Big Brother Is Watching

[R. Richard]

The denial of constitutional rights is an unfortunate thing.

During World War II, denial of constitutional rights abounded. There were laws that prevented people on the coasts from showing a lighted window at night. There were laws that caused innocent citizens to be gathered up and imprisoned because FDR thought they might cause trouble. There was rationing. It was all accepted because we were at war.

We are no less at war today. Worse yet, the enemy is not as readily identifiable as it was in WW II. However, certain sacrifices will be necessary until the war ends.

JMHO.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I just have one thing, well maybe two things to say on this thread.

1. A camera / speaker in a public place is, in my mind, the same as a policeman on that corner or street or courtyard or etc. I have no expectation of privacy in a public place. And if I'm stupid enough to commit a crime or act of indecency, then I deserve to be ridiculed or arrested.

2. If the camera can see into my house/apartment, where I have that expectation of privacy, then I have a problem. True, I could keep my curtains closed or blinds pulled but I should expect to have some security within my humble abode that my privacy not to be invaded casually by my government.

 

[angelicminx]

Oh, I don't know if it is all that bad. Think if it this way, if you are English and want to flip off the government, it is now as close as your local street corner in London.

LOL… that is until the government charges with you with: terroristic threatening, propositioning a police officer, indecent gestures in public… I’m sure there’s a long list of things that COULD be charged, these are just the ones that have happened.

The CONCEPT is great and that’s how the government is gaining control, little by little. People feel safer because they can rely on the cameras for evidence of a crime.

Picture this though: You and your spouse are having an argument, doesn’t matter what about, and your spouse turns to walk away from you. You grab their arm to prevent that from happening, your intention only to resolve the argument. You haven’t hurt them, but because you grabbed them you have just committed a crime. Domestic violence, force, taking a hostage… numerous other things can be charged. We’ve all done it, whatever the intention behind it.

Now, picture the spouse as one of your children and the scenario changes slightly. Now you’re guilty of child abuse, possibly charged with child SEXUAL abuse (because you’ve restrained them) and who knows what else. CPS is now involved and there is a strong likelihood that you will 1. Lose that child to foster care. 2. Lose any other children to foster care. 3. Have to register as a sex offender for a minimum of 10 years, but most likely for the rest of your life, and now struggle to get a job (unless you are lucky as hell and get to keep the one you had) and find a place to live that fall within the sex offender registration laws.

I know, I sound paranoid as hell, but folks, this has happened! Y’all don’t know my current situation, and I’m NOT going to disclose it, but after everything I’ve been through in the last 13 months, and everything that has yet to come I have a new, REALITY based perspective on things.

Laws have been written that are interpreted, LEGALLY, any way a judge and prosecutor see fit. More of these laws are written every day. Yes, defense attorneys have the same ability to interpret, but ultimately it’s up to a judge and/ or jury to decide what a law means.

I see both sides of the ‘conveniences’ and things done to ‘protect’ people. I’ve trusted the law and I’ve embraced the idea of tracking/ watching criminals, but I’ve had my eyes opened to the severe and negative consequences of these ‘wonderful’ devices.

In theory the ‘average’ person isn’t watched, is considered ‘under the radar’. Good theory, but reality says otherwise. I know people who have been arrested, not because they did anything wrong (they didn’t), but because they couldn’t produce identification. I’ve also seen people who could produce identification, but because they didn’t have money in their pocket at the time they were arrested for vagrancy.

My intention is not to start an argument, not by any stretch of the imagination. No one has to agree with me. These are MY views on the situation and I wanted to share them. I don’t believe that we will see complete governmental control in our lifetime, and MAYBE our kids (meaning the children born in the 90's) won’t see it… but I’d bet dollars to donuts that their kids and grandkids do.

 

[R. Richard]

In theory the ‘average’ person isn’t watched, is considered ‘under the radar’. Good theory, but reality says otherwise. I know people who have been arrested, not because they did anything wrong (they didn’t), but because they couldn’t produce identification. I’ve also seen people who could produce identification, but because they didn’t have money in their pocket at the time they were arrested for vagrancy.

Way back when, the police routinely arrested people for "vagrancy" and "no visible means of support." However, due to Supreme Court decisions they no longer do this.

I don't know if police do arrest people for no identification. However, I used to be a runner. I never carried identification with me when I ran and was never bothered by the scumbags. [I was not dressed in a fancy running outfit, I wore running shorts and a tee shirt.]

 

[angelicminx]

Way back when, the police routinely arrested people for "vagrancy" and "no visible means of support." However, due to Supreme Court decisions they no longer do this.

I don't know if police do arrest people for no identification. However, I used to be a runner. I never carried identification with me when I ran and was never bothered by the scumbags. [I was not dressed in a fancy running outfit, I wore running shorts and a tee shirt.]

A friend of my SO's was arrested for vagrancy about 2 years ago. Granted, the case was dismissed, but it's now on his permanent record.

My ex sister in law was arrested 10 years ago for not having identification on her. She was booked and released. When she went to court she was fined and instructed to obtain a state issued ID.

 

[R. Richard]

A friend of my SO's was arrested for vagrancy about 2 years ago. Granted, the case was dismissed, but it's now on his permanent record.

Without knowuing anything about the matter, I would assume that what your SO's friend was actualy arrested for was handing the heat some shit. The badge don't like being handed shit. Thus, they will arrest the guy on some "convenience" charge. The charge will not stand up in court, but written law serves as a basis for the arrest. Then the charge is dismissed, leaving the shitor with an arrest record and the shitees with a weapon to prevent them from again becoming shitees. [I have seen this system operate several times.]

 

[ishtat]

DNA and Privacy

A friend of my SO's was arrested for vagrancy about 2 years ago. Granted, the case was dismissed, but it's now on his permanent record.

My ex sister in law was arrested 10 years ago for not having identification on her. She was booked and released. When she went to court she was fined and instructed to obtain a state issued ID.

In the UK now you can be arrested on suspicion of say, drink driving the police can take a DNA sample which they retain even if you are not charged with anything


They can then run that sample over the national crime data base and see if it matches or is a close match to DNA taken at any crime scene. That seems an unreasonable invasion of privacy until you are told that 100 rapists and similar criminals have been convicted on evidence gathered this way on previously unsolved cases all dating from before 1995. Tonight on the news a guy got 13 years for a number of sexual attacks on girls after his sister was DNA'd in connection to a motoring offence. Crime scenes between 1989 and 1996 showed similar DNA and the culprit her brother was soon identified.

This is without doubt a major breach of privacy but it is nailing some serious offenders. Seems like a fair trade off to me.

I like the idea that all the other similar "cold case "offenders will be getting very nervous as Police systematically re check DNA evidence for crimes post 1996

 

[shereads]

I'm happy for the government to execute a warrant on relatively minor grounds if it nets them a pedophile, but I'm not delighted at the idea of them tossing and searching my own home when I know I'm innocent. But the only way they might be able to tell if the invasion of privacy is justified or not is to carry it out. We can't expect them to guess right 100% of the time.

Shanglan

Warranted searches aren't an issue as far as I'm concerned. Sure, there can be abuses of the system; an unjustified warrant might be issued to search the home of an innocent horse (Equine American), disrupting his life and causing irreparable damage to his reputation. That sucks, but as long as law enforcement is conducted by human beings, it's bound to happen. Until recently, the horse could take comfort in the fact that he would have his day in court, and that if the search had been conducted improperly, someone would be held accountable. We've allowed that protection to be weakened, and we may never fully reclaim it.

When the dust settles, this administration will go down in history as having waged a far more effective war on due process and habeus corpus than on terrorism.