Aa
Policing advocates defend use of high-tech license plate readers
(CNN) -- David Roberts remembers his days as a Denver police cadet in 1970: It was roll call, just like in the old TV dramas, and every cop was handed a "hot sheet" of vehicles totaling 10 pages, with license plate numbers printed in six columns.
It was a dizzying list, all single spaced. Every time Roberts saw a suspicious vehicle, he thumbed through the legal-size pages, seeing whether the car was stolen or wanted for use in a crime or impoundment for unpaid parking tickets.
"You can imagine how many times you would do that in a shift," said Roberts, who's now a senior program manager for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Each check, he said, amounted to "a fishing expedition."
Police are tracking where you drive
That time-consuming process is now increasingly being replaced by technology called automated license plate readers. It's a system of high-speed cameras mounted on police or meter-maid vehicles that photograph license plates and run the numbers automatically against the 21st century version of a hot sheet, a database.
The nationwide emergence of this policing tool was highlighted this week in a report that portrayed the digital-era invention as shades of another Big Brother intrusion into American privacy, largely because there are no laws governing how long police can keep the data on vehicles, including those of innocent motorists, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
ACLU raises privacy concerns
But some law enforcement officials and advocates assert there's no need for state laws.
Groups such as the IACP encourage agencies to adopt policies to ensure the data is used for authorized purposes, with regular audits. There's been no major scandal of abuse since a study by Roberts found almost half of the largest police departments were using the technology in 2007.
The ACLU, however, calls the technology "a tool for mass routine location tracking and surveillance" of Americans and advocates legislation to ensure privacy.
"I understand the position they're taking on this," Roberts said of the ACLU. "I think agencies are very careful on how they use the data. Every agency I talk to and all the guidance we provide is to make sure that this is for official use only.
"If agencies have specific policies and articulate those policies and enforce them, it would obviate the need for legislation that would restrict this powerful investigative tool," Roberts said.
Moreover, other law officials argue, maybe license plate data from 10, 20 or 25 years ago could be used to track down a suspicious vehicle and solve a cold case.
"My first question is why," said Tyler Izen, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the bargaining unit for 9,900 sworn officers ranked lieutenant and below. "And if the answer is because we have statute of limitations on crimes, well, there's no statute of limitation on murder.
"I would ask the ACLU if we could solve a family's homicide from 20 years ago, why would you want it destroyed?" he added, referring to the data. "Really what they're saying is they don't trust society to use that data reasonably, and I say we make sure we use it reasonably. I don't want to violate the Constitution."
Izen agrees that the data shouldn't be made available for purposes outside of law enforcement.
"I hear everyone's discussion about the right to privacy," Izen said. "If I'm telling my wife I'm somewhere, I certainly don't need somebody saying they saw my car somewhere else.
"I don't want a tabloid having access to the data telling me where every celebrity is located. That's not what we do," Izen continued.
That issue, however, did arise in Minnesota, according to the ACLU.
In 2012, the StarTribune newspaper in Minneapolis tracked the movement of the Mayor R.T. Rybak's car 41 times at license police readers in the prior year. The newspaper put the information on a map and gathered the data through public records requests.
As a result of that report, the mayor directed the police chief to recommend a new policy on data retention, the ACLU said.
The power of the technology seems commanding: A police cruiser can be mounted with cameras to check vehicles that are parked, in front of the patrol car or traveling in the opposite direction on the other side or the road.
Once the software confirms a match between a passing vehicle and the hot list, it emits a visual and audio alert on the patrol car's computer.
An officer, however, must double check the alert because sometimes the optical character reader software will misread a plate's "8" as a "B" or a "Z" as a "7," Roberts said.
A 2010 study by George Mason University found "there is little question that license plate readers are more efficient than previous (and, in many cases, current) police practices for checking license plates" such as the "look-out lists."
"License plate readers can continuously scan hundreds of plates in minutes without the officer paying attention to vehicles passing by or taking up radio airtime that might be used for more pressing communications. Because of these efficiencies, LPR may contribute not only to reduced discrimination in traffic stops, but also to reduced distractions and accidents while driving," the study said.
But the report raised questions on their effectiveness to deter crime -- especially when each license plate reader can cost $20,000 to $25,000.
"The most accurate license plate readers might be used by law enforcement officials in ways that have no specific or general deterrent, preventative, or detection effect whatsoever," the study said.
The question of deterrence was also raised by the Police Executive Research Forum and Mesa, Arizona, Police Department in a 2011 study that found the technology results in more arrests for car theft.
