Police Want 'Drive-By' Friskings

Well, if you got nothing to hide...?

Might as well use that spin-off technology to let the police look into your homes at will, too. I know all the pedestrians used to try to look into your windows anyway, so what's the difference?

Factious mode off.

Hmmmm:

Factious maybe (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factious) but \

Facetious, also? (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facetious)

No! It's fractious!

OK. That's THREE! We either have to quit this error correction, or the OP is gonna have to set us ALL straight!

Good Catch!

Naw, I am enjoying watching you guys try to guess. ;-)

I was thinking that it was a play on the word fascist.

NYC has become a test bed to see how much control govt. can exert before people start pushing back, with Bloomberg at the reins.

Salt, transfat, cigarettes, surveilance cameras everywhere..................the latest is that alcohol is available in too many outlets, with the goal of starting to shut down some of the businesses that sell it.

If they can make NYC into a utopian society, it can be done everywhere.

GA

I think you misunderstood my meaning Andy, and may want to take back your GA.

Surveillance cameras, gun laws, etc. are ineffective against true criminals. Cameras in crime ridden neighborhoods will simply be torn down. People that register and legally own guns, do not, (for the most part), commit crimes with them.................so we end up with these invasive measures only being applied to people that typically don't commit crimes.

In the meantime we write laws against profiling people that fit the bill of being true criminals/terrorists. In effect, stripping freedom from the vast majority of the population, while simultaneously protecting the freedom of the bad guys. Sorry you misunderstood.......................I'm with AH on this one.

The fast and furious mess has become non-newsworthy, but it clearly demonstrates the drastic measures that those in power will take to dismantle the 2nd amendment in the US. If the government is able to completely disarm the entire population, resistance will surely be futile.

I like freedom too. I like freedom to walk down a street, any street, unarmed with my family and friends and not be shot at by gangs of youths or similar..........

That is my version of freedom. Maybe not yours. I don't judge on that.

Can you influence legislation where you are to stop the cameras, stop the scanners etc.. I bet may rear end you cannot change anything anymore than I can......

By the way, if the cameras get pulled down, they were not put up correctly in the first place. The UK often puts them on very high, very solid steel poles set in concrete I believe......but they probably have more experience in this matter than any other country......they know what works.

UK policemen are generally unarmed, they only pick up weapons when absolutely needed.

Here in Germany all the police are armed, if two together, often one has a machine gun as well.......I wonder why? It may be because Germany has NOT gone for the cameras possibly.......

Are your local police armed? Should they be? How often does one get shot?

Here is a list of the around 230 UK police officers killed in the line of duty in the UK since 1900, YES in 112 years only 230:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty

Last year in the USA alone, 173 police officers were killed in the line of duty:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2079428/Big-rise-number-U-S-police-officers-killed-work.html

I know its a bigger country but the relationship is still overwhelmingly bad on the side of the USA and you want LESS control, fewer cameras, no scanners and you call that FREEDOM!!!!

You can probably thank the NRA and similar for all of your problems in the US with firearms and freedom...as well as the Constitution of course!!!

A lack of guns in private hands and a basically unarmed police force seem to do the trick.....numbers wise anyway.....

I am simply unconvinced by you about how good are freedom for firearms for the general public, or a lack of scanners and cameras.......nor what can be considered as FREEDOM in my book!!!

Nobody will say the UK is perfect, but numbers wise they are pretty damn good.

I looked for German figures but found nothing reliable to use......if you know better, please send me a web link. The true figures probably lie somewhere between the UK and the USA....but exactly where, I have no idea.....

Perhaps you could give me a proper definition of freedom as I may be erring under a misunderstanding about the word as used where you live.....

I appreciate your point of view, and call me naive....................but for some crazy reason, I still have faith in the human species to do the right thing, if given a choice.

You are probably right and I am probably wrong...............................if I'm wrong, then right no longer matters.............only safety. Compliance will be mandatory.

You will have the freedom to to walk down the street without being bothered.........................................you will not have the freedom to question, why?

It took me a while, but I've learned to like my existence, along with all of the bumps, scrapes and threats that go along with it.

I may die tomorrow, but I will die free. If I don't, I will die protecting the freedom of others.

This is America.

For decades the American taxpayers have been giving up money to keep the world safe. What we get in return is spit.

Where's the blood for oil?

We pay for fake friends and get spit in return......................perhaps it is time to let everyone fend for themselves.

Good Luck!

While I'm at it.................................I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about some law, rule or regulation saving lives.

You know what I'm talking about..............."If one life is saved, then it's worth it".

"Who can put a price tag on a life?"

WTF is that all about??????

In my reality, no one can save a life at all.......................they can only prolong it.

Am I wrong?

Do you really think for a moment that your politicians care whether you live or die?

Do you think that their primary objective is to make sure you can walk down the street without being hassled?

It's all about control baby. Living in Germany, you should know that better than most.

Don't think for a second that Hitler didn't set some important milestones in manipulation of the populace?

Trust me. His methods have not been relegated to the history books.........................they are being improved upon.

You can't compare two different cultures and expect the same results.

We are more than any one single culture (British, European, Asian, African, etc.) and as such have a unique set of problems and virtues.

What works for one culture (yours or anyone else's) does not necessarily work for others. This is simply a fact of life. It is called diversity.

Just like you, I have had the good fortune to visit and see many lands and in the end on that returning flight, just like you, I think how lucky and glad I am to return home and to be touched by others from foreign soil.

It is a good experience, but I know that I can not judge others by my own homeland and neither should you.

I have friends all over the world....................none in government.

We are all the same.

I have friends all around the United States. Gay, straight, male, female, black, white...............all colors and religions.

We are all the same.

Our differences are contrived by the people that seek to control us.

It's about time for all of us to see it for what it is.

