dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
26
share rss forum feed

cosmicChuck

join:2009-03-26
San Francisco, CA
reply to ctggzg

Re: San Fransisco police getting drones

It is painfully obvious you are quite oblivious to the intersection camera debate. Maybe you should watch less TV and spend time educating yourself on matters you feel necessary to give your opinion on. Your awful likening these to drones (much worse than a camera at an intersection) shows you are completely inept to speak on either topic. These "whiners" I would say have a right to complain. The tickets are an exorbitant fine the majority of which your community will never see. You too may one day receive mail from a business in a far off state which turns out to be a citation. This company has been caught shortening the length of time of yellow yield lights below the federal minimum (see Chicago). There is no oversight as to how these cameras are calibrated or how often. I hope you are never cutoff by a cube van and cannot see the light as had happened to me. In a 25 mph zone the photo's showed I was going 21 mph at the stripe & 23 mph in the intersection (as I sped up to avoid anyone fast off the light change). However, it failed to show the towering truck which cut me off and obstructed my view of the light. A police officer would've seen the delivery truck driver decide, without notice, to make a Left rather than a Right despite being in the Right lane (I was in the middle lane & fortunately far enough behind him). The officer has the ability to use reason and logic unlike a photo-machine. I went to court and entered my guilty plea only to later educate myself on the unscrupulous business practices of intersection camera companies. I wasn't too thrilled to find out my county saw about $200 and the corporation in China funneled through a corporation in Australia got more than $300 of the fine. How do you feel about the majority of the "revenue" not even going to your cash strapped township or county but rather to an overseas corporation?
I find it odd how quickly a good percentage of the population will blindly give up their rights and their freedom for the reassurance that they and their community are safer for it. With your consent to drones you have obviously given up your right to privacy for the thought that you will be safer from all those unsavory characters you are bombarded with by your nightly news which I imagine you tune into religiously.


Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

1 recommendation

that is exactly why I am against all forms of automatic enforcement. A good cop knows to view the whole situation. from conditions when he saw the violation to the conditions of the road.

the camera knows none of this and its data is packaged at some third party company and mailed out. likely by people with no policing experience.

Cities love them because they hate good cops, Good cops know when a ticket is needed(such as blowing the red going over the limit.) Good cops limit an endless revenue stream. Same with speed cameras. on a clear dry day with minimal traffic I know for a fact here in NJ one can cruise along at speeds that are most certainly very much ticket worthy, State PD will ignore until one goes too far above or if they are driving unsafe(weaving through the slower cars like they are in the indy 500)
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


armed

join:2000-10-20
Reviews:
·Charter

1 edit
reply to cosmicChuck

said by cosmicChuck:

I find it odd how quickly a good percentage of the population will blindly give up their rights and their freedom for the reassurance that they and their community are safer for it. With your consent to drones you have obviously given up your right to privacy for the thought that you will be safer from all those unsavory characters you are bombarded with by your nightly news which I imagine you tune into religiously.

I have a couple of issues with what you are saying in this paragraph.

1. You fail to describe why a drone is any more an invasion of privacy than an undercover cop watching you, or use of unmarked cars, or long range listening devices, or hilocopters, or DNA tests. Either they all violate our right or they all don't. ITS HOW THEY ARE USED NOT WHAT IS USED THAT IS OF CONCERN.

2. Upon election of a new President and the appointment of Supremes to match his religious and legal philosophy (IE litmus test judges at all Federal levels) any pretense to a supposed right to privacy will be erased from the law. In case you don't know (or in need of a reminder) Roe VS Wade was based on the supposition of a right to privacy and to control ones body. The raillying call of the religious and extreme right is that privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution and is not therefore an inalienable right. The movement is called fundamentalism and they apply it to the Bible and to the Constitution.

We are one vote on the Supreme Court away from overturning the concept of right to privacy and in doing so all other "privacy rights" will disappear too. This screams that its not the tools used to enforce laws but the application of the laws that is really scary.

Far too many people think conservatism means getting "gubberment out of our lives." But in reality its only the libertarian that believes that. Many conservatives believe it means less control over business and more government control of the people. It also includes expanding police powers.

To many, the fear of crime and the supposed erosion of Christian beliefs begins to outstrip their love of freedom. So along with the fall of Roe VS Wade and anti sodomy, anti gay rights laws, etc. the stage is set to increase control of you daily life and the power of the police to enforce those controls.

Too many think its the economy that is of prime importance in the next election. But the economy will improve (or not) no matter the choice. The real issue is the real possibility that we begin a slide back two hundred years to little personal freedoms (IE loss of privacy) with business left to run amuck..

OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
kudos:2

said by armed:

Many conservatives believe it means less control over business and more government control of the people. It also includes expanding police powers.

Giving police drones will serve exactly that purpose - moving control from people to police. After huge investments made into drone surveillance industry and making it acceptable by public, looking at the sky you'll never know, what the drone is doing there. Is it helping to solve the extreme rare useful purpose (like you've mentioned in your earlier post here), or is it used to observe what people are doing in this area (any suspicious gathering of people in groups, bigger then 3 person? what they're doing? where they're going?) or it's simply watching you for completely unexpected reason. There will be no way to make any distinction or know the actual purpose of its usage...

To many, the fear of crime and the supposed erosion of Christian beliefs begins to outstrip their love of freedom. So along with the fall of Roe VS Wade and anti sodomy, anti gay rights laws, etc. the stage is set to increase control of you daily life and the power of the police to enforce those controls.

That's why people should always remember what was mentioned in this post.