"We believe our results demonstrate that LPR technology holds a limited amount of promise for law enforcement. Some of the benefits include increasing the number of plates that the police can scan, increasing the number of 'hits' for vehicle theft and 'hits' for stolen plates, increasing the number of arrests for stolen cars, and increasing the number of recoveries involving occupied stolen vehicles," the forum study said.
"However, we did not find evidence that the LPR reduced actual vehicle theft rates for our targeted areas," the report concluded.
But deterrence isn't the principle objective of the technology, Roberts contends.
"Its principle objective is to identify vehicles that are wanted," Roberts added.
For the technology to become a deterrent might take time, Izen said.
"The short answer is, I don't think it does yet, but it may soon -- when we realize how much more easy it is to solve crimes," Izen said.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/license-plate-readers/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
It was a dizzying list, all single spaced. Every time Roberts saw a suspicious vehicle, he thumbed through the legal-size pages, seeing whether the car was stolen or wanted for use in a crime or impoundment for unpaid parking tickets.
"You can imagine how many times you would do that in a shift," said Roberts, who's now a senior program manager for the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Each check, he said, amounted to "a fishing expedition."
Police are tracking where you drive
That time-consuming process is now increasingly being replaced by technology called automated license plate readers. It's a system of high-speed cameras mounted on police or meter-maid vehicles that photograph license plates and run the numbers automatically against the 21st century version of a hot sheet, a database.
The nationwide emergence of this policing tool was highlighted this week in a report that portrayed the digital-era invention as shades of another Big Brother intrusion into American privacy, largely because there are no laws governing how long police can keep the data on vehicles, including those of innocent motorists, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
ACLU raises privacy concerns
But some law enforcement officials and advocates assert there's no need for state laws.
Groups such as the IACP encourage agencies to adopt policies to ensure the data is used for authorized purposes, with regular audits. There's been no major scandal of abuse since a study by Roberts found almost half of the largest police departments were using the technology in 2007.
The ACLU, however, calls the technology "a tool for mass routine location tracking and surveillance" of Americans and advocates legislation to ensure privacy.
"I understand the position they're taking on this," Roberts said of the ACLU. "I think agencies are very careful on how they use the data. Every agency I talk to and all the guidance we provide is to make sure that this is for official use only.
"If agencies have specific policies and articulate those policies and enforce them, it would obviate the need for legislation that would restrict this powerful investigative tool," Roberts said.
Moreover, other law officials argue, maybe license plate data from 10, 20 or 25 years ago could be used to track down a suspicious vehicle and solve a cold case.
"My first question is why," said Tyler Izen, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the bargaining unit for 9,900 sworn officers ranked lieutenant and below. "And if the answer is because we have statute of limitations on crimes, well, there's no statute of limitation on murder.
"I would ask the ACLU if we could solve a family's homicide from 20 years ago, why would you want it destroyed?" he added, referring to the data. "Really what they're saying is they don't trust society to use that data reasonably, and I say we make sure we use it reasonably. I don't want to violate the Constitution."
Izen agrees that the data shouldn't be made available for purposes outside of law enforcement.
"I hear everyone's discussion about the right to privacy," Izen said. "If I'm telling my wife I'm somewhere, I certainly don't need somebody saying they saw my car somewhere else.
"I don't want a tabloid having access to the data telling me where every celebrity is located. That's not what we do," Izen continued.
That issue, however, did arise in Minnesota, according to the ACLU.
In 2012, the StarTribune newspaper in Minneapolis tracked the movement of the Mayor R.T. Rybak's car 41 times at license police readers in the prior year. The newspaper put the information on a map and gathered the data through public records requests.
As a result of that report, the mayor directed the police chief to recommend a new policy on data retention, the ACLU said.
The power of the technology seems commanding: A police cruiser can be mounted with cameras to check vehicles that are parked, in front of the patrol car or traveling in the opposite direction on the other side or the road.
Once the software confirms a match between a passing vehicle and the hot list, it emits a visual and audio alert on the patrol car's computer.
An officer, however, must double check the alert because sometimes the optical character reader software will misread a plate's "8" as a "B" or a "Z" as a "7," Roberts said.
A 2010 study by George Mason University found "there is little question that license plate readers are more efficient than previous (and, in many cases, current) police practices for checking license plates" such as the "look-out lists."