We are the 99%. It's time to tell the 1% that are bent on keeping us at each other's throats, that we've had enough.

Government has become the problem. Government is the problem.

It's a necessary entity, but they have overstepped their bounds. I'm talking globally.

I'm tired of being spoon fed the next battle. This is not a relationship that I have with anyone that I have ever met.

I'm not a pacifist by any means, but I would truly like to hear a consensus on what the overall global population thinks about what is going on. I think it stinks.

I just read your entire post.

My definition of freedom is to be left alone.

In return, I make a personal promise not to engage in behavior that runs the risk of harming others.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Apparently we are not capable of that.

I have not reached the point where I need to have my behavior dictated.................I guess you have. Congrats!

Fear not Andy. Rest assured, that while we may not be able to insure your safe walk to the park, any country that creates a monster like Hitler, will be watched over with a velvet glove by the USA.

You're welcome!

I'm white and my wife is black. Can you keep the skinheads off me?

Trust me. Both my love, and contempt for humanity have been earned.

It's all good.

To be honest, she's half black.................whatever. We face hatred almost daily.

I'm still growing up. Just a white country boy. I never realized how anxious, people were to hate someone. Yes....................black people are prejudice...............big time!

I'm still just a student in understanding the human condition.

I'll die before I figure it out. But I will try.

Just to keep things in the engineering genre.....................these days, I behave more like a capacitor than a battery.

I scare easily, and I've got about 2 seconds to make sure you don't hit me. If I miss.................I'm toast.

Just kidding. I'm a joker. The first time someone offered to put a cap in my ass, I thought they had yummy strawberry Pop Tarts. They just looked at me funny and let me walk.

Whatever

So anyway.....................Charles Manson never killed anyone.

Government agent walks into the cell and asks, " So Charlie, how did you get complete strangers to kill for you?"

Charlie winks his eye, and says, " Easy...............All I had to do was convince them that I would take care of them."

Agent says, "What, you gave them some food and they were willing to kill?"

Charlie says, "No man, you don't get it. I started with seatbelt and helmet laws to keep them safe. And then I promised to feed their children at school. Over time they came to depend on me...................it's a process.

You don't start off saying, "Give yourself to me". It takes time and patience man.

It's a slow and steady process, but once the fish start biting, it's endless. They just keep coming back for more!!

Yeah man!!!

Once they are convinced that you will take care of them, the rich people are the enemy.

They didn't work for it.....................they don't deserve it. It's all their fault. Let's get them. They have all been stealing from America's rightful owners................the poor people on welfare.

Regardless of how everything goes, we are all witnessing history right now.

Yippie!!!

That fact alone will upset many whites and blacks sadly.......for no logical reason.

My wife is German, my mother hated Germany/Germans.....she was also racist. Not funny.

Do please not forget he came from Austria.

Do also remember that the Hitler movement and military clubs are stronger in numbers in the USA than any other country.......fact!

I actually live in a house that belonged to a Jew in 1939. Our village WAS Jewish.

I bought my house from an ex SS soldier.......he is still living locally......

Many people in the US STILL hate Jews......so do the old Nazis around here......but all to old to do much!!

You still miss the point, my behaviour is not being dictated to, that's not needed in the UK (or even in Germany NOWADAYS!) as it is a far safer land to live in with far fewer people getting murdered than in the USA (and many other countries!), also far fewer policemen lose their lives. (I have not got the German figures for the Police, sorry)

Being dictated to is when you have such dangerous areas in your country, where you must be armed to pass through.....or go around for safety, being dictated to is when there are two sides to a railway track, one safe, one not.

Where people of different colors cannot always live together and agree, where for less than 50 years, whites and blacks went to different schools on different buses.......all stone age stuff.....(except for the buses of course!!).

Where the KKK is still active in many lesser educated areas......a sort of modern day SS.

The numbers issued by the US government themselves show just how dangerous it can be with regard to getting murdered, attacked etc. Even for driving the numbers of accidents per capita are far higher in the USA than almost all other western countries, even when corrected for distances driven. I can supply web links if required as i have done in the past. Facts are facts.

I believe that the NIH syndrome was invented in the USA.....hmmmmm.

It does not bother me personally either way as I don't live there, just visit from time to time, same as I visit S.Africa, where I also don't go out out walking at night either!!!!!

Now that is being dictated to....but not by the government, but by the criminals....

Do also remember that ANY country where you MUST have an ID card (Germany as well), is not a true free country. You will look long and hard but the only one I know, STILL without that as a requirement is the UK. NOW THAT IS MOE LIKE FREEDOM!!!!!

Even if a lot of the people in the UK would not always agree.......

Do you have your US Government issued ID card still? Why don't you burn it to show your take on such control.

Germany still has the Anmeldeamt that registers everyone as to where they live.....another form of useless control....but being a law abiding citizen myself, it really is water off a duck's back for me.....but of course the criminals do not register anyway.....Jobs for the Boys....

In the UK, if you don't register, you won't get a voting card, but its not illegal to not register.....

By the way, anyone who doesn't vote for any reason should not complain about the government they get!!!

But if that is your freedom, so be it, its far, far away from my ideas of freedom. But each to his own.....I guess you get used to everything after a while and consider it to be "normal" and "correct".

It appears to be an American hobby to defend the USA against ANY critic, while still complaining about all and sundry, especially the US Government. Well its a hobby if you have nothing better to do with your time I suppose.

Wasn't it an American who once said that "every democratic country gets the government it deserves!" Its certainly true here....

(Because the majority so voted!)

I certainly would not want to be governed for example by a government of say NRA members........so be careful, don't ever vote for one......You might win!!

The same as I wouldn't want to be in an Islamic country governed by Mullahs for example....another form of NRA one might say!!!

PS. I can post web links and figures supporting much of what I know, I have done so already as you know, but I have not seen a SINGLE web link supporting any of your beliefs and understandings, now why would that be please?

