Yeah, you read it correctly...
The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS - TIME
Printable View
Yeah, you read it correctly...
The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS - TIME
Doesn't seem new, more like something that has always been overlooked. On the one hand, I would like law enforcement officials to be able to track suspected criminals (it's not like the government is going to waste their time tracking random citizens), maybe use a warrant system like for searching properties?
Jaywalkers are 'criminals,' you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
It's an extreme example, I know, but you get my point.
I do agree with the warrant thing, though.
Yes but why would law enforcement agencies waste resources (these guys are always short-staffed [not a pun]) to track a jaywalker.
Also jaywalking is a misdemeanor under civil code, not a felony under criminal code, so not criminal :P.
By saying "you get my point," I figured I didn't have to elaborate. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
My point is that definitions such as "criminal" are arbitrary, and not always crystal clear. (See the thread about the Ecuadorian Herbal Medicine Vendor). The "average citizen" is only a loop-hole away from being labeled a criminal, by those who want them to be so, for even the most benign actions. "Jaywalking' was just an example of how the terminology could be exploited.
Never let them put a chip into ur body that serves as a payment methode.
Be wary of technological or biological adjustment you let people make to you.
I agree, which is why a warrant system would put it in the hands of judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Thank you for your contribution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dthoughts
How can they say you have "no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements." I am pretty sure everyone has an expectation that the government isn't tracking them, and their reasons are all reasonable.
Correct, however the key words there are "would be," and the important thing to consider is that, as yet, there isn't a warrant system for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
I could see how this could be useful to the government, but it's not like they often need to track suspected theives and murderers. This will almost exclusively be used for tracking drug dealers. Drugs shouldn't be illegal so I see no real reason for them to have this kind of right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
The potential risk outweighs the potential use. It's not likely they are going to track random citizens, but what about people who speak out against the government? What about people that the government doesn't like or are just suspicious of.
I don't think that this will make the world much safer. It's just more big brother garbage and I am against it on principal.
Why does the government waste our tax dollars tracking people who grow marijuana for god's sake? Complete waste of money and time for starters.
I shouldn't have to buy a fence to have the same amount of privacy that other people do. That's not equal
Because the government can't profit off of weed that is grown in people's backyards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay12341235
Well it's not my country I'm not going to make a fuss about it :P.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
All the drug stuff is completely beside the point too. Whether you agree with the current drug policy or not, nobody can in their right mind support organized crime, and organized crime is where must of the drug supply comes from.
Some of you seem concerned about loopholes that could endanger the privacy of normal citizens, but criminals are well aware of the legal loopholes that keep them out of jail. Law enforcement has a tough enough time navigating the red tape to try and bring organized crime down and being able to track suspects is a pretty powerful tool to accomplish this, lets not tie their hands behind their backs any more than we need to.
I think it is pretty clear that they should get a warrant to do this, and if they did, no one would have problems with it. If someone uses a legal loophole to get out of going to jail, then they are not actually criminals. If you didn't break a law, you didn't break a law. We are not worried about police using a loophole to invade our privacy. We are worried about the police using the power as the law says and invading our privacy. There is no loophole involved. If they are allowed to do this, they can follow people around for any reason they want, which isn't acceptable.
Of course they could tax it if they chose. Some times I wonder how stupid people end up in positions of power in this country. Example: Sarah PalinQuote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
You can murder someone and get away scott free on a technicality, like inadmissible evidence. This is unacceptable and is a huge let-down in the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
A good example that I read the other day, UK intelligence agencies teamed up with Norway (I think) security in a sting to capture terrorists that were responsible for a bombing (who were obviously guilty). They were caught and arrested but later acquitted because of the technicality that British agents had entered Norway under false pretenses, rendering the whole operation unlawful. And now the men responsible are free (well this was quite a few years ago).
Completely unacceptable.
Edit: Gah I'm mixing up two different stories, the Norway thing was an art theft from a museum. There was a sting to recover the stolen art and capture the thieves, but they were later acquitted because the british agents entered the country under false pretenses. They're still thieves...