And that's why those, who want that control over population in their hands, will always facilitate that fear and erosion of beliefs (not only Christian, BTW). Look at what Hollywood is flooding this county with - huge stream of horror, scifi, mystery, twilight movies and other similar BS. Then someday some guy after watching this trash all night long wakes up, and, loosing control over understanding the difference between reality and what he saw in those movies, starts shooting people around. Then those people start asking government for new surveillance tools to protect them from what could happen... Got the picture?

Too many think its the economy that is of prime importance in the next election. But the economy will improve (or not) no matter the choice. The real issue is the real possibility that we begin a slide back two hundred years to little personal freedoms (IE loss of privacy) with business left to run amuck..

I think you're right here...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

1 edit

1 recommendation

said by OZO:

That's why people should always remember what was mentioned in this post.

BTW, quotes like those are useful (and remembered) by people because they summarize in a sentence a huge volume of information. To those that understand-- this particular one reminds them of what freedom is, what is required to maintain it, the history of societies that lost their freedom etc. In short they're not just pithy quotes thrown out by tinfoil hat types.
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!

armed

join:2000-10-20
Reviews:
·Charter

1 recommendation

said by StuartMW:

said by OZO:

That's why people should always remember what was mentioned in this post.

BTW, quotes like those are useful (and remembered) by people because they summarize in a sentence a huge volume of information. To those that understand-- this particular one reminds them of what freedom is, what is required to maintain it, the history of societies that lost their freedom etc. In short they're not just pithy quotes thrown out by tinfoil hat types.

Quotes like that may serve to cheer lead the mindless but serve little purpose in thoughtful discussions of issues.

It appears to me you are suggesting that a saying from 238 years ago overpowers all when discussing the issue of LEGAL use of drones. Worse it appears that if I don't agree with your thoughts on drones then it must be because I'm too dense to understand its great deep meaning.

My equally insulting reply is that blind allegiance to trite sayings leads to intellectual blindness.

I agree in the saying... I don't believe its completely applicable to the LEGAL use of drones in LE.

I'll say it for the last time.

IT IS NOT THE TOOLS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO USE THEM AND THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR USE THAT IS THE THREAT.

To believe otherwise is to believe that all tools used in LE must be banned because they have all been used illegally at one time or another and thus must come under purview of the quote.


StuartMW
Who Is John Galt?
Premium
join:2000-08-06
Galt's Gulch
kudos:2

said by armed:

Quotes like that may serve to cheer lead the mindless but serve little purpose in thoughtful discussions of issues.

Not sure if it was intentional or not but that was funny
--
Don't feed trolls--it only makes them grow!


Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to armed

said by armed:

...
IT IS NOT THE TOOLS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO USE THEM AND THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR USE THAT IS THE THREAT.
...

And maybe that's where the crux of the matter really lies. Some folks might argue that if law enforcement is denied certain tools, then there will be less (or no) chance of incorrectly applying the laws governing their use. Put another way, the power of certain tools when abused may threaten to be so great that it arguably isn't worth the risk to society and personal freedom for them to be applied domestically in the first place. A number of issues fall into this category, ranging from national ID cards all the way to domestic LE use of drones... and a reasonable debate can certainly be framed by both sides on that kind of basis.
--
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" -- P.Henry, 1775


Snowy
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Clearwire Wireless
·Time Warner Cable

said by Blackbird:

said by armed:

...
IT IS NOT THE TOOLS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO USE THEM AND THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR USE THAT IS THE THREAT.
...

And maybe that's where the crux of the matter really lies. Some folks might argue that if law enforcement is denied certain tools, then there will be less (or no) chance of incorrectly applying the laws governing their use. Put another way, the power of certain tools when abused may threaten to be so great that it arguably isn't worth the risk to society and personal freedom for them to be applied domestically in the first place. A number of issues fall into this category, ranging from national ID cards all the way to domestic LE use of drones... and a reasonable debate can certainly be framed by both sides on that kind of basis.

Considering the amount of respect I have for both of you, it's unsettling to have to disagree with both of you.
The issue is not about abuse or even potential for abuse.
Abuse of power, which is what seems to have taken center stage, has been around since the first laws were put in place.
Those are situational items that will happen as a matter of course.

It's about the law itself which is the final arbiter of what is acceptable use vs what is unacceptable use.

"How far can the legal, lawful use of technology go" before it becomes oppressive to the average citizen?
That's the issue, IMO

armed

join:2000-10-20
Reviews:
·Charter

said by Snowy:

said by Blackbird:

said by armed:

...
IT IS NOT THE TOOLS USED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT THE ABUSE BY THOSE WHO USE THEM AND THE INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THEIR USE THAT IS THE THREAT.
...

And maybe that's where the crux of the matter really lies. Some folks might argue that if law enforcement is denied certain tools, then there will be less (or no) chance of incorrectly applying the laws governing their use. Put another way, the power of certain tools when abused may threaten to be so great that it arguably isn't worth the risk to society and personal freedom for them to be applied domestically in the first place. A number of issues fall into this category, ranging from national ID cards all the way to domestic LE use of drones... and a reasonable debate can certainly be framed by both sides on that kind of basis.

Considering the amount of respect I have for both of you, it's unsettling to have to disagree with both of you.
The issue is not about abuse or even potential for abuse.
Abuse of power, which is what seems to have taken center stage, has been around since the first laws were put in place.
Those are situational items that will happen as a matter of course.

It's about the law itself which is the final arbiter of what is acceptable use vs what is unacceptable use.

"How far can the legal, lawful use of technology go" before it becomes oppressive to the average citizen?
That's the issue, IMO

Well...you're right. That is concise and good writing and you have asked the one question that cuts to the issue.

I will leave it at that.
Expand your moderator at work