence. Its different if you are a minor, if you are in a government building, on an AF base, if you are applying for a job, etc. There are hundreds of defined situations where you do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy.

Allowing information obtained via another citizen which would otherwise be inadmissable if procured by an official is an end run. Correct?

OK, lets delve into this. I admit I'm no legal expert but I'm trying to stick to law and facts rather than hype.

Lets have ourselves a hypothetical situation. A terrorist (lets call him Mohammed) is filming a bridge near an Air Force base. A member of the AF reports this. As it turns out, he's been reported filming other bridges and landmarks too, and this was reported previously. So what was first perhaps not investigated has been tied together and (perhaps) reasonably a federal agency investigates Mohammed. Eventually its found out Mohammed is performing investigative work for a terrorist cell.

Now, exactly how would this information be inadmissable even if tried in public court? Or if you cannot answer this please tell me how it would as relating to the program in a broad sense.

Are there MORE ways I can explain it to you or am I misunderstanding your question?

I think if you are really interested in tossing aside predetermined opinions and delve into the facts, you might understand what I'm saying.

Eagle Eyes is an offshoot of TIPS, correct?

I dont know. I certainly have not read this directly.

This pertains only to the military? Why? Are there not systems already in place to handle this? Long standing systems? They are called Threatcons. Alpha, Beta, Charlie, Delta and whithin these are called for hightened levels of observation and vigilance.

If you read what I posted the program appears to be giving defined areas of interest. We're talking about internal threats, not incoming missiles.

"Suspicious Activity" is already well defined on military bases (at least it certainly is on the base where I work) and there is a culture supported by a sign at EVERY turn to report said activity immediately. And it was all there LONG before 9/11. My thought is: why the redundancy? There are already redundancies. My concern is that this program find its way into the civilian world, and why would it not? Far off, you say? It was already introduced once. Rebranded and introduced again. More of these programs just keep popping up. And these programs DO exist and are NOT going away. See my list.

So it appears that you are saying the government is already doing an end-run around the 4th ammendment,a logical conlusion from your claims that it is multiply redundant. Why the concern now?

Screaming? Yelling? Ranting? I think you may be seeing what you wish to see. Don't be so patronizing. I am glad, space, that I can be of interest for you. TO answer you post: you have no problem with the obtaining of WARRANTS. YOUR words. We are not talking about WARRANTS. I have no problem with WARRANTS either. I DO have a problem with the governemt gathering information about ANY private citizen without just and reasonable cause.

It would appear that the just and reasonable cause would be the report from the AF personel. However, it's not illegal for the government to obtain information on you without legal cause. Now how exactly they obtain that information (wiretap, house breakin) might, but in general terms I dont know of any law or right that precludes it.

Next. The gathering of information by the government about and of the citizenry as a matter of course prior to any criminal offense. Lemme get this COMPLETELY straight. You have NO issue with this. Answer simply with a yes or no.

This goes on every day at the local, state, and federal level. So as a direct response to your qustion, no. I do have some very serious concerns about TIPS, (as well as some of the defined areas of interest to report with this program) but that's not what we are arguing. I'm challenging you to show exactly how it violates anything, and you are unable to prove it with anything but rhetoric.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
regarding "takes out willy, and does the helicopter dance", details may be unnecessary, but if you like you could explain the general meaning.

Use your imagination.