4th of July DUI checkpoint

[bannination]

Ombudsman probably agrees with these cops as well. Stay tuned.

We gotta make sure no one has rights .... "for safety".

[billy.pilgrim]

office ross is about the standard for a donut eater, just a punk asshole who never progressed much past the 7th grade playground

[Ombudsman]

Ombudsman probably agrees with these cops as well. Stay tuned.

We gotta make sure no one has rights .... "for safety".

You and Vrede make a lot of false assumptions. Why is that?

[bannination]

Ombudsman probably agrees with these cops as well. Stay tuned.

We gotta make sure no one has rights .... "for safety".

You and Vrede make a lot of false assumptions. Why is that?

Could be because you have been quite inconsistent, or perhaps you haven't done a good job explaining your position, I don't know.

You think the 4th amendment applies for physical situations but not virtual? What the difference? Why shouldn't we allow law enforcement into our houses, and our cars without any sort of cause? On the other hand we're supposed to be ok with giving them VIRTUAL access into our houses, cars, phones, computers, etc.

I'm not ok with these bullies haven't access to physical or virtual things attached to my life, sorry. If they have real probable cause using real police work, that's different. Police at least have some oversight, however were going to "trust" our three letter friends with virtually no oversight act any different than this schoolyard bully? Sorry, I don't find this acceptable.


What I do know is that kid is extremely lucky the cops didn't "accidentally" break his camera. `Merica.

[Ombudsman]

Ombudsman probably agrees with these cops as well. Stay tuned.

We gotta make sure no one has rights .... "for safety".

You and Vrede make a lot of false assumptions. Why is that?

Could be because you have been quite inconsistent, or perhaps you haven't done a good job explaining your position, I don't know.

Well I guess for those who tow a party line, it may seem inconsistent to come across someone who doesn't.

You think the 4th amendment applies for physical situations but not virtual? What the difference?

The problem is that you two don't understand the technology you're discussing. Collecting metadata is the virtual equivalent of having access to your home address. Does it bother you that your home address is available to law enforcement? It's not the collection of information that's the issue. It's how it's used.

[bannination]

Ombudsman probably agrees with these cops as well. Stay tuned.

We gotta make sure no one has rights .... "for safety".

You and Vrede make a lot of false assumptions. Why is that?

Could be because you have been quite inconsistent, or perhaps you haven't done a good job explaining your position, I don't know.

Well I guess for those who tow a party line, it may seem inconsistent to come across someone who doesn't.

You think the 4th amendment applies for physical situations but not virtual? What the difference?

The problem is that you two don't understand the technology you're discussing. Collecting metadata is the virtual equivalent of having access to your home address. Does it bother you that your home address is available to law enforcement? It's not the collection of information that's the issue. It's how it's used.

I disagree that metadata is the only thing being collected. That aside *IF* that was all they collected, you are grossly misunderstanding the technology. You can gain so much information from that metadata you don't need the actual content, you can reconstruct it. You might see that as a contradiction to my previous statement, however, so let me just add that since you're already on the line, why not go ahead and capture everything anyway?

Having metadata is actually the equivalent of Law Enforcement having your address, being able to infer everything that's inside your home without looking. They know what diseases you have, they know how far and often you travel, they know exactly when you're not likely to be home, they can infer if your married, how far your parents or siblings live away from you. They know what brand of toothpaste you use. They know if you are having an affair. The what people are most close to you and you care the most about. It's truly limitless.

You seem to have a very narrow vision of what this technology can do when combined with advanced statistics. Terrorists can beat this, while normal law abiding citizens can't because they use all of this in their daily life.

It was exactly these concerns that motivated the mathematician William Binney, a former N.S.A. official who spoke to me for the Drake story, to retire rather than keep working for an agency he suspected had begun to violate Americans’ fundamental privacy rights. After 9/11, Binney told me, as I reported in the piece, General Michael Hayden, who was then director of the N.S.A., “reassured everyone that the N.S.A. didn’t put out dragnets, and that was true. It had no need—it was getting every fish in the sea.”

Binney, who considered himself a conservative, feared that the N.S.A.’s data-mining program was so extensive that it could help “create an Orwellian state.”

Virtually anyone that is a real techie disagrees with you for GOOD REASON.

[Ombudsman]

Actually I think you're the one with a narrow understanding of what it can do. It can save lives and has. You keep leaving that part of the equation out of your Big Brother scenarios. You seem to have a profound respect for the intelligence of the average terrorist. If they can "beat this" why would that then lead you to the response of just rolling over?

In my previous scenario of piecing together the suspects in an attack with metadata from smart phones, would you be opposed to it if you knew for certain the government would never use it against law abiding citizens?

[billy.pilgrim]

Actually I think you're the one with a narrow understanding of what it can do. It can save lives and has. You keep leaving that part of the equation out of your Big Brother scenarios. You seem to have a profound respect for the intelligence of the average terrorist. If they can "beat this" why would that then lead you to the response of just rolling over?

In my previous scenario of piecing together the suspects in an attack with metadata from smart phones, would you be opposed to it if you knew for certain the government would never use it against law abiding citizens?

knowing that the consequences of killing maybe a half million innocent people in iraq, publically acknowledging out right to violate our own laws to use torture and possible life term at gitmo for people who did nothing wrong would lead to an increased number of acts of terrorism and serve as the recruiting poster to bolster the terrorist ranks by 10 fold didn't seem like too big of a cost - considering the dollars profit and all that oil

seems to me that there isn't a lot of concern about terrorism

[Ombudsman]

knowing that the consequences of killing maybe a half million innocent people in iraq, publically acknowledging out right to violate our own laws to use torture and possible life term at gitmo for people who did nothing wrong would lead to an increased number of acts of terrorism and serve as the recruiting poster to bolster the terrorist ranks by 10 fold didn't seem like too big of a cost - considering the dollars profit and all that oil

There's no doubt the Iraq fiasco increased hatred for Americans. All the more reason to find less offensive ways to protect against terrorism.

