For all you legal eagle's ... there is no legal expectation of privacy when you are in a public place. Therefore, there is no infringement of civil liberties, therefore the repeated quotes from Benjamin Franklin demonstrate that you don't know your ass from your mouth.
Dear Chris, I feel that being surveilled all the time will have a chilling effect on my willingness to speak my mind in those public places that have traditionally been set aside for public debate. Additionally, it will also infringe on my freedom of association because now I will be afraid to gather in a public place for such debate because I will be linked to the guy standing next to me who is in fact a terrorist, even though I've never seen him before in my life.
You have more liberties than the Privacy Rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment (and as they are incorporated into the States under the 14th Amendment). But I guess only those of us that don't know our asses from our mouth would think that, right?
While there is no expectation of privacy there is an expectation that law enforcement will get a warrant or have reasonable cause to start survelliance on someone. Prior to these cameras, that surveilance was forward in time only. Now that the capacity theoretically exists to retroactively review someones entire outdoor life, just because they have the wrong friends, I think we need some additional checks and balances.
There you go again... stuff that should be coming out of your ass is coming out of your mouth.
What you present are unsound legal arguments that would never hold up in court. The principal I have stated, that there is no legal expectation of privacy in public places, is established legal precedent. Even the ACLU would agree with me (although they would probably still fight it).
Additionally, I was not saying it was good or bad to install cameras. I was saying that the government has the right to do so. I was attempting to frame the discussion how it should be framed, that is in terms of right and wrong, not in terms of government legality. Otherwise it is pointless. This is not one that can be reasonably fought in the courts; however, it can be fought by lobbying your elected officials.
I also want to thank you for demonstrating Godwin's Law in near record time.
I'm not saying it's about privacy. I'm saying it may have a detrimental affect on Free Speech. Completely difference civil liberties.
>> I was saying that the government has the right to do so.
Reread your post. You never ONCE said this. You said you have no right to privacy and therefore it is not an infringement of your civil liberties. My reply was that while, yes, it does not infringe a right to privacy, a right covered by your Fourth Amendment civil liberties, it may in fact have a deleterious affect on people exercising their First Amendment civil liberties of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association.
I know there is legal precedent for being recorded in general in public. But, unless you can direct me otherwise, there has not been a mass surveillance of this nature in the US. I know the government has the right to install the cameras. I'm just saying I don't think they should and there are Constitutionally motivated reasons why they shouldn't (not that they can't). And if you know of precedent supporting mass surveillance versus ordinary surveillance, please provide it because I don't think it exists and I think there IS a difference.
For example, the NAACP does not have to disclose it's member list. If I was a member of the NAACP, and I thought I was being recorded ALL THE TIME, I may be less likely to attend a rally that the NAACP was throwing. It's not a privacy issue, it's a freedom of association issue. What if I wasn't a member of the NAACP. I also have the freedom not to be associated with a particular group. Just because I passed by and stopped to listen for a minute doesn't mean I am associated with them. If I thought I was being recorded all the time, I may cut a wide swath and avoid it all together.
Lastly, the Nazi reference was part of the quote game. It is a poem that was written about how people need to stand up for others. I never claimed that this administration was comparable to the Nazis, therefore I never invoked Godwin's Law.
A cop is allowed to stroll down the street and look around with his own eyes. If this chills your speech, than that is your problem. The only thing it can reasonably be expected to chill is your propensity to perform an illegal act.
Legally speaking, there is no difference between a cop walking down the street patrolling and a cop in the operations center watching on CCTV.
Now-you make the argument that surveilling en masse changes the constitutionality. Well I would argue that we have been doing this for a long time in varying ways and degrees. At public events or demonstrations, over which you express the chilling effect of cameras on your First Amendment freedoms, you are guaranteed a strong police presence to keep the peace. Also, where I am at least, Washington, DC metroplex, there are multiple traffic cameras at almost every intersection.
Ask yourself this: What has the larger chilling effect on speech, the 50 cops that have been dispatched in uniform with firearms to your demonstration, or a ubiquitous camera array?
You could of course have a copyrighted tshirt or a copyrighted video where you own the rights playing as you are caught on these cameras and then sue under copyright.
Seems a sad state of affairs where you have no rights to protect yourself from being monitored and recorded in this way but if it is a video or movie instead of a person that is captured on the camera then we will pin them to the wall and take them for every penny
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
For all you legal eagle's ... there is no legal expectation of privacy when you are in a public place. Therefore, there is no infringement of civil liberties, therefore the repeated quotes from Benjamin Franklin demonstrate that you don't know your ass from your mouth.
