• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Call the police in Houston...

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Linkage

Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.

"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

I for one welcome our new police overlords. This is too far. How much Fascism will we put up with? They say they are trying to cover for a police shortage, but the technology will help them require less police. Any time an agency can operate with less they will even at the expense of civil rights.

At least it's just a 'brainstorm' for now...

Rob's List of Legal Things I do in my Home (that I don't want anyone to see)
1. Have sex
2. Shower
3. Deficate
4. Cuss (a lot)
5. Pick my Nose
6. Look at pR0n
7. Scratch things that itch
8. Argue in vain with the girl.
 
We don't have a right to privacy. Therefore, I don't usually expect a whole lot of it in situations like these. With online filesharing, for example, I knew it was only a matter of time before "the man" started policing the networks and we've gotten to the point where we are today where the RIAA is .

But even if we don't have a right to privacy, there comes a time when you've got to draw the line and I think that this is one of those instances where the line may have been crossed. Like others, I'm really not someone who has anything to hide nor do I want to somehow prohibit the law from being enforced. The law should be enforced because, well, it's the law. But even if you haven't done anything wrong there's something very unsettling about having someone figuratively looking over your shoulder and watching your every move almost as if they're just waiting for you to do something wrong. And as for this supposed shortage, well, I don't know about any of you but I'd much rather be giving American police officers paying jobs than have a bunch of cameras watching everything.

It's a bad idea and I think it'll run into a lot of opposition. But if you think that we're living in an advanced Fascistic state here in the USA then you're sorely mistaken. Although putting these little cameras everywhere might be a nuisance and an invasion of privacy, we still do enjoy many freedoms that people elsewhere don't have. China, as I'm sure you know, regulates the Internet very strictly. We have not only the freedom to generally go to whatever internet sites we want, but we also have protection for that freedom in the form of the First Amendment to ensure that Big Brother can't censor certain web sites just because they express opinions or views the adminstration disagrees with. And if memory serves me correctly, I believe I read a story a few days ago detailing how somewhere in Canada the idea was proposed to use chips of some sort to monitor car speeds.
 
Well the fascism statement was hyperbole. To compare our rights to chinese rights is a sad reflection on america. we shouldn't use the "they do it worse than we do" defense as an excuse for anything.
 
God bless the Alaska constitution where the right to privacy exists.

Things we can do with nobody watching...
Rob's List of Legal Things I do in my Home (that I don't want anyone to see)
1. Have sex
2. Shower
3. Deficate
4. Cuss (a lot)
5. Pick my Nose
6. Look at pR0n
7. Scratch things that itch
8. Argue in vain with the girl.
9. Posses three ounces of non-medicinal marijuana
(List updated for Alaska)
How about we trade the source code for our constitution for the right to drill ANWR? 😀
 
We don't have a right to privacy.

Bullsh1t. 4th Amendment.

"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."
 
I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

Isn't that what a lot of right wingers that agree with Boosh said about listening into your phone conversations? And the same goes for google releasing your search with IP addy attached to it...

This is just the beginning... Give them an inch and they will take a mile. There is no end or limits to this.
 
Originally posted by: cr0ssfire
We don't have a right to privacy.

Yes you do, more or less. You have the right go about your business without unreasonable interference from the state under due process. Check the 2003 Supreme Court ruling on sodomy in Texas for a ruling on sexual privacy.

 
Originally posted by: cr0ssfire
We don't have a right to privacy. Therefore, I don't usually expect a whole lot of it in situations like these. With online filesharing, for example, I knew it was only a matter of time before "the man" started policing the networks and we've gotten to the point where we are today where the RIAA is .

But even if we don't have a right to privacy, there comes a time when you've got to draw the line and I think that this is one of those instances where the line may have been crossed. Like others, I'm really not someone who has anything to hide nor do I want to somehow prohibit the law from being enforced. The law should be enforced because, well, it's the law. But even if you haven't done anything wrong there's something very unsettling about having someone figuratively looking over your shoulder and watching your every move almost as if they're just waiting for you to do something wrong. And as for this supposed shortage, well, I don't know about any of you but I'd much rather be giving American police officers paying jobs than have a bunch of cameras watching everything.