Can you change that and supply us all with relevant facts and figure please to support your beliefs?

If you cannot support anything with facts, then it is only a strong belief like religion really, you either believe or you don't......also a way to go!!! But it doesn't make any country better than the facts supplied.......so please try and show us some facts that would make us want to live in the USA please.

If you cannot, we must just agree to disagree and drop the subject......

Andy, In a utopia it would be great to not have to worry about gangs youths etc etc... from attacking you or your family. Like some that posted already in states that have very lax carry laws the crimes are lower. DC, Chicago, Detroit, NY and others cities/states that have very strict gun laws have higher crime rates. Not going to get into the stats.

When a criminal thinks there mark can not defend themselves or harm them they will be be more inclined to act. Here in Knoxville Tn this past year there were several home invasions. Fortunately most of the homeowners were able to defend themselves.

There a new thing going around with the youths called "Knock out king". Its not just in the big cities. A number of youths (age?) will find someone that looks like they may not be able to put up much of a fight. One goes up first and tries to KO the person if they don't go down the rest jump in. There has been several people killed and more injured. Its fueled by social media postings/bragging.

A firearm and legal carrying gives one the tools to be secure from robbery, injury or worse for them and family. A criminal may think twice that someone may be armed verses where there are strict gun/weapon laws. The firearm is a tool. Its up to the person how that tool is used. No amount of laws will stop someone from getting or misusing a tool.

What are some of the penalties for assault, murder, invasion? Could it be strict punishment for crimes that allows Germany to have a lower crime rate? Or national pride?

Here in the states it seems like the justice system has a revolving door and prison does not seem to deter people. Also the government keep adding laws to ensnare more and more people. Also penalties are being increased which strips more of the peoples rights away limiting them.

As to cameras around this part of the country. There mostly red light and speed scameras. OH YES they were touted for there safety. After a time people started complaining then the reports how much the cities were raking in. The state legislators changed the rules of there use. The cities complained the scameras companies have sued...time will tell if the suits win or not. The changes have caused the revenue to drop.

Now surveillance cameras is a gray area if government setup. If used in localized areas AND ITS POSTED ok. But blocks and blocks like England where a person could be followed and they never know it. I don't know about. Around Knoxville Tn the interstates have traffic cameras through out the metro area. The good they do do is help with traffic flow they are good enough to see what type of vehicle but not tag info. They could id a person if close enough. The cameras are close enough that a vehicle could just about be followed from one end to the other in the system if so desired.

Facial software and other stuff I'm not going to touch. That is a double edge sword. With government id database. Too easy to match a picture with someone I think.

Surveillance in stores/business for loss prevention/security. ok.

One thing that would help in the firearm crimes make the punishment fit. Make it easier for citizens to legally own/carry, 2nd amendment minimal intrusions. Standardized the rules through out the country for lawful carry. Maybe mandatory safety/usage classes. Carry classes to train. Like driver license to drive.

Do away with the prohibition on drugs. That would reduce the gang related crimes. The user trying to get money crime may still existed though. If the drugs were sold through special venders supplied by the drug companies would be good for them the gov gets it cut through the taxes. Drug cartels get there money cut off.

The less the government intrudes into people lives so long as the people respect each other the better.

Anyhow with freedom there is responsibility. The police do not have to protect you. You should have the unfetter right to protect yourself and family. You should be able to about your life without the government/police knowing every little move you make. You should not have to be subjected to unwarranted stops, searches, tracking etc..

You may like where you live.

I like where I live. The crime is most prevalent in some areas. Alot less in others. My wife and I have carry permits. I carry everywhere that legal to. If a business is posted I take my money somewhere else. Most likely i'll never need my gun for protection. But I will not surrender my rights to anyone.

off my soapbox.

You wrote, "I like freedom too. I like freedom to walk down a street, any street, unarmed with my family and friends and not be shot at by gangs of youths or similar..........

That is my version of freedom. Maybe not yours. I don't judge on that."

Two things I have noticed:

1. You could also get that exact same version of freedom in the old Soviet Union, North Korea, etc. That is definitely not my version of freedom.

2. You claimed that you do not judge our definition, yet that has been exactly what you have done from that point onward.

Just an observation, mein freund. ;-)

You mix up politics and street/general safety, they are two different things. but I do believe you are not alone, I would guess that many people in the US accept the street warfare, rather than have say a communist government. Better dead than red so to say.....

I want and like both freedoms, I know exactly how the DDR was run, I visited many times before it rejoined the Federal republic again.

Some of the people there today would accept communism back because food was cheap, as was accommodation and everyone had a job......amazingly! It was not 100% bad. Babies were placed in Creches, condoms were cheap, a round of schnapps cost only a few Marks......A pub round (20 people) of "shorts" in 1989 cost about $2.50....so booze was good and very cheap.....

Its not for me personally (I am anti communism), but many liked the street safety that was also there....

Might as well use that spin-off technology to let the police look into your homes at will, too.

Old news. More than ten years ago I saw a TV documentary where a helicopter with an infrared imager could, not only pick out the room of a house where pot was being cultivated but also watch people walking around inside. They also showed the newly developed lidar technology that could differentiate between various vegetation, even from satellites, by color their signature.

Dear Jaguar,

So what you are saying is that the technology is already there for some years and now they are going to make it small enough to allow a Cop to carry it around in his car.

Many thanks for this new (to me anyway) info Jaguar, so its really nothing new to get upset about!

That changes the perspective a bit.. many thanks for the "heads up".

To the other whining Guys (not you Jaguar!):-

BIG EFFING DEAL!! GET OVER IT!!

OR MOVE TO A COUNTRY WITH NO POLICE MONEY FOR MODERN TECHNOLOGY!!