Okay, discuss...
Dear Chris, I feel that being surveilled all the time will have a chilling effect on my willingness to speak my mind in those public places that have traditionally been set aside for public debate. Additionally, it will also infringe on my freedom of association because now I will be afraid to gather in a public place for such debate because I will be linked to the guy standing next to me who is in fact a terrorist, even though I've never seen him before in my life.
You have more liberties than the Privacy Rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment (and as they are incorporated into the States under the 14th Amendment). But I guess only those of us that don't know our asses from our mouth would think that, right?
-p-
While there is no expectation of privacy there is an expectation that law enforcement will get a warrant or have reasonable cause to start survelliance on someone. Prior to these cameras, that surveilance was forward in time only. Now that the capacity theoretically exists to retroactively review someones entire outdoor life, just because they have the wrong friends, I think we need some additional checks and balances.
Dear Mr. Vote or Die,
There you go again... stuff that should be coming out of your ass is coming out of your mouth.
What you present are unsound legal arguments that would never hold up in court. The principal I have stated, that there is no legal expectation of privacy in public places, is established legal precedent. Even the ACLU would agree with me (although they would probably still fight it).
Additionally, I was not saying it was good or bad to install cameras. I was saying that the government has the right to do so. I was attempting to frame the discussion how it should be framed, that is in terms of right and wrong, not in terms of government legality. Otherwise it is pointless. This is not one that can be reasonably fought in the courts; however, it can be fought by lobbying your elected officials.
I also want to thank you for demonstrating Godwin's Law in near record time.
Please see comment directed at you (by me) below...
I'm not saying it's about privacy. I'm saying it may have a detrimental affect on Free Speech. Completely difference civil liberties.
>> I was saying that the government has the right to do so.
Reread your post. You never ONCE said this. You said you have no right to privacy and therefore it is not an infringement of your civil liberties. My reply was that while, yes, it does not infringe a right to privacy, a right covered by your Fourth Amendment civil liberties, it may in fact have a deleterious affect on people exercising their First Amendment civil liberties of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association.
I know there is legal precedent for being recorded in general in public. But, unless you can direct me otherwise, there has not been a mass surveillance of this nature in the US. I know the government has the right to install the cameras. I'm just saying I don't think they should and there are Constitutionally motivated reasons why they shouldn't (not that they can't). And if you know of precedent supporting mass surveillance versus ordinary surveillance, please provide it because I don't think it exists and I think there IS a difference.
For example, the NAACP does not have to disclose it's member list. If I was a member of the NAACP, and I thought I was being recorded ALL THE TIME, I may be less likely to attend a rally that the NAACP was throwing. It's not a privacy issue, it's a freedom of association issue. What if I wasn't a member of the NAACP. I also have the freedom not to be associated with a particular group. Just because I passed by and stopped to listen for a minute doesn't mean I am associated with them. If I thought I was being recorded all the time, I may cut a wide swath and avoid it all together.
Lastly, the Nazi reference was part of the quote game. It is a poem that was written about how people need to stand up for others. I never claimed that this administration was comparable to the Nazis, therefore I never invoked Godwin's Law.
Mr. Diddy -
A cop is allowed to stroll down the street and look around with his own eyes. If this chills your speech, than that is your problem. The only thing it can reasonably be expected to chill is your propensity to perform an illegal act.
Legally speaking, there is no difference between a cop walking down the street patrolling and a cop in the operations center watching on CCTV.
Now-you make the argument that surveilling en masse changes the constitutionality. Well I would argue that we have been doing this for a long time in varying ways and degrees. At public events or demonstrations, over which you express the chilling effect of cameras on your First Amendment freedoms, you are guaranteed a strong police presence to keep the peace. Also, where I am at least, Washington, DC metroplex, there are multiple traffic cameras at almost every intersection.
Ask yourself this: What has the larger chilling effect on speech, the 50 cops that have been dispatched in uniform with firearms to your demonstration, or a ubiquitous camera array?
You can take the parting shot.
You could of course have a copyrighted tshirt or a copyrighted video where you own the rights playing as you are caught on these cameras and then sue under copyright.
Seems a sad state of affairs where you have no rights to protect yourself from being monitored and recorded in this way but if it is a video or movie instead of a person that is captured on the camera then we will pin them to the wall and take them for every penny