It's a bad idea and I think it'll run into a lot of opposition. But if you think that we're living in an advanced Fascistic state here in the USA then you're sorely mistaken. Although putting these little cameras everywhere might be a nuisance and an invasion of privacy, we still do enjoy many freedoms that people elsewhere don't have. China, as I'm sure you know, regulates the Internet very strictly. We have not only the freedom to generally go to whatever internet sites we want, but we also have protection for that freedom in the form of the First Amendment to ensure that Big Brother can't censor certain web sites just because they express opinions or views the adminstration disagrees with. And if memory serves me correctly, I believe I read a story a few days ago detailing how somewhere in Canada the idea was proposed to use chips of some sort to monitor car speeds.

Wow, I just can't let this post go. It is full of so many middle-ground fallacies, general BS, and just plain wrong.

We don't have a right to privacy.

Already discussed this. 4th Amendment.

With online filesharing, for example, I knew it was only a matter of time before "the man" started policing the networks and we've gotten to the point where we are today where the RIAA is .

The RIAA is not the government.

But even if we don't have a right to privacy, there comes a time when you've got to draw the line and I think that this is one of those instances where the line may have been crossed. Like others, I'm really not someone who has anything to hide nor do I want to somehow prohibit the law from being enforced.

Enforcing the law has nothing to do with my right to privacy, nor does it have anything to do with hiding something. The argument "why care if you've nothing to hide" is nothing more than a logical fallacy. It *assumes* you have something to hide, or otherwise you wouldn't care. Total bullsh!t. I don't have anything to hide, but it is neither the government's right or place to impose anything on me without a warrant. I am to be secure in my home against their unwarranted intrusions. Simply a fallacy of begging the question.

The law should be enforced because, well, it's the law.

That's stupid. Why should bad laws be enforced? Until Lawrence vs. Texas the goddamn sodomy laws in this nation had validity. Those should NOT have been being enforced. Sitting on a milk-crate in NYC? Used to be illegal -- hell it still may be, so why not enforce that? The law should be enforced when it is reasonable and prudent, and even then there is large discretion given to the police and our court system. Arresting people because they broke the law in an unrealistic and naive viewpoint. The jails, courtrooms, and prisons would be glutted with our very best citizens.

But if you think that we're living in an advanced Fascistic state here in the USA then you're sorely mistaken. Although putting these little cameras everywhere might be a nuisance and an invasion of privacy, we still do enjoy many freedoms that people elsewhere don't have. China, as I'm sure you know, regulates the Internet very strictly.

I don't live in China. I live in the USA, and in the USA I have Constitutional Rights. Secondly, I'm not willing to give up freedom after freedom "just because we've got more rights than China." I don't care if you can fvck a bullmoose in China, because their rights and abilities are not applicable to me. I want the freedom I've always had and then some. Eroding our rights due to international hegemony is not something I'm for.

We have not only the freedom to generally go to whatever internet sites we want, but we also have protection for that freedom in the form of the First Amendment to ensure that Big Brother can't censor certain web sites just because they express opinions or views the adminstration disagrees with.

If this were only true. Lookup the case of Chris Wilson from "Nowthatsfvckedup.com" I will warn you that the site is explicit, so I didn't link it for that reason. Terms to search for would be: Chris+Wilson+Polk+County. Websites CERTAINLY are shutdown by this government, even if done with a thinly-veiled attacked by local governments. There's a plethora of information that the Army was heavily involved in getting the site and its creator in legal trouble. Why? Because they had graphic pictures from the war, and a lot of soldiers accessing the place.

And if memory serves me correctly, I believe I read a story a few days ago detailing how somewhere in Canada the idea was proposed to use chips of some sort to monitor car speeds.

I find it very sad how ignorant you are about the eroding of rights in the United States. Not only are rental car companies doing this now, but the US government has certainly been interested in it. As well as chips that disable your car after a "beam" is focused on them, tracking passive GPS signals, and constantly attempting to get warrants to track the GPS positioning of cellphones. It isn't China that I'm worried about, friend. It is the US of fvcking A!
 
No problem at all. Just launch a citizen campaign to destroy EVERY camera they place. If they're that short on officers not only will they not be able to catch any great percentage doing the damage, but the added drain on financial resources will quickly create such an outcry that the people responsible will never work in the public sector again. Problem solved.
 
The only way a camera is going to fight crime is if you pull it off the wall mount an hit a criminal with it. It might help you catch them later, but that only works against criminals smart enough to think things all the way through. And they are CRIMINALS, meaning their overall level of intelligence isn't all that impressive in the first place. As anyone who's been to London knows, that city is jampacked with cameras, and they still have way more violent crime than most major US cities, not to mention the latest terrorist attack.
 