I bet NOBODY ever moves out of the USA for this reason, therefore you are tacitly ACCEPTING it. The same as everyone else accepts it.....the best of a bad deal if you wish....

If the whiners want to get REALLY worried, think about this:- if the US has had this technology on Satellites for 10 years (if we know about if for 10 years, its been up there 25 years or more!!), you are probably already being scanned by the Russians, the Chinese and even maybe the Brits/Europeans who all play "catch-up" technology wise. Who really knows!!! I certainly don't!!

Perhaps someone is photographing you RIGHT now sitting on the POT!!!! WOW!! (UGH!! Too much info!!)

Some of you must either now laugh or cry and laughing is healthier and requires less facial muscles.....'fess up!!

In the US it is illegal for the government to spy on it citizens, so, unless there is a specific warrant, no government agency can spy, wire tap, or secretly enter someone's home, car, or place of residence with out a warrant.

There are some exceptions. For instance, if someone from another country calls you on the phone and that caller is a person of interest to national security or international crime, then the conversation may be recorded.

The real argument here is not whether such practices make you feel safer or are something you would like for your own security, but how it relates with the US Constitution. All other arguments are simply academic chatter.

The US Constitution lists a number of rights for US citizens. Among those is the right to privacy and security from government called the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment basically states that US citizens have the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Like just about everything in the Constitution there is a lot of wiggle room for the definition of what that means. The specific text for the 4th Amendment is:

"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."

As technology advances we run into issues of what violates the 4th Amendment. For instance, if a technology is created that could read papers you were carrying in your briefcase without your consent it would be pretty clear that that technology would violate the 4th Amendment if it were employed without a warrant.

The question of whether a technology that can "see" beneath your clothes without your consent is a violation of the 4th Amendment is a bit fuzzier. Is it reasonable to search every citizen in public places? Probably not. Does this make people more secure? Probably not. Be aware the the definition for "secure" in this instance is not about personal security from external threats, muggings, theft, or murder, but from government intervention.

Now, let's take another spin on all of this. Let's examine the explosion of cameras employed by police in the UK. Does that violate their citizens' rights? Probably not. It probably does not in the US. Therefore, the police can freely monitor public places to their heart's content.

While this may be entirely legal, I pose the question. what does this say about any society that must employ such measures to keep the peace?

My take on this is it is like treating the symptoms of a disease by loading up the body with cocktails of drugs without regard to the root cause of the problem. This is known as bad medicine.

That begs the question of why should the populace of any nation need to be watched continuously by a Big Brother government?

I submit that the root cause it a social pathology. My preference is to address the cause of these issues rather than simply limit the freedom of all by judicial and legislative screws.

In my opinion our government and the sheeple that support it are too quick to opt for a "quick-fix pill" to mask the symptoms instead of facing our problems head on.

Those that do, as was the case of Dr. Bill Cosby, are ostracized by their "leaders" and "peers" for pointing out moral decay among us. That is wrong.

In the US it is illegal for the government to spy on it citizens, so, unless there is a specific warrant, no government agency can spy, wire tap, or secretly enter someone's home, car, or place of residence with out a warrant.

True, that's the way it is supposed to be. Though some may argue that they weren't the government, Nixons boys did it. Police are well known to consult informants and surveil the comings and goings of persons of interest. Police routinely catalogue the contents of a vehicle that they take custody of if the driver is arrested for a traffic offence or some other minor reason. _{When my car was stolen and recovered, the police dog destroyed the headliner, my tool box in the trunk was dumped out (they stole my favorite screw driver) and the rear speakers ripped from their mounting, probably with MY screwdriver.} So unless they are caught or the evidence they bring to court is thrown out for being illegally obtained _{funny thing, you never hear of those "evidence gatherers" being arrested unless the accused pushes "violation of civil rights"} it never happened. Until it innocently happens to you, it's not an issue.

Lesson learned here, never leave tools in your car! ;-)

No doubt that there will always be abuses of the law by citizens and law enforcement.

Sad but very true everywhere....

I definitely qualify as one of the whiners. There's a lot more to it though Andy.

Here's a really condensed version. I know some cops. Here in NC, and I'm sure across the country, there is a lot of yelling and screaming going on by the ACLU and others, that minorities are unfairly being targeted, and represent a disproportionate share of arrests. The police are essentially being told to either arrest more white people, or arrest less minorities.

Well, it just so happens that the open air drug markets are in minority neighborhoods..............................the police tend to avoid them for the most part, unless they get a call. Long story, short................these drive by friskings will be fine on people like me, and the general populace.....................but let them start using them in the actual "problem" neighborhoods, and I can guarantee that their use will be shut down very quickly.

There's also the Constitutionality of it. I guess it boils down to a point of view. Some people think it's fine to be filmed, frisked and constantly monitored for the general good of society..................nothing to worry about if you're doing nothing wrong.

My point of view, is that if I'm doing nothing wrong, I should be completely left alone. No drive by frisking. No roadblocks to check my papers, (which they are also doing). I want them to leave me alone. If I choose to break the law, they've got my permission to come and get me.

that's a nice story, but that's all it is a story, anecdotal

& not the point

whatever views you have on race

not the point

in your case you think you should be left alone, unless you are breaking the law , then no holds barred

how would you suggest the police figure this out?

is there such a thing as probable cause?

or should every search of every kind require a warrant?

I think the police should investigate when there is a crime.

The police are responsible for enforcing the law. They don't write it and they can't change the law. They must operate within the law or face the consequence for breaking the law, just like any other citizen.

in any organization there are rules/procedures

in law enforcement there are SOP's, for the different technologies available

& while law enforcement may not technically write the law, we do allow them to choose when/how to enforce, when they get it "wrong" there may be negative feedback

as with any SOP there are positive & negative aspects to having whatever level of detail written down.

so if there were a crime commited involving a weapon, would it be reasonable to use this technology to search all people in the area?

should the searches be limited to only likely suspects?

from a strictly technical view the ability to have a person inspect individual images is step one. it's easy to imagine applying some processing power, automate the detection of all manner of dangerous objects, combine with facial recognition & filter out those with permits to carry. When & where should this be allowed [if at all]?