"License plate readers can continuously scan hundreds of plates in minutes without the officer paying attention to vehicles passing by or taking up radio airtime that might be used for more pressing communications. Because of these efficiencies, LPR may contribute not only to reduced discrimination in traffic stops, but also to reduced distractions and accidents while driving," the study said.
But the report raised questions on their effectiveness to deter crime -- especially when each license plate reader can cost $20,000 to $25,000.
"The most accurate license plate readers might be used by law enforcement officials in ways that have no specific or general deterrent, preventative, or detection effect whatsoever," the study said.
The question of deterrence was also raised by the Police Executive Research Forum and Mesa, Arizona, Police Department in a 2011 study that found the technology results in more arrests for car theft.
"We believe our results demonstrate that LPR technology holds a limited amount of promise for law enforcement. Some of the benefits include increasing the number of plates that the police can scan, increasing the number of 'hits' for vehicle theft and 'hits' for stolen plates, increasing the number of arrests for stolen cars, and increasing the number of recoveries involving occupied stolen vehicles," the forum study said.
"However, we did not find evidence that the LPR reduced actual vehicle theft rates for our targeted areas," the report concluded.
But deterrence isn't the principle objective of the technology, Roberts contends.
"Its principle objective is to identify vehicles that are wanted," Roberts added.
For the technology to become a deterrent might take time, Izen said.
"The short answer is, I don't think it does yet, but it may soon -- when we realize how much more easy it is to solve crimes," Izen said.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/18/us/license-plate-readers/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
I agree.
Article 16:
"Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."
Article 16:
"Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."
P.S.
I still think there are some laws that "protect us" from widespread surveillance. It won't be long....
I still think there are some laws that "protect us" from widespread surveillance. It won't be long....
"I wonder, with all this spying and big brother knowing our every move, why it is that we cannot just zoom in on the zimmerman issue and see what actually happened? I must assume that the big brother spying on our every move must be a bit far fetched or we would have our answers to these things. Wouldnt we?"
The only answer to why we didn't zoom in on Zimmerman is that there were not camera's in the vicinity. Big brother isn't all places all of the time yet.
I just got back from a whirlwind trip to my home town. It is absolutely amazing to me how many cameras there are there. One particular "big box" store had 16 cameras (that I counted) outside the building and who knows how many inside. Across 6 lanes of traffic were some fast food joints, all of which were monitored by surveillance cameras on the front of the building, the drive thru and their parking lots. I would imagine the "big box" stores cameras also covered the fast food joints and vice versa.
Google maps... look at the satellite version. It wont be long and you'll be able to stream that stuff. (For a price I am sure.)
The only answer to why we didn't zoom in on Zimmerman is that there were not camera's in the vicinity. Big brother isn't all places all of the time yet.
I just got back from a whirlwind trip to my home town. It is absolutely amazing to me how many cameras there are there. One particular "big box" store had 16 cameras (that I counted) outside the building and who knows how many inside. Across 6 lanes of traffic were some fast food joints, all of which were monitored by surveillance cameras on the front of the building, the drive thru and their parking lots. I would imagine the "big box" stores cameras also covered the fast food joints and vice versa.
Google maps... look at the satellite version. It wont be long and you'll be able to stream that stuff. (For a price I am sure.)
I realize the technology is there, but it seems to me, must not being used the way many fear, otherwise, we would not be speculating as to what happened that night? Is my point, I think. :(
My Dad (mech. engineer ) was making parts 25 years ago in a machine shop for satellites. They could read the names off mail boxes at the time. Think of the technology developed since.
I wonder, with all this spying and big brother knowing our every move, why it is that we cannot just zoom in on the zimmerman issue and see what actually happened? I must assume that the big brother spying on our every move must be a bit far fetched or we would have our answers to these things. Wouldnt we?
White House opposes amendment to curb NSA spying
The White House said the amendment will "hastily dismantle" counterterrorism tools
By John Ribeiro | Published: 06:33, 24 July 2013
Email to a friend Print this article RSS feed
The White House is opposed to an amendment to a defense spending bill that would limit spending on mass surveillance by the National Security Agency.
The amendment proposed by Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan, would limit spending only to orders by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that collect phone and other data only of a person who is the subject of an investigation.
Former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, disclosed through newspaper reports in June that the NSA was collecting phone metadata from Verizon customers in the U.S. as part of its surveillance which was said to include data collected from Internet companies as well.
The authorization to the NSA to collect phone metadata in bulk was last week renewed by the FISC court. The Department of Justice has said that it has to retain the bulk data required by its counterterrorism tools, as it need not be retained by telecommunications service providers.