Originally posted by: ericlp
I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

Isn't that what a lot of right wingers that agree with Boosh said about listening into your phone conversations? And the same goes for google releasing your search with IP addy attached to it...

Sounds like the chief has the RW rhetoric down pat. Bush (and his master Karl Rove) must be proud!

 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No problem at all. Just launch a citizen campaign to destroy EVERY camera they place. If they're that short on officers not only will they not be able to catch any great percentage doing the damage, but the added drain on financial resources will quickly create such an outcry that the people responsible will never work in the public sector again. Problem solved.
You realize under the Patriot Act what you are advocating is terrorism?
Seriously, you could be sent to Gitmo and tortured for saying it.


 
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No problem at all. Just launch a citizen campaign to destroy EVERY camera they place. If they're that short on officers not only will they not be able to catch any great percentage doing the damage, but the added drain on financial resources will quickly create such an outcry that the people responsible will never work in the public sector again. Problem solved.
You realize under the Patriot Act what you are advocating is terrorism?
Seriously, you could be sent to Gitmo and tortured for saying it.

I don't know about THAT...the Patriot Act is bad enough, no need to embellish.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No problem at all. Just launch a citizen campaign to destroy EVERY camera they place. If they're that short on officers not only will they not be able to catch any great percentage doing the damage, but the added drain on financial resources will quickly create such an outcry that the people responsible will never work in the public sector again. Problem solved.
You realize under the Patriot Act what you are advocating is terrorism?
Seriously, you could be sent to Gitmo and tortured for saying it.

I don't know about THAT...the Patriot Act is bad enough, no need to embellish.
If you advocate organized acts of property destruction it is a violation of the Patriot Act, which makes no distinction between a goal of protesting a law and the goal of spreading fear.
Anyway, it would never come to the Patriot Act. The President could just declare you an enemy combatant (since you are organizing an insurrection) and just send you to eastern Europe to be boiled alive.

 
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Linkage

Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.

"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

How about all police officers, including the chiefs and the management, install cameras in their houses. And put up a publically accessible web site with live feed 🙂 They have nothing to hide, right?
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: cr0ssfire
We don't have a right to privacy.

Yes you do, more or less. You have the right go about your business without unreasonable interference from the state under due process. Check the 2003 Supreme Court ruling on sodomy in Texas for a ruling on sexual privacy.
Scalia doesn't believe it, and our executive branch thinks privacy is what you do to help the terrorists.
 
Originally posted by: fornax
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Linkage

Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.

"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

How about all police officers, including the chiefs and the management, install cameras in their houses. And put up a publically accessible web site with live feed 🙂 They have nothing to hide, right?

Only the "unwashed serfs" need to be spied on (aside from being the "royalty", the police never do anything illegal)
 
"How about all police officers, including the chiefs and the management, install cameras in their houses. And put up a publically accessible web site with live feed 🙂 They have nothing to hide, right?"


LOL. You'd see more drug use, alcoholism, wife beating, and drug dealing than you could shake a stick at. Kind of sounds like my house. 😉
 
Originally posted by: cr0ssfire
We don't have a right to privacy.

It may not state it explicitly in the Bill of Rights but it is implied in the 4th Amendment. Otherwise Roe v. Wade would have been a non-issue and abortion would still be illegal in many states.

Does anyone have Harold Hurtt's email address?
 
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
No problem at all. Just launch a citizen campaign to destroy EVERY camera they place. If they're that short on officers not only will they not be able to catch any great percentage doing the damage, but the added drain on financial resources will quickly create such an outcry that the people responsible will never work in the public sector again. Problem solved.
You realize under the Patriot Act what you are advocating is terrorism?
Seriously, you could be sent to Gitmo and tortured for saying it.

Heheheh, I'd believe it. Of course, the Patriot Act IS terrorism, so *shrug*. There comes a time when words no longer suffice, and action is called for. Better it be non-violent (like my camera suggestion) and bring about change than having to go all the way to armed revolution.
 
That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard from the Houston police. This is invasion of privacy to the max.
 
Originally posted by: jrenz
It's not that they do it worse, it's that we do it better.



...what?

Don't you mean *they* do it better?

It's alright, the chinese will learn to manufacture quality products, and America will learn to effectively spy on its population.
 
I've no legal thoughts on what to do over this line of thought. Anyone supporting unwanted government cameras in a private home has my wrath.

Granted, that means nothing over the net, but when big brother comes knocking on my door about this they're getting more than a piece of my mind.
 
Back
Top