See my post #59.

you can't pretend the technology doesn't exist or that it won't be used

proclaiming it unconstitutional won't make it go away

There exists technology to violate everyone of the Bill of Rights and every other law in existence. So what? Does that nullify the law?

If you break the law you should be held accountable and that is the best any society can expect to do regardless of their technological abilities.

is any new technology to be considered illegal by default?

the opposite is the norm, then the lack of a sane procedure/process forces the courts to make a sense of it all

are lawyers the best people to develop these kind of standards?

You wrote, "is any new technology to be considered illegal by default?"

How did you jump to that conclusion?

You wrote, "the opposite is the norm, then the lack of a sane procedure/process forces the courts to make a sense of it all"

I am sorry. I just do not understand that statement. I can hazard a wild guess. The legislative branch is responsible for making the laws, the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the laws passed by Congress and the intent of the Constitution. The Executive branch is just screwed up right now. Not that the legislative branch is any better. I digress...

You wrote, "are lawyers the best people to develop these kind of standards?"

I don't think any one group is the best, but no doubt having a good working understanding of law and Constitutional law is a help.

"is any new technology to be considered illegal by default?"

is just a logical extension of your post #83

the police left to their own discretion will use it, until there are constraints imposed by most likely the courts

You wrote, "the police left to their own discretion will use it, until there are constraints imposed by most likely the courts"

I agree. That is why we have a judicial system.

& as an example

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/18904/Supreme-Court-Says-Police-Must-Get-Search-Warrant-to-Use-GPS-Tracking-Devices?frmtrk=cr4digest

this is reactive government

here's a better article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-warrants-needed-in-gps-tracking/2012/01/23/gIQAx7qGLQ_story.html

from what I can gather the ruling is fairly narrow, only dealing with law enforcement adding what is in effect a bug to a person of interests personal space [car]

this is one of those issues that should be dealt with through legislation, since law enforcement continues to show itself to be incapable of showing restraint

personal space is already considered to be situational, expanding when you are in your home, contracting at the courthouse or airport,

is there a way to more accurately quantify this?

You wrote, "this is one of those issues that should be dealt with through legislation"

Typically they write the legislation as loose and as wide as they can and let the court sort it out by design.

You wrote, "is there a way to more accurately quantify this?"

Probably not, but the courts are expected to define that on a case-by-case basis.

In some instances law enforcement will go forward with questionable tactics knowing the odds are that they will not get contested. It takes deep pockets to fight in court and this is where attorneys are needed to step up to the plate and do this pro bono or an organization such as the ACLU, NRA, etc., will foot the bill.

The thing that a lot of people tend to forget, is that the President, vice president, both houses of congress, and every member of the supreme court, take an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution.

No one is assigned to interpret it to conform to their own belief system. It is what it is, and understanding what it says is not difficult. Changing it, was intentionally made very difficult. It frustrates the hell out of the people that know the "right" way to run the country. Unfortunately for them, their way, and what the Constitution says are often in conflict.

It won't however, stop them from attempting to sidestep it, or ignoring it altogether.

I am not quite in agreement with that. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the meaning of the Constitution as applied to the law. The justices of the Supreme Court render opinions based on arguments presented to them and prior precedent.

Since that is a subjective process it is natural to assume that personal bias and belief will be a part of that process. After all, they are human, too. That is why the nominees are picked by the sitting President and approved by Congress in an effort to not only find a competent candidate, but one that best represents the opinions of those voting (Senate) for the nominee.

This is why the picks for the Supreme Court are so important because they, to at least some degree, represent the ruling party's beliefs and party line. In the end we get a mix of liberal judges and conservative judges of varying degrees and numbers.

but one that best represents the opinions of those voting (Senate) for the nominee.

Maybe I'm missing something. To me, they make an oath first to the Constitution itself, followed by a promise that their decisions will adhere to Constitutional principles. I do realize however, that whoever is in power will try to nominate people that represent their own best interests.............often times in front of the Constitution, if they can pull it off.

In all of their decisions, adhering to the Constituition should come before everything else.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx

Remember, the Constitution is full of subjectivity. If it wasn't there would not be so much debate and controversy.

True, but I think that much of the debate and controversy stems from the fact that we sometimes get people in power that think that it's either just plain wrong, or needs a complete overhaul for modern times............_{^{to keep us safe}}.

Granted, a lot of things have changed since it was written. But not human nature, and definitely not the propensity of government to abuse the power that they have been granted. Everything that has always led to bad behavior by humans, continues to. Some things never change.

When the supreme court starts making decisions that limit individual freedom, and begins to grant the power to the government to take it away from us, which they already have to some extent, that's it.

Drive by friskings would almost be the equivalent to subjecting ourselves to airport searches, the minute we leave our homes and property...................and it sounds like it will be allowed.

It's not a happy turn of events, in my book.

not forgetting or worried about the constitution

I'm talking about process

the process of integrating new technology into the law

like any other process, reactive mode is always more expensive & generally messy

you can quantify personal space

in legal view your personal space at home is much larger than when you are at the airport, your car somewhere in between

law enforcement could define this issue in a more transparent way, expediting the process of integrating new technology

it really is better when the people doing the work set the standards, with transparency & oversite of course

This particular technology involves looking under people's clothes without their consent, in any public place, and placing the technology in the hands of cops on the street........................or worse, simply placing the scanners on poles and scanning entire crowds at once.

