[ihasa]

These drones are a terrible idea! I accept a degree of intrusion from surveillance cameras in public places and businesses, and accept that the police will need to carry out covert operations. I even accept the occasional police helicopter flyover, because they generally don't take the chopper out without some specific crime investigation purpose. GoogleEarth is not detailed or regularly updated enough to be a serious privacy issue. But I don't like the idea that what we do in our backyards is routinely monitored. Within our properties, privacy ought to be respected.

[Medium FormatPro]

But I don't like the idea that what we do in our backyards is routinely monitored

But it gets more interesting…


The united states american government now has the ability to live view almost anything on the planet; between satelites and drones. Try to go indoors?? No problem there, as there are also two new "drone updates" that now "can use" a version of the xray spectrum to see completely through most any building. All brought to you by companies such as BAE

[JohnInIndy]

No, Hoover worried me and so did Watergate but, as as you can see, laws did not stop them. Increased sophistication in surveillance is just a new kind of power, there will always be developments that make the government more powerful and provide new opportunities for abuse. And we will always be dependent on the integrity of our leaders not to take destructive advantage of that.




Nonsense. The military has troops, ordinance, etc. enough to take over Washington, why not get paranoid about that? The US has tremendous power to hurt its citizens, or to use that power to protect us. I guess we have to decide which they are more likely to do. I do know I felt a lot more worried about such things when Cheney, Rove, et al were in charge; after all, they did manipulate us (and our allies) into an illegal war. But the answer isn't to take away all central power . . . the answer is to stop electing thugs and crooks.

Yeah but the takers still reelected him anyway.

[Blue]

No, Hoover worried me and so did Watergate but, as as you can see, laws did not stop them. Increased sophistication in surveillance is just a new kind of power, there will always be developments that make the government more powerful and provide new opportunities for abuse. And we will always be dependent on the integrity of our leaders not to take destructive advantage of that.




Nonsense. The military has troops, ordinance, etc. enough to take over Washington, why not get paranoid about that? The US has tremendous power to hurt its citizens, or to use that power to protect us. I guess we have to decide which they are more likely to do. I do know I felt a lot more worried about such things when Cheney, Rove, et al were in charge; after all, they did manipulate us (and our allies) into an illegal war. But the answer isn't to take away all central power . . . the answer is to stop electing thugs and crooks.

Bush and Cheney aren't in charge of the tools in the tool box. They got the unPatriot act moving but it took a bunch of Clowns in both houses to facilitate that and it was a bipartisan fleece job. That said the current administration has that tool box and isn't any better of a steward. What is nonsense is the attitude about the Military and government having the power to protect or take over. That is exactly the kind of crap the Bill of Rights was installed to prevent. There never should have been a Dept of Homeland Security. The DOJ and DOD already existed for those purposes. Just because some of us don't like Obama and his bunch (i.e. Eric "never met terrorist I didn't like" Holder et al.) doesn't mean we liked the Bush whackers. I was against the unPatriot act when it was passed and still am against it and think some of the clowns that passed it should be charged with subversion. However, the get away with it because there are so many "sheeple" that feel safe due to the illusion.

[Blue]

These drones are a terrible idea! I accept a degree of intrusion from surveillance cameras in public places and businesses, and accept that the police will need to carry out covert operations. I even accept the occasional police helicopter flyover, because they generally don't take the chopper out without some specific crime investigation purpose. GoogleEarth is not detailed or regularly updated enough to be a serious privacy issue. But I don't like the idea that what we do in our backyards is routinely monitored. Within our properties, privacy ought to be respected.

I agree with you. There has to be checks and balances on the people that use this stuff as well.

[les3547]

Bush [wasn't] in charge of the tools in the tool box.

I purposely didn't mention Bush.

What is nonsense is the attitude about the Military and government having the power to protect or take over. That is exactly the kind of crap the Bill of Rights was installed to prevent.

You apparently missed my point. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution and all laws are mere ideas and words on paper; the military is a large group of armed human beings trained to obey and kill. It's only integrity and love of democracy that stops the abuse of that power, not pieces of paper.

There never should have been a Dept of Homeland Security.

The surveillance you worry about is a two-edged sword. If we didn't have it, and if that resulted in increased terrorists attacks, then the paranoid would be using that as the basis of their criticisms.

Just because some of us don't like Obama and his bunch (i.e. Eric "never met terrorist I didn't like" Holder et al.) . . .

My opinion (previously stated) is that the real reason for incessant Obama whining is that the whiners are afraid of change, and aren't very happy people—they are projecting.

[MRRiley]

Time to cover the back yard in camo netting...