The administration of President Barack Obama said Tuesday that it opposes "the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Community's counterterrorism tools." "This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process," it added.
In line with his promise in June to have a debate on the issues thrown up by the disclosures of NSA surveillance, Obama has taken several steps including his meeting with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and disclosures by the office of the Director of National Intelligence, according to a statement by the White House press secretary.
The amendment proposed by Amash would limit the collection of telephone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming calls, and the duration of calls to that of the person under investigation.
Google, Microsoft and other Internet companies have sought clearance from the secret FISC court to disclose aggregate numbers of requests for customer data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related rules. The companies were said to have provided to the NSA access in real-time to content on their servers under a NSA program called Prism, which the companies have denied.
Login Login | Register Follow us on Twitter
Get Widget Newsletter Subscribe to Techworld newsletters
Earlier this week, the Department of Justice asked the FISC court for an extension of the time to respond to Microsoft and Google's motions before the FISC court for disclosure of aggregate data on FISA requests, stating that they needed additional time to negotiate with the two companies.
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on the amendment on Wednesday. Rights groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have described the Amash amendment as an important step in curbing domestic surveillance by the NSA. The White House has urged the House "to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation."
John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is john_ribeiro***@****
The White House said the amendment will "hastily dismantle" counterterrorism tools
By John Ribeiro | Published: 06:33, 24 July 2013
Email to a friend Print this article RSS feed
The White House is opposed to an amendment to a defense spending bill that would limit spending on mass surveillance by the National Security Agency.
The amendment proposed by Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan, would limit spending only to orders by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that collect phone and other data only of a person who is the subject of an investigation.
Former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, disclosed through newspaper reports in June that the NSA was collecting phone metadata from Verizon customers in the U.S. as part of its surveillance which was said to include data collected from Internet companies as well.
The authorization to the NSA to collect phone metadata in bulk was last week renewed by the FISC court. The Department of Justice has said that it has to retain the bulk data required by its counterterrorism tools, as it need not be retained by telecommunications service providers.
The administration of President Barack Obama said Tuesday that it opposes "the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Community's counterterrorism tools." "This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process," it added.
In line with his promise in June to have a debate on the issues thrown up by the disclosures of NSA surveillance, Obama has taken several steps including his meeting with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and disclosures by the office of the Director of National Intelligence, according to a statement by the White House press secretary.
The amendment proposed by Amash would limit the collection of telephone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming calls, and the duration of calls to that of the person under investigation.
Google, Microsoft and other Internet companies have sought clearance from the secret FISC court to disclose aggregate numbers of requests for customer data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and related rules. The companies were said to have provided to the NSA access in real-time to content on their servers under a NSA program called Prism, which the companies have denied.
Login Login | Register Follow us on Twitter
Get Widget Newsletter Subscribe to Techworld newsletters
Earlier this week, the Department of Justice asked the FISC court for an extension of the time to respond to Microsoft and Google's motions before the FISC court for disclosure of aggregate data on FISA requests, stating that they needed additional time to negotiate with the two companies.
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on the amendment on Wednesday. Rights groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have described the Amash amendment as an important step in curbing domestic surveillance by the NSA. The White House has urged the House "to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation."
John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service. Follow John on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. John's e-mail address is john_ribeiro***@****
I totally agree that the attempt to overturn Roe v Wade is a classic example of rights being taken away. Gun laws are examples of rights being taken away...
Though I don't want to be repetitive, it's like I said "every time a risk is removed, so are some rights". When we live life without risk, we live it without rights.
Though I don't want to be repetitive, it's like I said "every time a risk is removed, so are some rights". When we live life without risk, we live it without rights.
Part of me is okay with the thought of surveillance equipment being nearly everywhere. I am not out and about causing anyone grief so I understand the opinion of this not being a big deal.
But like some of the others, I feel as if this is a systematic erosion of our rights or at least throws the door open for those rights to be taken away. I think some in society think they know what is better for the rest of us, and I don't like the idea that the potential for me living my life the way I see fit, could be taken away. (Especially when they think they are doing this "for my best interest.") I don't think that anyone knows me better than me, or my family. If I were to physically or mentally fall to pieces, I would prefer that my trusted family call the shots and not some nerd in DC. They don't know my best interest, and I don't think they give a damned.