I know you enjoy the debate, but I have a really hard time believing that you would be okay with this.

of course I'm not all right with letting law enforcement do what ever they want [who do you think I am AG?]

the patriot act is the single biggest erosion of our rights ever

NSA has been monitoring the interweb since the beginning, the technology will continue to advance

while it may not be possible to stuff those genies back in their respective bottles, should we continue on the reactive path, allowing the courts write the law as it relates to the technologies available to law enforcement?

Just wanted to make sure we were on somewhat of the same page here.

I almost had a hard time getting to sleep last night, thinking about this.

I won't be a bit surprised if drive by frisking is found to be constitutional either.............to protect us from enemies within.

Scary stuff.

I'm not sure if the technology is so much of an issue. There's really not much difference between a drive by frisking, and a physical pat down.

you're talking about theory, which is interesting & cool

but really won't do much in terms of deficit reduction or problem solving

waiting around for the courts to decide on every little bit of technology is short term thinking.

in any organization it's almost always better to transfer costs to a different department, almost always better to have someone else make difficult decisions

in this situation there is no real incentive for long term thinking

I don't think the courts have to decide on every little bit of technology at all.

This really has nothing to do with technology. The question for the courts is...........................Is it legal for law enforcement to perform random, or mass searches on US civilians in public places?

Just because technology enables them to perform the non consensual searches without touching us, doesn't change the basic question.

If the supreme court decides that it is okay, the exact method of search won't matter. Whether patting us down, or aiming an electronic device at us.....................a search is a search.

If the US public continues to concern themselves with safety, over everything else, and doesn't protest these measures........................they will keep on coming.

Unfortunately (reference "Sheeple" comments here) "If the US public continues to concern themselves with safety, over everything else, and doesn't protest these measures........................they will keep on coming." is the law of the land in the US, if our history is any guide.

We will, because THEY can, and WE will let them, because "THEY" always have our best interests at heart. But it is evident that "THEY" see it as "us against them". This I know from conversations with my friends amongst "THEM", who are willing to discuss it, as long as it is a private discussion.

And even my friends are quick to add that, STATEMENTS FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION notwithstanding, they are not doing it for "Our Safety" but their own.

Which is exactly why I get so freaked out over stuff like this.

Garthh's right too...............................the patriot act really got the ball rolling.

It would be easy for me to say, 'I don't break the law, and I don't carry illegal weapons, so who cares?'

I just can't go there.

I know you don't think the courts have to decide every issue

but that is what's happening, when law enforcement & the legislators decline to do their jobs & set responsible guidlines

Right. And I know you get tired of hearing me bring up the Constitution.

But the easier it becomes for law enforcement and politicians to thwart it................................the more they will try to. It's the nature of the beast, and it's exactly the type of behavior that the Constituition was designed to prevent.

If drive by searches are allowed, and become commonplace, there's a good possibility that I will simply shut up......................the battle will have been lost.

Well....................that's not true. I'll never shut up.

There has more discussion, panic and anger here about "Drive by Frisking" than in the whole of CR4 about "Drive by Shootings".....

"Drive by Frisking" is not yet finished its development, so it has probably never been used on anyone other than test persons who knew they were targeted/scanned.

On the other hand, several times a day, somewhere in the USA, a "Drive by Shooting" takes place, for many, many years!!!

Don't you all find that a bit strange? For example, in just 6 months 156 people died and 465 were injured in such shootings.....

Look in this pdf:-

http://www.vpc.org/studies/driveby.pdf

There is this paragraph:-

...note it said that most probably such shootings have probably been dramatically UNDER REPORTED!! How awful......

So how about us all getting more upset about all these drastically shortened lives before we "guess" look in the future and complain that the police are inspecting our "weapons" secretly, eg.without telling us first.....?

Especially as deployment of the scanning device may in fact become eventually part of an action to allow police to reduce ALL forms of shootings.....not just drive by.....

I await you comments and defenses as usual.......

I completely understand your point of view Andy. Nobody likes the violence.

The fact of the matter, is that these drive by shootings typically happen within particular areas of US cities................areas that the police tend to neglect. It's a damned shame, considering that law enforcement already has the tools and laws at their disposal to go after these gangs. When someone is killed in a "drive by", very little investigation takes place. It's sickening. The cops chalk it up to one less gang banger to deal with. The people that live in these neighborhoods, that aren't involved with crime and gangs, live in a perpetual state of fear.

The police can hit these neighborhoods hard with the tools they already have at their disposal, which doesn't include unconstitutional searches, and take a huge bite out of crime........................but they don't. Like I mentioned earlier, these neighborhoods are created by social "give away" programs, and then left to fester. It's racism run amok, and it's disgusting.

That said, I am still more scared of drive by friskings, than drive by shootings.

Andy, your argument is a total red herring.

First, the VPA is an extremely biased organization and their reporting has an abysmal record with regard to the facts.

That being said, the idea that there is a high probability of such shootings have probably been dramatically under reported is another example of the exaggerations of the VPA.

I really do not want to turn this blog into an argument about gun control. Arguments for gun control are almost exclusively waged on an emotional argument rather than fact-based arguments and all it does is get everyone screaming at each other.

Second, I prefer to use the FBI database for crime facts, not the VPA, NRA, or Boy Scouts of America.

Lastly, and most important, drive by shootings have nothing to do with the constitutionality of of the tools proposed to be used by the NYC police, which was the crux of the original argument.

Fact is there are drive by shootings, one is too much.

Fact is that there is no drive by frisking as of now.....

How about you delve into the FBI database and bring some of the facts out, I have no problem with that at all, in fact I welcome it 100%.

I least of all want to work with possibly inaccurate data, show me what is correct please and thanks in advance!!

I am sure we all welcome accurate data, not just me!!

You misunderstood something again, I will welcome the scanners when they get here, the faster the better, as I will welcome them in the UK as well.......

I have NOTHING to hide, nothing to worry about.