You're thinking small, Spart. It's not about loopholes, and it's not specifically about how this tool can aid the feds. It's more about desensitization. It is about the 'slippery-slope' phenomenon. It is about 'what happens' when theses personal infringements (in the name of 'security') become increasingly acceptable to the general public. How far is the government willing to go to catch the bad guy. You talk about 'not tying their hands.' How far are you, personally, willing to let the government go, to catch the bad guy? What if I told you the government was sending out hovering drones with cameras in them, to patrol your neighborhoods, searching for burglary suspects 24/7? At any point in time, there could be a drone passing by your window, maybe not specifically trying to look in your window, but doing so inadvertently, while looking around the perimeter - to search for criminal activity, around the clock? It is a sci-fi scenario, but I'm only using it to illustrate what's wrong with the logic of "well they it makes it easier to catch the bad guys. Don't tie their hands."Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
There has to be a point where saying "well they are just doing it to protect us" is not a good enough excuse. Do you not agree?
They can takes it if they seize it, which is what they are doing. If I am growing weed in my back yard, the only way they can tax it if they do what they did with the guy in the article, by catching me in the act of growing, selling it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay123...
Well given that this has always been allowed and people just realized it now, I wouldn't worry too much about the slippery slope thing :P. Another thing is that law enforcement barely has enough resources to effectively battle the important, high profile crime. They don't have time to go around spying on average suburban joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Also video surveillance isn't such a bad idea, maybe not in the residential suburbs but in crowded public areas. Look at how effective London's CCTV system has been.
So the British agents lied to get into the country? Well they shouldn't be doing it, that isn't a technicality, it is the law. When the police are allowed to break the law, you are in all sort of trouble. If evidence isn't admissible, it is because of very good reasons. It is not a loophole or a technicality. If you ignore the 'technicalities" a lot of innocent people will go to jail for crimes they didn't commit.
Yes, the British agents used false names (they were undercover) to get in the country... they were cooperating with Norwegian police.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
This doesn't change the fact that the thieves stole the painting and is complete bullshit.
Yes but if the drug policy was changed then it wouldn't be where the drug supply came from. If the law really wants to do something about organized crime the should legalize drugs and regulate them, it would stop far more crime than this would. That would cut at the source rather than just hitting a few individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
If law enforcement stopped using most of it's resources fighting a war on drugs they'd have plenty of resources to fight organized crime, and on top of this the crime syndicates would lose their main source of income.
This all comes down to a matter of opinion, whether or not the government should have more power. I think that they have far too much already and misuse it.
Organized crime would still exist without the drug trade, there is so much more for them to exploit (weapons, sex, racketeering, black market goods, extortion, etc.)Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
Like I said, the drug policy isn't the issue, it's another issue.
I didn't say that it wouldn't, I said that legalizing drugs would do more to stop crime than tracking drug dealers. This technology will mainly be used to track drug dealers, the issues are directly related.
Like I said at the end of my last post, this is another method for giving the government more power. The government already has too much power in this country and misuses it. I don't think they should be given any more power until they show that they can use the power that they have properly. We are already on a slippery slope and have been for about 50 years(at least). What this comes down to is whether you think that the government needs more power to fight crime or if you think(as I do) that the government has misused the power it already has and is responsible for creating much of the crime in this country.
If this was all regulated with warrants as you suggested it wouldn't be such a big deal but in the article it states that they want to be able to do this without a warrant. The government has done many things in recent years to attempt to get more power in unrestricted ways. Like I said if you think that the government needs more power this might not seem so bad, but I disagree and I think many other people in this country do as well.
If they believe an individual is committing a bad crime, they should have to go through the proper channels and get a warrant.