But like some of the others, I feel as if this is a systematic erosion of our rights or at least throws the door open for those rights to be taken away. I think some in society think they know what is better for the rest of us, and I don't like the idea that the potential for me living my life the way I see fit, could be taken away. (Especially when they think they are doing this "for my best interest.") I don't think that anyone knows me better than me, or my family. If I were to physically or mentally fall to pieces, I would prefer that my trusted family call the shots and not some nerd in DC. They don't know my best interest, and I don't think they give a damned.
“The danger might not be so great, right now; to me, it's more about what can happen in the future, if we don't try to stop this now.”
Exactly. This is why so many of us where so upset about The Gun Control Laws. It wasn’t so much that they would serve little to no purpose, it was the fear of opening the door for Future Regulations.
One example is Roe vs. Wade. What started out as Women’s right to Abortion has grew into something that would have been considered fantasy from “Prophets of Doom” at the time. As I’ve stated before, I doubt the Supreme Court Justices, never in their wildest dreams, thought that one day, we would be fighting over a Woman’s Right to Late Term Abortions, Tax Payers Dollars used to Fund Abortions, Women having multiple Abortions because they use it as a form of Birth Control, etc.
This wasn’t posted to High Jack the Thread into a Pro-Choice/Pro-Life War. I used it for an example of why we are reluctant to open doors.
Who’s to say that one day, the information gathered wouldn’t become Public Record? Did you know, here (not sure about all states but in Louisiana) anyone can pull your Arrest Record and Minutes of the Court? That’s right, anyone!
Exactly. This is why so many of us where so upset about The Gun Control Laws. It wasn’t so much that they would serve little to no purpose, it was the fear of opening the door for Future Regulations.
One example is Roe vs. Wade. What started out as Women’s right to Abortion has grew into something that would have been considered fantasy from “Prophets of Doom” at the time. As I’ve stated before, I doubt the Supreme Court Justices, never in their wildest dreams, thought that one day, we would be fighting over a Woman’s Right to Late Term Abortions, Tax Payers Dollars used to Fund Abortions, Women having multiple Abortions because they use it as a form of Birth Control, etc.
This wasn’t posted to High Jack the Thread into a Pro-Choice/Pro-Life War. I used it for an example of why we are reluctant to open doors.
Who’s to say that one day, the information gathered wouldn’t become Public Record? Did you know, here (not sure about all states but in Louisiana) anyone can pull your Arrest Record and Minutes of the Court? That’s right, anyone!
I apologize for initially misinterpreting your comment. Thanks to SM for pointing that out to me.
No,no,no!!!!!!
I did not think it was redundant at all! Oye, I wanted to copy the whole thing and paste it again then say something inane like "right on"!
But I feared *I * would be redundant!!
I did not think it was redundant at all! Oye, I wanted to copy the whole thing and paste it again then say something inane like "right on"!
But I feared *I * would be redundant!!
No, that wasn't for you.......
I apologize if I misinterpreted rivil's comment, and as I reread it, I may have.
A difference of 15 yrs can have a huge impact on how we look at things, because over those 15 yrs a lot of things changed, not to mention that you probably didn't even start paying attention until a few years ago, so we could safely say that maybe 20-30 yrs of differences could be involved. .
You feel better under the blanket of government security; I feel safer left to live my life the way "I" see fit, not the way the government sees fit, whether it be city, county, state or federal, the right to own a gun or drink a 32 oz soda (I don't drink soda, but if I wanted to, I want that right). They don't have my best interests at heart; they have their power to worry about....
"Just differences of opinions for us and that's okay. I respect how others feel and do understand the concern even if I don't have it to the same degree." Agree........
I apologize if I misinterpreted rivil's comment, and as I reread it, I may have.
A difference of 15 yrs can have a huge impact on how we look at things, because over those 15 yrs a lot of things changed, not to mention that you probably didn't even start paying attention until a few years ago, so we could safely say that maybe 20-30 yrs of differences could be involved. .
You feel better under the blanket of government security; I feel safer left to live my life the way "I" see fit, not the way the government sees fit, whether it be city, county, state or federal, the right to own a gun or drink a 32 oz soda (I don't drink soda, but if I wanted to, I want that right). They don't have my best interests at heart; they have their power to worry about....
"Just differences of opinions for us and that's okay. I respect how others feel and do understand the concern even if I don't have it to the same degree." Agree........
Oh, I hope that wasn't for me. I didn't think it was redundant. I myself had asked for examples of what others were concerned about. I was just saying that in my big scheme of things, the things mentioned aren't upsetting to me or realistic. Doesn't mean I'm right by any means.
I think rivll was saying that she didn't want to be redundant and list all the same things you did as she admired and agreed with your post. At least that was how I read it.