By the way, I guess the scanners will distinguish between plastic replica guns and real ones, so fewer "carrying" kids will get shot in the USA......now that's a good thing, even if its only one child a year!!!

Look here for a list of such "misunderstandings":-

http://www.irol.com/avc/fact_sheet_about_toy_guns.html

Is that clear enough?

Fact - drive by shootings have nothing to do with the constitutionality of using infrared scanners on the public in public places without consent.

The rest of your argument is superfluous to that.

What you write is totally wrong, of course it will be difficult to scan a car (I would have thought, but we may both be wrong!), but these suspect people have to get into and out of cars, walk to and from the cars, the scanners will be very worthwhile at those times.....

Now do you understand?

Yes, we are not communicating. ;-)

We are talking about two different things and neither of us have realized it! :-)

I'll just have to assign this one to our language differences. However, your command of English is far better than my German.

One could argue that Germany is about equal to one US State.

But which State? A good one? A bad one? A real one? Or a TV drama one?

Some unfindable "data"

Great website, I compared the US and Germany. I never realised that Germany had such high drug statistics, but not having the same numbers of guns per capita means that crime is tiny in comparison. Even marijuana is not allowed here, not even small amounts, in the US, small amounts are allowed, that swings the statistics....

The USA is aproximately 3.5 times greater in population, but most figures are per capita anyway.

Funnily the Germany believe less in their police than the people of the USA, you guys are not your normal 89% US citizens!!!:-

Crime stats: Germany vs United States

	German Crime stats	American Crime stats
Believe in police efficiency	67%	89%
	Ranked 12th.	Ranked 1st. 33% more than Germany
Bribe payers index	6.2	6.2
	Ranked 10th.	Ranked 9th.
Car thefts	70,617	1,246,096
	Ranked 7th.	Ranked 1st. 17 times more than Germany
Drug offences	250,969 per 100,000 people	560.1 per 100,000 people
	Ranked 1st. 447 times more than United States	Ranked 4th.
Gun violence > Homicides > % homicides with firearms	28.5714	39.5604
	Ranked 13th.	Ranked 7th. 38% more than Germany
Gun violence > Homicides > Overall homicide rate > per 100,000 pop.	1.635	9.1
	Ranked 29th.	Ranked 14th. 5 times more than Germany
Jails	209	1,558
	Ranked 7th.	Ranked 5th. 6 times more than Germany
Murders committed by youths	156	8,226
	Ranked 25th.	Ranked 3rd. 52 times more than Germany
Murders with firearms	269	9,369
	Ranked 7th.	Ranked 1st. 34 times more than Germany
Police
Prisoners	74,904 prisoners	2,019,234 prisoners
	Ranked 6th.	Ranked 1st. 26 times more than Germany
Prisoners > Per capita	96.0 per 100,000 people	715.0 per 100,000 people
	Ranked 93rd.	Ranked 1st. 6 times more than Germany
Software piracy rate	27%	20%
	Ranked 96th. 35% more than United States	Ranked 107th.
Suicide rates in ages 15-24	4.7 per 100,000 people	13.7 per 100,000 people
	Ranked 16th.	Ranked 7th. 191% more than Germany
Suicide rates in ages 25-34	9.4 per 100,000 people	15.3 per 100,000 people
	Ranked 16th.	Ranked 10th. 63% more than Germany
Total crimes	6,507,394	11,877,218
	Ranked 3rd.	Ranked 1st. 83% more than Germany

I think the US needs to legalize drugs.

Not a joke. The vast majority of drive by shootings, as well as other crimes, stem from the illegal drug trade. If we remove the profit motive, a decrease in associated crimes is inevitable.

The UK has the same idea, Germany is thinking of going the same way as Holland with Drug cafes....

The only reason the Holland experiment looks like a failure, is that every druggie on the planet with the means, has found a way to get there. Even so, the crime rate in the Netherlands is very low. They don't say how many crimes there are committed by foreigners, but I bet it's substantial.

In my mind, prohibition=crime.

Here's an idea. Rather than drive by friskings, the government actually takes on the role of selling the drugs in the most drug infested communities..................right out of a store. All drugs would be clean, and a person could only buy a certain quantity within a 24 hour period. No sales to intoxicated people, and supplying drugs to a minor would be a felony.

Furthermore, all profits and taxes from the sale of drugs would go right back into the community, in the form of after school programs and job training. Within a decade, I predict that the interest in staying high, would be down to a small handful..................everybody else would simply move on to better things.

I have to agree with your whole post (am I cracking up??????)

My only comment is that the drugs should be marked with something like what is on cigarette packets nowadays in most educated countries:- "The contents are hazardous to your health" for example.

A picture or two of a brain that shows degradation from smoking too much pot as well might stop newcomers a little.

The question is, which drugs should be sold? Obviously Pot, but I expect that the government will draw the line at Crack, Methamphetamine and Cocain...so will it achieve what you want to see....?

Even reducing the price drastically as well as improving the hygienic quality may still mean that the "users" still need to steal as they cannot get a good daytime job as they are blown out of their minds 24 hours a day......

I still see a need for people to be jailed and cleaned of their habits, but maybe not in a normal jail, one for users only.......the aim being to get them employed on the outside by being employed on the inside first....get the bastards off the streets.....

I can see your point. What bothers me is that the public must pay for drug users' health care, incarceration, and rehab.

Legalizing it will definitely increase the public burden of people willfully causing their own self destruction.

There is not a single documented drive-by shooting in America by a "Law Abiding Licensed Concealed Carry Permit Holder". I don't have to cite a source. It's up to you to find one.

You can't. Drive-bys are not done by people for whom the concept of UNREASONABLE search and seizure matters. Because those who commit drive-bys aren't law-abiding people.