There are two reasons I don't like this. First, as the article stated, this decision says the rich get special privileges because they have fences around their homes. Second, I fear they could use this to find crimes to put people away who were not suspected of any crime beforehand, but who have been targeted for political purposes. If the police don't need a reason to invade your privacy, then they can find reasons after the invasion. And guess what? We all commit crimes. They could potentially put away whoever they wanted.
Two wrongs don't make a right. You can't become a criminal in order to catch criminals, and that is exactly what the government is trying to do. Once they cross that line into what isn't proper, its the duty of every American to slam the hammer down on them and put them in their place. I don't care how small the infraction is, the government isn't allowed to ignore the constitution of the United States, even if they believe its in our best interest. There is zero tolerance for this kind of bullshit. They must obey the rules or they are not longer a legitimate legal authority.
If a guilty person occasionally gets away without punishment, that is the price we pay for living in a free country. It is far better for a few criminals to go free, than for any innocent person to lose their privacy or be falsely arrested or harassed by the police.
I would think it's pretty simple. Law enforcement should crack down on "wrong-doers" and not wrong-thinkers. Proof for wrongdoing should be available before action is taken against a person. If no proof is available, then there is a lack of preventative security which should be addressed.
This pretty much leaves everything nicely. Except for when preventative security crosses into the cracking-down part (starts violating rights), in which rules should be put into place by a census vote, not by biased judges which end up setting stupid precedents.
Only way to solve bad rules is to voice discontent. Makes it a bit hard though, when people become stupidly pretentious with support or just don't care. Plan B is blow them bitches up.
Because marijuana helps u open ur eyes. Makes you see the big picture of the world easier. It makes you dream better, it helps to stay in touch with reality. And it makes u realize how ur being controlled. That's why they spend millions of dollars tracking weed dealers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay12341235
The thing about this right to track everybody's every move is 'Terrorists" to the american government there are shit load of potential terrorists all over the world wich they are allowed to torture and kill if they choose to. Now they have the right to find me aswell? FUCK THAT.
Everybody that does a little more research about political stuff and world wide issues is a potential terrorist and can be sentenced without any lawsuit. The only way to escape is to hide. If you can't hide anymore, we're fucked and gonna meet a time of more slavery than ever before in this world.
wow man. ur like, deep or something. pass the spliff and the potato chips, yo? were totally gonna fix the world as soon as this episode of wildboyz is over. ur message is deep man. we gotta get it out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dthoughts
what was i just saying?
It's called a mirror.
Right. You sound like an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dthoughts
never mind man, i forget. I love this ep man. its the one where pontius lets a robber crab pinch his ass. robber crabs are fuckin burly man. no fucking way id let one of those anywhere near my ass man. those guys are crazy!
I don't care that i sound like an idiot to you. Just when u stumble upon something weird remember what i said is true. however stupid it sounds.
HEY MAN! Its puff puff PASS! And where did all the fucking chips go man?!
i'd smoke some but i just quit smoking cigarettes yesterday and i dont wanna go get some just to fabricate a blunt.
Simply putting a no trespassing sign next to you driveway is sufficient to make it illegal for them to be in your driveway ;)
Everybody should have a moat and drawbridge.
It is illegal for them to do it any way. You have to remember that the government always tries stuff like this, and they some times get away with it for a little while. Eventually however, it goes to the supreme court and they throw the law out as unconstitutional because its total bullshit. It will probably be a case where they did this and caught a criminal, and then he gets off free, all because the government is to damn lazy to do their job and get a warrant first.
Right. I'm talking getting a law passed to make it legal, not taxing this guy aloneQuote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
YouTube - JFK telling us the 911 truth
5 min speech from JFK. Very powerful and very thought provoking to me.
The title says : JFK telling us the 911 truth . Wich is bullshit altho this might have some connections with 911 its simply irrelevant to the global scale of things anyway.
Remember people JFK got shot for telling the truth. There's no other motive in killing JFK.
If it says JFK telling 911 truth, it's gonna be a crock of shit video, but I'll check it out anyway. JFK died like.... 50 years before 911.