Maybe time will prove me wrong but I was just saying of the list given, those things do not cause me to be fearful. I'm pushing 50 . .. I'm not exactly young (late 40's --- don't let the ages of my kids fool anyone . . . I barely squeaked them in before it was too late) either.
I am much more concerned with the threats that seem to be increasing of the terrorist nature. And that the world seems to be going mad with the things that are happening.
I feel better under the blanket of security that our govt. DOES know things about people and what they are doing. That outweighs the bad for me.
Just differences of opinions for us and that's okay. I respect how others feel and do understand the concern even if I don't have it to the same degree.
I think rivll was saying that she didn't want to be redundant and list all the same things you did as she admired and agreed with your post. At least that was how I read it.
Maybe time will prove me wrong but I was just saying of the list given, those things do not cause me to be fearful. I'm pushing 50 . .. I'm not exactly young (late 40's --- don't let the ages of my kids fool anyone . . . I barely squeaked them in before it was too late) either.
I am much more concerned with the threats that seem to be increasing of the terrorist nature. And that the world seems to be going mad with the things that are happening.
I feel better under the blanket of security that our govt. DOES know things about people and what they are doing. That outweighs the bad for me.
Just differences of opinions for us and that's okay. I respect how others feel and do understand the concern even if I don't have it to the same degree.
Sorry you felt my post was redundant; the question was asked how some of this could hurt us; I was merely answering that question, from my point of view, and it just so happened that my answer contained a lot of the same information I'd posted previously. Happy to know you think I nailed it, though..... lol
It used to be far fetched to think we would walk up to an ATM, put a card in and withdraw cash; even have computers, let alone be able to conduct business with one; and who would ever have thought we'd be able to have a conversation such as this? Any idea how long it will be before we're not allowed to?
It used to be far fetched to think people could even go into space and come back alive, let alone live there for extended periods and even travel back and forth. Traveling across country in a matter of hours, rather than days/months - how silly, but people do it every day.
Religion? Hmmmm We had long combative discussions, just a couple years ago, about Sharia Law; just suppose...... Not to mention that there are people right here in the U.S. that would love to have religion outlawed; used to be pretty far fetched to think our children couldn't pray in school, if they wanted to, but praying is no longer allowed in schools and a lot of other places? We used to have Christmas trees and Thanksgiving feasts; now it's "Holiday tree" (the word holiday, by the way, comes from Holy Day) and a "Fall Festival"...... what?? I don't think we need another country to invade us; we're doing a great job of that, all by ourselves.
"And they already take money at will from us through our pay checks". True, but they aren't going directly into your bank account to get it - yet.
Really? It's okay to ban food donations for the homeless because the government can't control the sodium, fat and fiber? It's okay to tell people what size drinks they can buy? Not in the country I live in.
A lot of people don't think there's anything wrong with any of this, and for those that don't, nothing will change their minds, until they are being told where they must work, live, how many children they can have, or when their employer sends their pay check directly to the government and they send back whatever stipend they want you to have.
I don't mind surveillance cameras; if I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to fear...... unless someone mistakes my movements and "thinks" I'm doing something wrong. How do I know that someone isn't going to come after me, some day simply for the things I've posted right here in CE?
I'm older than a lot of you and I remember when we really did have rights. Our rights have been eroded steadily and surely, over the years and as long as people think it's okay, they will continue to be eroded, until people make it stop. I'm truly glad that I'm as old as I am, because I won't live to see a lot of what's coming. For younger people who never knew some of those rights we used to have, losing the right to buy a 24 oz soda doesn't seem like a big thing. If you never had a right, you don't miss it.
It used to be far fetched to think we would walk up to an ATM, put a card in and withdraw cash; even have computers, let alone be able to conduct business with one; and who would ever have thought we'd be able to have a conversation such as this? Any idea how long it will be before we're not allowed to?
It used to be far fetched to think people could even go into space and come back alive, let alone live there for extended periods and even travel back and forth. Traveling across country in a matter of hours, rather than days/months - how silly, but people do it every day.
Religion? Hmmmm We had long combative discussions, just a couple years ago, about Sharia Law; just suppose...... Not to mention that there are people right here in the U.S. that would love to have religion outlawed; used to be pretty far fetched to think our children couldn't pray in school, if they wanted to, but praying is no longer allowed in schools and a lot of other places? We used to have Christmas trees and Thanksgiving feasts; now it's "Holiday tree" (the word holiday, by the way, comes from Holy Day) and a "Fall Festival"...... what?? I don't think we need another country to invade us; we're doing a great job of that, all by ourselves.