And therein lies (at least one) the rub. We who obey the law, expect our LAW-ENFORCMENT people to be held to the same standard. Note, not a different, more stringent standard than that to which we are held, despite the fact the the almost limitless ability they carry to destroy our lives MIGHT be said to engender tighter controls. No, we ask only that they be held to the same standards as are we. And WE KNOW, (in my case, from 57 years of personal experience, and a lot of study of our history) that Law Enforcement takes great delight in forcing its unwanted attentions on EVERYONE, always in the guise of "its for your own good".

Andy, Drive-by-shooters, when convicted, should be dead. The recidivism rate would be zero. And so would the ongoing cost of long-term encarceration.

And I've read ALL of the arguments about the death penalty not being a PROVEN deterrent to crime. But what I know is that CORPSES DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES, EVER AGAIN! So, taking the drive-by shooter off the face of the earth may not stop the next testosterone driven idiot (I still doubt that anyone CAN prove that), but it will stop today's model.

But OUR problem, notwithstanding your long-distance wisdom (and that isn't totally sarcastic. There IS wisdom in some of what you say. But giving up our rights to individual security, merely to trade security from a wheel-borne uniformless thug, for the same "security" provided by a wheel-borne uniformed one is NO ANSWER AT ALL.) I will still stand for my right to keep and bear.

And still try to patiently answer the questions of people who cannot understand, no matter how many times or ways we frame the answer. And hope that some day they'll quit asking questions to which they do not want an answer supplied, but want to supply their own, without regard for the fact that they still don't have all the answers to all the questions, and that their "wisdom" is still lacking. Otherwise, they'd at least be able to see WHY we keep answering the bottom line the same way.

I am comfortable with my life, under the constitution of my country, providing for my own security, and that of my own family, thanks. And I don't intend, as long as I live here, and live with the society with which I live, to change it, willingly or otherwise.

You belong to a fractured society. That is demonstrated on the pages of CR4 daily as well as the US streets each and every day.

I have seen what happens ( US TV ) when a licensed owner of a weapon carries and has to be arrested for something else in the USA, not pretty.......not worth carrying for. You could end up dead that way......

I suppose it does at least keep such people out of bars and makes them adhere to the rules of the road when driving, so it has a good secondary effect!! A different form of protection than I first thought!!

Also the don't do what I do, do what I say attitude is often seen here on these pages......

You for example, appear to want to have two different rules for different types of people in the same society.

You supposedly live in what is called a democratic country.....that is not democracy.

The attitudes demonstrated by many US citizens here at least, show me why things will never get better as nobody really wants to change......no one even sees the need for a change either.

Well then Guys (all of you), you got exactly what you wanted.....so stay happy.

Oh by the way, citing facts and then telling me that I should prove you right implies that you just pulled them out of your vest pocket and HOPE that they will be right!!!! But haven't a clue yourself.

Cite your own sources......like you Guys always say "put up or shut up!" That's fair!!

So, nowhere near good enough....

You notice that I as good as always cite published figures, for a good reason, they are always better than guesses/thoughts/imagination/wishes....no matter what the source.

Criticising a source (I forget who did it recently here) is easy, but when they don't supply a better one, it proves nothing and is hardly worth the effort!!

Someone here mentioned that the FBI figures are better, but did not post any links to show that!!!! Completely worthless.

It also demonstrates to me that few here want to be confronted with true facts, too off putting I expect!!

So as of now opinions only will be completely ignored by me, but the person who does supply links and facts, I will read all they have to offer.....

Have a great day.

Is this an accurate depiction of Germany?

No wonder there are no drive by shootings...............everyone is wasted.

We have public drunk and anti loitering laws in the US. What's wrong with you people?

*****sarcasm

I was surprised too. The UK has also relatively high drug rate, but as I said, little or no tolerance, so the numbers will be higher....

You wrote, "I have seen what happens ( US TV ) when a licensed owner of a weapon carries and has to be arrested for something else in the USA, not pretty."

You are not living in the real world, but the land of TV.

I have an informed opinion on the subject because I also hold a CCWL and I can affirm that the statistical offense rates for CCWL holders is much lower than the general population for one thing and the number of times CCWL owners are stopped and searched by police is also next to nil.

Police only stop people here when they are breaking the law or suspected of breaking the law. As I stated, CCWL owners are statistically better citizens in the US with regard to the law and therefore are not as likely to become the target of the police.

I have an informed opinion on the subject because I also hold a CCWL and I can affirm that the statistical offense rates for CCWL holders is much lower than the general population for one thing and the number of times CCWL owners are stopped and searched by police is also next to nil.
I didn't realize that the test for a CCWL was so comprehensive, that successful applicants were qualified to pontificate endlessly on crime statistics

Most sleep through that part, but I had a headache.

care to move to Hawaii?

No thanks. We get most of the Hawaii weather without the taxes and high prices.

If that happens here I would probably stop using the internet (at least as much as possible and none for personal use) just to protest.

I would hope that if internet providers and internet venders start seeing a repercussion in the pocket that the practice of monitoring all users' web surfing would stop pretty quickly.

If not, oh well. Then the people get what they deserve.

While we are on the subject of SOPA, I saw one company's response as very good. Essentially, they acknowledged that they did loose a significant amount of business via on-line piracy, but felt strongly that it was better to suffer some monetary loss than the loss of freedom that would result from the proposed bill.

SOPA is yet another attempt to legislate morality.

Cant you then just use a proxy server?

LOL!!

And he is without the support of a single web site or statistic......

Look it up for yourself. The data is out there. I have nothing to prove and really don't care if you believe it or not. As I said, the gun control issue is always argued from an emotional standpoint.

it would be easy to argue [w/statistics]

more guns = more crime, more death

we're stuck with this notion of mutually assured destruction being a path to liberty

which is no more true than that increasingly intrusive searches will lead to safety

the path forward is somewhere in between the extremes