(Honestly have no idea of correct number of years, but it's way before obviously).
Yeah whoever uploaded the video either doesn't understand there's not a direct relation between this speech and 9/11 or doesnt care. JFK's words are all that matters tho and they speak clearly of a seperate movement/force taking control that is out of his hands and needs to be stopped.
I believe it was Lincoln who shut down a fed bank of some sorts because he has foreseen slavery in debt and he did not want to allow it. Not long after tho this bank has been rebuild and i think its the bank of america. i dont remember.
If you don't believe the millions of people speaking out against authority , bankers and a world police state maybe you will believe these people because they are saying the exact same thing we are saying.
Here's a quote i found from lincoln trying to find the one about the banks ( i didnt find the quote but i know its somewhere )
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember, or overthrow it.
I wasn't a big fan of this decision, but I'm glad it doesn't apply to my state (Florida). It is a horrible precedent to set though.
lmao I want to get high with philosopherstoned
I'd love to have a dreamviews smoke session sometime
I live in Canada. All new phones sold have GPS in them that can be accessed by emergency services at any time. This includes police. I see how this can be an invasion of privacy. Fortunately (as long as I have my cell phone) if I go missing the police can pinpoint where I am within a 2 meter radius.
I find it odd and unlikely that GPS can be put on cars without some sort of warrant. The article did not mention whether this can be done without a warrant. If someone were to put a GPS on my car they would get very bored as they watch me go from my apartment to my mom's to the grocery store to the gym.
Actually, I could be wrong, but I think the article said that the government can do this without a warrant at least in california. The might get bored watching you but they can harass marihuana growers which pisses me off, a lot. It's a fucking plant people, this is the year 2010, why is a plant that has been legal for thousands of years all the sudden against the law. Oh wait, I forgot, the government is racist.
It 2010! WOW! I MUST HAVE TRAVELED BACK IN TIME!!!
1) Harass marijuana growers; It's still an illegal substance. As long as it is illegal they will "harass" growers. If you partake in an illegal activity, you shouldn't get pissed off when the police try to stop you; they're doing their jobs.
2)Its a fucking plant people; indeed it is, I salute you in knowing the difference between a plant and an animal. Either way, its still illegal. I have a tiger.
3) Its 2011, if you put that bong down once and a while you may have known that.
4) Thousands of years; really!! Thats amazing, its kinda like how dueling was legal for "thousands" of years and "all of the sudden its against the law". Laws are made to better our lives (for the most part).
5) The government is racist: I do not agree or disagree with this, but how is the fact that marijuana is illegal racist? It is more of an economic ploy, not a racial tool.
Privacy is a wonderful thing, but we must all give up some of our privacy to make our world safe for all. If you have nothing to hide there shouldn't be any issues; if you do have something to hide, its people like you that are causing things like this to happen.
You're seriously harshing my mellow man. I had to check a calendar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dustndawind
Unless of course it's a stupid fucking law to begin with. See below.Quote:
1) Harass marijuana growers; It's still an illegal substance. As long as it is illegal they will "harass" growers. If you partake in an illegal activity, you shouldn't get pissed off when the police try to stop you; they're doing their jobs.
I hope by "have" a tiger, you don't mean "own" one. Because you're deluded. You can't "own" another sentient being. How exactly do you propose providing a suitable habitat for an organism the size of a tiger? How much territory does one require to feel that it's living a meaningful life? How much food does one require? A plant however lacks the central nervous system that is necessary and (in my opinion) sufficient to be regarded as sentient. So I can grow a roomful of plants without causing them any suffering whatsoever.Quote:
2)Its a fucking plant people; indeed it is, I salute you in knowing the difference between a plant and an animal. Either way, its still illegal. I have a tiger.
Again man, you're seriously confusing me here. I don't know who to believe now.Quote:
3) Its 2011, if you put that bong down once and a while you may have known that.