[bannination]

Actually I think you're the one with a narrow understanding of what it can do. It can save lives and has. You keep leaving that part of the equation out of your Big Brother scenarios. You seem to have a profound respect for the intelligence of the average terrorist. If they can "beat this" why would that then lead you to the response of just rolling over?

In my previous scenario of piecing together the suspects in an attack with metadata from smart phones, would you be opposed to it if you knew for certain the government would never use it against law abiding citizens?

Been here before, if it was about saving lives there are more cost effective ways to do it that would save MILLIONS of lives. The government has no interest in only using these techniques on terrorists.... or they'd just do that..... I think that's the whole point.

To recap:

Cons:
* Violates the constitution.
* Has cost an INSANE amount of money.
* Saves very few if any lives. AFAIK it's not been proven it has saved a single one.
* Ineffective against terrorists, they're not going to use traceable systems anyway.
* This money could be used to save MILLIONS of lives.

Pros for the average citizen:
* ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Ombudsman]

What facts do you have to support those opinions?

[Mr.B]

"Ombudsman probably agrees with these cops as well. Stay tuned. We gotta make sure no one has rights .... "for safety".

"office ross is about the standard for a donut eater, just a punk asshole who never progressed much past the 7th grade playground"

We all have been stopped at checkpoints at one time or the other, and generally the purpose of is to apprehend holiday drivers that are under the influence, or with revoked driving privileges. The kid was merely a smart-ass who gets his jollies posting on YouTube to make it appear he was the poor victim of police abuse. Rolling the window down would afford the possibility of smelling alcohol or other substances had he been indulging in same.

Had he complied with the officer's request in the beginning, he would have long been on his way; instead he chose to be an all constitution-knowing
butthole. Being a jerk worked very well to arouse the officer's suspicions. btw, most of his knowledge of the Constitution is flawed. The Constitution does not address the rights of a driver, as driving is not a right, it is a privilege.

[Ombudsman]

Even if the kid is right on legal grounds, what's the purpose of intentionally provoking a police officer?

[billy.pilgrim]

Even if the kid is right on legal grounds, what's the purpose of intentionally provoking a police officer?

making points often requires provocation.

ask Nathaniel Barber

[Mr.B]

"Even if the kid is right on legal grounds, what's the purpose of intentionally provoking a police officer?"

"making points often requires provocation.
ask Nathaniel Barber"

That's just it; he didn't make any points worth noting. He only made an arrogant ass out of himself.

[billy.pilgrim]

"Ombudsman probably agrees with these cops as well. Stay tuned. We gotta make sure no one has rights .... "for safety".

"office ross is about the standard for a donut eater, just a punk asshole who never progressed much past the 7th grade playground"

Had he complied with the officer's request in the beginning, he would have long been on his way; instead he chose to be an all constitution-knowing
butthole. Being a jerk worked very well to arouse the officer's suspicions. btw, most of his knowledge of the Constitution is flawed. The Constitution does not address the rights of a driver, as driving is not a right, it is a privilege.

gee whillikers bb, I didn't realize knowing a little about the Constitution makes someone a smartass, but you got no worries there, cause the issue had nothing to do with driving. remember always wear your thinking cap

[Ombudsman]

Even if the kid is right on legal grounds, what's the purpose of intentionally provoking a police officer?

making points often requires provocation.

ask Nathaniel Barber

What point did this kid make? He's got some other interesting videos were he provokes a situation with panhandlers. Those actually seem to achieve something. Not sure about this one. I guess at that age you don't have real problems to deal with so you fabricate them instead sometimes.

[billy.pilgrim]

"Even if the kid is right on legal grounds, what's the purpose of intentionally provoking a police officer?"

"making points often requires provocation.
ask Nathaniel Barber"

That's just it; he didn't make any points worth noting. He only made an arrogant ass out of himself.

probably true, but (there's always a butt) jess maybe, he found a good attorney who sued the police department for illegal search and the smart ass officer had to take a couple of refresher courses in being less of an asshole

[Ombudsman]

"Even if the kid is right on legal grounds, what's the purpose of intentionally provoking a police officer?"

"making points often requires provocation.
ask Nathaniel Barber"

That's just it; he didn't make any points worth noting. He only made an arrogant ass out of himself.

probably true, but (there's always a butt) jess maybe, he found a good attorney who sued the police department for illegal search and the smart ass officer had to take a couple of refresher courses in being less of an asshole

And the kid was then stuck with a legal bill he couldn't pay. That'll show 'em.

[billy.pilgrim]

"Even if the kid is right on legal grounds, what's the purpose of intentionally provoking a police officer?"

"making points often requires provocation.
ask Nathaniel Barber"

That's just it; he didn't make any points worth noting. He only made an arrogant ass out of himself.

probably true, but (there's always a butt) jess maybe, he found a good attorney who sued the police department for illegal search and the smart ass officer had to take a couple of refresher courses in being less of an asshole

And the kid was then stuck with a legal bill he couldn't pay. That'll show 'em.

they tried to make Nat clean up the harbor, but he was wearing a disguise

a little bit of uncivil disobedience goes a long way toward creating a civil society