"And they already take money at will from us through our pay checks". True, but they aren't going directly into your bank account to get it - yet.
Really? It's okay to ban food donations for the homeless because the government can't control the sodium, fat and fiber? It's okay to tell people what size drinks they can buy? Not in the country I live in.
A lot of people don't think there's anything wrong with any of this, and for those that don't, nothing will change their minds, until they are being told where they must work, live, how many children they can have, or when their employer sends their pay check directly to the government and they send back whatever stipend they want you to have.
I don't mind surveillance cameras; if I'm not doing anything wrong, I have nothing to fear...... unless someone mistakes my movements and "thinks" I'm doing something wrong. How do I know that someone isn't going to come after me, some day simply for the things I've posted right here in CE?
I'm older than a lot of you and I remember when we really did have rights. Our rights have been eroded steadily and surely, over the years and as long as people think it's okay, they will continue to be eroded, until people make it stop. I'm truly glad that I'm as old as I am, because I won't live to see a lot of what's coming. For younger people who never knew some of those rights we used to have, losing the right to buy a 24 oz soda doesn't seem like a big thing. If you never had a right, you don't miss it.
Hm. I must say that none of that worried me. Some of it is rather far fetched in my opinion.
Going to church illegal. Now who would have to take over our country for that to be realistic? And they already take money at will from us through our pay checks. I don't write a check out to the govt. for that. They just deduct it.
Sure, bad guys can get our account information but they can do that right now. A hacked computer provides most of what any bad guy would need.
Cameras are placed in many public places already. Doesn't it amaze you when they have a missing person and somewhere in the vicinity, they have a camera recording things? I can't imagine why that would bother anyone unless you were doing illegal things. But if does bother you, it is your right to be bothered. But if it shows someone writing graffiti on a building or breaking into a car or pick pocketing . . . I think it is a good thing.
Anyway, those examples didn't move my position on the subject but I respect how others feel.
Going to church illegal. Now who would have to take over our country for that to be realistic? And they already take money at will from us through our pay checks. I don't write a check out to the govt. for that. They just deduct it.
Sure, bad guys can get our account information but they can do that right now. A hacked computer provides most of what any bad guy would need.
Cameras are placed in many public places already. Doesn't it amaze you when they have a missing person and somewhere in the vicinity, they have a camera recording things? I can't imagine why that would bother anyone unless you were doing illegal things. But if does bother you, it is your right to be bothered. But if it shows someone writing graffiti on a building or breaking into a car or pick pocketing . . . I think it is a good thing.
Anyway, those examples didn't move my position on the subject but I respect how others feel.
I am resisting the redundancy of reposting your entire post here, lol but you nailed it girl.
Thank you,extremely well said.
When I am feeling a bit better I will try to elaborate on some points because you are giving examples of some very real scenarios we may be facing one day and I don't want this conversation to get lost yet.
Thank you,extremely well said.
When I am feeling a bit better I will try to elaborate on some points because you are giving examples of some very real scenarios we may be facing one day and I don't want this conversation to get lost yet.
The danger might not be so great, right now; to me, it's more about what can happen in the future, if we don't try to stop this now.
It's already been pointed out that if your information gets into the wrong hands, both you and your children could be targets for all types of danger, including pedophiles, porn, kidnapping, etc. That, alone, makes it scary enough.
But, take religion, as an example. What if, in the future, religion is declared illegal, and your car has been seen going to your church on a regular basis. Are you willing to give up your religion? Are you willing to accept a mandated religion?
Here's what I wrote yesterday: "I think if we sit back and think this kind of thing is good, we'd better plan on the microchip under the skin!! But then I already have a yellow star on my driver's license to show that I've proved I am who I say I am, so what's a little chip under my skin; then I don't have to bother carrying ID, insurance cards, etc - all I have to do is have my hand scanned and they know my personal and medical history, banking information, everything; it's all right there, right down to all my family members and the people I associate with. I find that horrifying." Is this really what you want?
What if they have your bank account numbers and can take money from your account at will? What if they can track what you buy at the grocery store and begin telling you what you can/can't buy. Remember, there was the deal last year that NYC banned food to the homeless because they couldn't control the amount of sodium, fat, and fiber? It's better to let people starve to death than risk getting the "wrong" type of foods? Really? Do you think it's okay that they banned the large soft drinks? Obesity is becoming one of the most prevalent causes of a lot of diseases and yes, it increases health care costs, but whose right is to tell anyone what we can/can't eat? If I want to die young, that's my prerogative. Most people think it's great that smoking is prohibited in public places, because smoking is bad for you..... I quit smoking years ago, but I still think that's a right taken away.
