Posted on 08/31/2023 11:31:25 AM PDT by Faith Presses On
“I’ll bet 90% of so called Conservatives were cheering this crap on after 9/11 and yelling at the Ron Paul types: “If we don’t give up our Freedom then the terrorists win.”
They were beating heads here on FR. “We’re fighting terror”!!!!
It’s worse than you think. Look into sidewalk and ring video
A civilian viewing you is one thing. A government agent (or their lackey contractors) viewing you is another, and them viewing you remotely and recording it is a whole other one.
The 4th Amendment is clear that "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."
It's an unreasonable search done without a warrant and probable cause.
They can be good. My sister, 60 years old, was at home alone upstairs. Her Ring doorbell on the backdoor pinged her phone as a would be burglar walked up to the back door (proximity warning is standard on a lot of smart doorbell systems, people don’t have to actually ring the doorbell). She got a glimpse of him on her phone. He had a jammer with him that jammed her wi-fi, but she had enough warning to call the police.
He was going around the neighborhood testing back doors to see if he could get in, he couldn’t and headed to the next house. The cops got there, and again, she got pinged and saw the police on her cell phone as they came up on the front porch. Nice to be able to see them as they came up on the porch to confirm it was the police at the door.
So, yeah, I’m a luddite, but I’m glad my sis had the Ring security up and running. Just as an aside, she walked down the stairs far enough to see the back door when she initially got pinged, had her .38 in her hand. As she commented, the burglar wouldn’t have tried to get in if he had known of her redneck upbringing.
They’re the ones that didn’t read what Benjamin Franklin had to say about that.
“Thank you very much, Mr. Roboto
For doing the jobs nobody wants to
And thank you very much, Mr. Roboto
For helping me escape to where I needed to
Thank you, thank you, thank you
I want to thank you, please, thank you, oh yeah
The problem’s plain to see, too much technology
Machines to save our lives, machines dehumanize . . “
So, you are okay with them tracking your every move when you leave your property? They have eyes in the sky. They have eyes on traffic lights and some signs. They can access any Ring device. You go into a grocery store or pharmacy, they can check your every purchase.
Yes he is, because he’s also big on pushing the quaxcine into everyone.
Domo arigato,
Mister Roboto
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” - Ayn Rand
T.B. Yoits wrote: “A civilian viewing you is one thing. A government agent (or their lackey contractors) viewing you is another, and them viewing you remotely and recording it is a whole other one.”
BipolarBob wrote: “So, you are okay with them tracking your every move when you leave your property? They have eyes in the sky. They have eyes on traffic lights and some signs. They can access any Ring device. You go into a grocery store or pharmacy, they can check your every purchase.”
I didn’t say I was in favor of these things. I said: “What expectation of privacy do you have when you are in a public space?”
Now, can either of you prove you have a right to privacy in a public place?
My right is as I showed in the Fourth Amendment; "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."
Being in a public space allows anyone to view me but does not give a government agent the right to remotely track me and record it. That's an unreasonable search done without a warrant and probable cause.
Related; depending on the court, a trial may have artist's sketches but no cameras or microphones. Someone can draw or write about what they witnessed but is not allowed to record it.
T.B. Yoits wrote: “My right is as I showed in the Fourth Amendment; “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.””
The courts have not ruled in your favor. It’s important to realize what the situation is if you want to change it. So far, the courts do not accept your argument. So, it remains, you do not have the right to privacy in a public place. If you don’t like that, do something to change it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy_(United_States)
And yet, for a right you insist I don't have, the Feds won't present evidence in court obtained from their Stingray system because they know the court will find them guilty of illegal surveillance on innocent bystanders.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/stingray-tracking-devices-whos-got-them
T.B. Yoits wrote: “And yet, for a right you insist I don’t have, the Feds won’t present evidence in court obtained from their Stingray system because they know the court will find them guilty of illegal surveillance on innocent bystanders.”
I haven’t taken a position on wether you have that right.
I have insisted that the courts have not agreed that you have that right.
Do you see the difference?
Yet you insist the courts have not agreed I have the right to protection from illegal surveillance.
T.B. Yoits wrote: “Again, the Feds won’t present evidence from their Stingray system because the courts will find them guilty of illegal surveillance of innocent bystanders. Yet you insist the courts have not agreed I have the right to protection from illegal surveillance.”
Unless you can provide a quote from a credible source, that is nothing but speculation on your part.
Speculation? The interwebs is filled with actual lawsuits and reports.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather-prosecutors-drop-cases-than-disclose-stingray-details/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/10/stingray-spying-fbi-phone-dragnet-police
https://gizmodo.com/fbi-will-neither-confirm-nor-deny-the-existence-of-thes-1848234939
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/documents-aclu-case-reveal-more-detail-fbi-attempt-cover-stingray-technology
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/indiana-state-police-wont-give-up-stingray-records-due-to-terrorism-risk/
https://www.zdnet.com/article/fbi-wants-cops-to-recreate-evidence-because-stingray-cell-trackers-are-too-secret/
And these are just for Stingray without looking at all their other illegal surveillance.
Again, the point being that employees of government agencies fully know that the courts DO recognize that I have the right to protection from illegal surveillance.
T.B. Yoits wrote: “Speculation? The interwebs is filled with actual lawsuits and reports.”
Stingrays aren’t cameras. They are cell phone trackers.
Now can you provide citations concerning cameras?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.