[normhead]

The only problem I have with "too much information", is that sooner or later it's going to be accessed by criminals, either the ones who violate your civil rights and work for the government, or those who are planning to break into your home. Or even worse those who would phone you up and say "hey I notice your sofa is getting a little ratty, we'll give you a great deal on a new one." The whole concept of the right to be secretive was never written into the constitution. Google would have to come onto my property to get a picture of my house.. and I have a metal roof so I doubt imaging could be done from the above. (Kinda like a tinfoil hat.) Everyone wants to tell you the data they collect is secure. Ask the CIA in reference to wiki-leaks how secure sensitive data is. Anything that is recorded will eventually be referenced without your permission for purposes contrary to your well being. That is a simple law of life. People who would do good for you are un-motivated. People who wish to do you harm, for some reason are unstoppable.

[les3547]

The only problem I have with "too much information", is that sooner or later it's going to be accessed by criminals . . .

Quite true. But criminals are doing that now without stealing it from the government, and they are becoming more capable by the day. If we don't have a more powerful central agency devoted to stopping them, criminal activity will prevail because, as you say, "people who wish to do you harm, for some reason are unstoppable." I'd add that computer crime fits the criminal mind perfectly . . . they can sit at their desk and rip everybody off by literally only lifting fingers.

[Blue]

I purposely didn't mention Bush.

You were thinking it.

You apparently missed my point. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution and all laws are mere ideas and words on paper; the military is a large group of armed human beings trained to obey and kill. It's only integrity and love of democracy that stops the abuse of that power, not pieces of paper.

That is o.k. you missed my point. There are cemeteries full of men and women that have fought to preserve those pieces of paper. Plus, you also fail to realize that the military aren't the only one trained. You fail to realize home many folks in this thread that are former military with various mos as well as those with additional training of various types.

The surveillance you worry about is a two-edged sword. If we didn't have it, and if that resulted in increased terrorists attacks, then the paranoid would be using that as the basis of their criticisms.

This mind set is no different in being willing to have the police come by and walk through your house from time to time and auto to make sure everything is secure and safe. Personally, I think probable cause should be required to get warrants to do such things and not "letters" written by agencies with a conflict of interest. I don't think they need to be looking into back yards etc. just to see what they can find.

My opinion (previously stated) is that the real reason for incessant Obama whining is that the whiners are afraid of change, and aren't very happy people—they are projecting.

It depends on the change. Using drones for various operations for example.

Quite true. But criminals are doing that now without stealing it from the government, and they are becoming more capable by the day. If we don't have a more powerful central agency devoted to stopping them, criminal activity will prevail because, as you say, "people who wish to do you harm, for some reason are unstoppable." I'd add that computer crime fits the criminal mind perfectly . . . they can sit at their desk and rip everybody off by literally only lifting fingers.

Actually, they already are stealing it from the Government.

[reeftool]

To add a little more fuel to the fire.

I ran across this story this morning. It seems there is a group within law enforcement that now wants to force cell phone providers to store all text messaging for 2 years just in case they ever "need" it.
North Carolina law enforcement wants text messages stored | Fox News

We are much closer to big brother than we may realize.

[JohnInIndy]

To add a little more fuel to the fire.

I ran across this story this morning. It seems there is a group within law enforcement that now wants to force cell phone providers to store all text messaging for 2 years just in case they ever "need" it.
North Carolina law enforcement wants text messages stored | Fox News

We are much closer to big brother than we may realize.

No need to worry about it at all. it was reported by "Faux" news after all.

[reeftool]

No need to worry about it at all. it was reported by "Faux" news after all.

Just because Fox is reporting on it doesn't mean that it isn't likely to come about. Laws for such things get sneaked into other legislation. When you get hauled off to jail someday because of an old text message taken out of context because you pissed somebody off, don't complain. The next step will be the recording and saving of all phone calls in case they are needed someday. We should always be on guard about crap like this. I take it for granted that posts on a forum like this are saved. Our text messages, emails are private and the very thought that law enforcement wants them saved in case they need it should scare the crap out of anybody who values their freedom. It's none of their business, ever!

[Medium FormatPro]

North Carolina law enforcement wants text messages stored | Fox News

All text messages in america are already stored in numerous formats.

First the carrier stores them for a period of at least one year. These same carrier often cooperate with both law enforcement and government to provide information - and without warrants of any kind. Texts are also intercepted before reaching their final destination by two government agencies; the FBI out of Clarksburg WV, and also the NSA at two seperate locations - one in VA, the other in GA.

Computer based texts are also easily intercepted as noted above, but also stored by ones internet provider

[graphicgr8s]

To add a little more fuel to the fire.

I ran across this story this morning. It seems there is a group within law enforcement that now wants to force cell phone providers to store all text messaging for 2 years just in case they ever "need" it.
North Carolina law enforcement wants text messages stored | Fox News

We are much closer to big brother than we may realize.

You're worrying about text messages yet are you OK with EMR? (Don't really mean you're worrying about it you know what I mean)