Every little thing that's done for our "benefit" is eroding our freedom. We're no longer being given choices in how to run our lives.
I'm not even scratching the surface of how deeply this could affect us all.
It's already been pointed out that if your information gets into the wrong hands, both you and your children could be targets for all types of danger, including pedophiles, porn, kidnapping, etc. That, alone, makes it scary enough.
But, take religion, as an example. What if, in the future, religion is declared illegal, and your car has been seen going to your church on a regular basis. Are you willing to give up your religion? Are you willing to accept a mandated religion?
Here's what I wrote yesterday: "I think if we sit back and think this kind of thing is good, we'd better plan on the microchip under the skin!! But then I already have a yellow star on my driver's license to show that I've proved I am who I say I am, so what's a little chip under my skin; then I don't have to bother carrying ID, insurance cards, etc - all I have to do is have my hand scanned and they know my personal and medical history, banking information, everything; it's all right there, right down to all my family members and the people I associate with. I find that horrifying." Is this really what you want?
What if they have your bank account numbers and can take money from your account at will? What if they can track what you buy at the grocery store and begin telling you what you can/can't buy. Remember, there was the deal last year that NYC banned food to the homeless because they couldn't control the amount of sodium, fat, and fiber? It's better to let people starve to death than risk getting the "wrong" type of foods? Really? Do you think it's okay that they banned the large soft drinks? Obesity is becoming one of the most prevalent causes of a lot of diseases and yes, it increases health care costs, but whose right is to tell anyone what we can/can't eat? If I want to die young, that's my prerogative. Most people think it's great that smoking is prohibited in public places, because smoking is bad for you..... I quit smoking years ago, but I still think that's a right taken away.
Every little thing that's done for our "benefit" is eroding our freedom. We're no longer being given choices in how to run our lives.
I'm not even scratching the surface of how deeply this could affect us all.
So what are the dangerous aspects of this? And I ask that without any sarcasm at all. For someone like me, I don't see the downside of this. Yes, being tracked could be considered creepy, but it doesn't bother me all that much with the exception of those annoying ads that pop up all the time. But why would someone track someone like me, what would they want and how could this negatively impact me? I probably am naive in this type of thing. I am wondering what you think the negatives are? Again, asking in all sincerity.
Well that is annoying...
I am a woman and I do see this as potentially very dangerous, I do not trust that law enforcement or govt neccessarily have my interests at heart.
I guess we women will just stay lumped together because we are capable of seeing both sides . ;-)
I am a woman and I do see this as potentially very dangerous, I do not trust that law enforcement or govt neccessarily have my interests at heart.
I guess we women will just stay lumped together because we are capable of seeing both sides . ;-)
I see the light!
Maybe I have opened your eyes and you are now enlightened (LOL)
We have been agreeing a lot lately Ricky.
I really think women and men just see this issue very differently.....and that's strange because I usually agree with women.
I really think women and men just see this issue very differently.....and that's strange because I usually agree with women.
I see the Pros and Cons. I can see where this can be useful for tracking suspects but I don’t want “Big Brother” tracking my every move.
My Company Truck has a GPS system in it. One of the Perks is, I’m allowed to use it for personal use. I rarely use it for personal use because of the GPS. I know the Truck belongs to them and they have the right to know where there truck is. But, I feel my privacy is being violated because they can track my every move. By just by a couple of clicks from the mouse, they see everywhere I’ve been and how long I was there for the entire weekend. A couple other Superintendents told me, they were questioned about what they were doing so long at certain places. One was watching a Football Game at a freind's house and another was at a Childs Birthday Party. It seems they are more concerned sticking their nose in your personal life than about their trucks.
My Company Truck has a GPS system in it. One of the Perks is, I’m allowed to use it for personal use. I rarely use it for personal use because of the GPS. I know the Truck belongs to them and they have the right to know where there truck is. But, I feel my privacy is being violated because they can track my every move. By just by a couple of clicks from the mouse, they see everywhere I’ve been and how long I was there for the entire weekend. A couple other Superintendents told me, they were questioned about what they were doing so long at certain places. One was watching a Football Game at a freind's house and another was at a Childs Birthday Party. It seems they are more concerned sticking their nose in your personal life than about their trucks.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