No, laws are, in principle, made to preserve a coherent state. This law was made to protect various industries from the competition that hemp would have brought onto the scene.Quote:
4) Thousands of years; really!! Thats amazing, its kinda like how dueling was legal for "thousands" of years and "all of the sudden its against the law". Laws are made to better our lives (for the most part).
I vaguely agree with you here. The government took advantage the populations racism and got the law passed. The point was primarily economic. It's a nitpick though. Only a racist government would do that.Quote:
5) The government is racist: I do not agree or disagree with this, but how is the fact that marijuana is illegal racist? It is more of an economic ploy, not a racial tool.
The problem with this line of thinking is that there is a difference between having something to hide because I'm going to bring violence upon other people and having something to hide because I don't want the government to kidnap me and steal my crop. So no, it's not people like me (caveat: It's been a few years since I've grown) that cause these things to happen. It's a broken and unjust law and the people that blindly support it without educating themselves enough to know just how broken it is. I guess that would be people like you...Quote:
Privacy is a wonderful thing, but we must all give up some of our privacy to make our world safe for all. If you have nothing to hide there shouldn't be any issues; if you do have something to hide, its people like you that are causing things like this to happen.
How does one truly "own" an animal, they are free spirits. One can contain them, but in reality they are an entity of their own and do not have a true owner. As you can tell by the flag beside my username I am Canadian. Meaning that I live in a modern country. As in any modern country having an animal such as a tiger is illegal, unless you have to proper training, skills and certifications to house and take care of such an animal. This was a hyperbole; I am glad to see you took is as such. As for the date, if we were still in January I could see mistaking the year for 2010, however we are almost a quarter way through the year, this should be enough time for you to memorize the date. I hope you understand what a quarter is, I assume that being a former grower you would sell it by the quarter often enough. As for laws, they come and go, reasons are dependent on the current time and situation. You state "having something to hide because I don't want the government to kidnap me and steal my crop", which would be a legitimate concern, except for the fact that your "crop" is still, for the time being illegal. I am neither for or against legalization; I see many benefits, but also many draw backs. If you find the laws unjust, there are ways to change them, legal ways. I still stand by what I said; if you have nothing to hide, you should not worry, if you do have something to hide, its people like you that are causing things like this to happen.
You're right. I read over the article again and it did mention that they were doing this without a warrant. I agree that it is a violation of privacy. I don't see how this could possibly be legal. Usually a warrant would be granted if somebody could provide enough valid evidence for it to be necessary.
The issue of legalization is a different topic. I used to do more than just smoke weed and I decided to go to rehab. I do admit that most of my peers in rehab were recovering from cocaine, meth, or alcoholism however there was one person there who chose to spend 30 days in rehab to quit marijuana. He said he had succeeded once on his own and had been straight for almost a year but had been unable to get straight again for many years. It is the least expensive of drugs on the street but we did share the commonality that we could no longer afford these kinds of habits. I think the government of Canada puts too much money into rehabilitation facilities and programs to believe that it is wise to legalize marijuana.
On the other hand I knew a man who suffered from regular seizures and was able to get a 'green' card which allows him to purchase marijuana legally from a depository. It was by far the least expensive and most helpful medication to treat his issue. I also ran into an old friend at a party who told me that he dropped out of school and was unable to work when he developed colitis. He started smoking one joint every night and it allowed him to eat and digest his dinner properly and it severely minimized his pains. Going back to addictions, I have heard that meth of coke addicts have used harm reduction techniques in which they essentially switch from their hard drug to marijuana. I am a big believer in harm reduction and because I believe this I think that there would be some benefits to legalization.
Unfortunately until anything changes those who grow, sell, and even merely use marijuana are in danger of prosecution and are best to take precautions to not get caught. If you grow or make drugs you need to be aware of the consequences and until anything is changed you need to be ready to deal with them.
Nice to see that the Obama administration is suing instead of waiting for a case to actually get to the supreme court.
If I found something like that on my car I would fuck with them so bad by attaching it to something else. "how did he get his car into the ocean?" :P