License plates scanned and data kept by police

[YukonCornelius]

collection of data should only occur when you violate the law in a vehicle.

[Frank Lee]

Or when there is a specific, active investigation.

[YukonCornelius]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Or when there is a specific, active investigation.

Also fine.

[cujet]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

1) So you want to argue you have every expectation of going where you want, when you want, and it's nobody's business where or why? Try that argument at the entry gate to your nearest military base, and tell us how far you get.

2) ..your scattergun rants about authoritarian governments.

1) Reductio ad absurdum! And you know it.
2) Bulleted points are as far from "scattergun" as possible, nor are they rants.

With that in mind, I'd love to hear your point of view. I'm always willing to be educated and willing to change my mind when appropriate. Make your case. Let's do it via PM and keep it out of the forum.

[Fat Charlie]

Shortly after the definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction was expanded to include a pipe bomb, the definition of terrorism was expanded to include informed voters. If you're offended at being tracked, you're a terrorist.

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Military bases and business cash registers and the like are clearly not public places.

cujet didn't limit his wanderings to public places. I said we have no expectation of privacy in public places. He claimed a no limits constitutional freedom (which doesn't exist), that "As Americans, we have every expectation of going where we want, when we want, and it's nobody's business where or why." I simply reminded him of the obvious limitations as soon as you try to cross a property boundary.

cujet, the barn door is open, so let's discuss this in public.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

You say all this spying and database keeping is legal; it must be stretching the 4th to it's very limits if not beyond.



If these activities do in fact not violate the letter of the law, they damn sure violate the spirit of the law.

I didn't say that, Frank. I'm disappointed in you for building a straw man to attack, and claiming it's my position. I simply pointed out we have no expectation of privacy in public places. I took no position on the legality of spying and database keeping.

[cujet]

Sentra,

You know better than that. Not only that, but an attempt at putting me on the defensive is a cheap tactic.

Let's remain on topic, The 3rd and the 4th Amdt's. Yes, the third. Any Constitutional scholar knows the very unwelcome quartering of soldiers during peace time was not related only to the pantry and the bedroom. There is a component of first hand knowledge that cannot/could not be found remotely by a "standing army". Do we not have something approaching a "standing army" now, in the DHS, State and Local agencies? I submit that we do. And, under the 3rd and the 4th, these government agencies are not entitled to any information about me, other that that provided in the required Census. This includes information of my travels, my habits, my possessions, my associations and so on.

Since when did it become acceptable for Americans to be interrogated during conventional travel? (interrogated: Ask questions of (someone, esp. a suspect or a prisoner) closely, aggressively, or formally) I've been detained, interrogated, and significantly delayed by government agents. Please explain how the "Plain Language Meaning" of the 4th allows any of this?

For example: If I choose to exercise my right to remain silent, I then end up with a damaged car, detention, abusive treatment and so on. Tell me how great this is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4Ku17CqdZg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw7xr9ezGxE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiyX0_zJuK4

[cujet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CxYIXcG9Bw

Sentra,

Do you like how things are going? Make the case...

[UltArc]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

cujet didn't limit his wanderings to public places. I said we have no expectation of privacy in public places. He claimed a no limits constitutional freedom (which doesn't exist), that "As Americans, we have every expectation of going where we want, when we want, and it's nobody's business where or why." I simply reminded him of the obvious limitations as soon as you try to cross a property boundary.

cujet, the barn door is open, so let's discuss this in public.



I didn't say that, Frank. I'm disappointed in you for building a straw man to attack, and claiming it's my position. I simply pointed out we have no expectation of privacy in public places. I took no position on the legality of spying and database keeping.

I absolutely agree, Sentra. If I go use a library computer, I expect my information to not be safe.

If I use their wifi, I don't expect my information to be "safe." I expect my library card record to be on file somewhere. I am not paranoid about it, nor do I care, and maybe they don't- but if I go to a mall, I expect to be recorded, taped, on video, whatever. Private property I am allowed on. Roads may be public space, but if the government is paying for them (with taxes), then who do they really belong to?

I am not partial either way. If I was worried about my LP being recorded, I wouldn't drive a car, or drive a car with one. I'd ride a bike, or walk.

Red light cameras, speed cameras, traffic light cameras for monitoring intersection activity, so on- it's public space. At least in Ohio, it's no big deal to use my camcorder in a public place- if no one "owns" that spot but the government, I guess, what's the big deal?

[SentraSE-R]

This thread is all over the map, but I'll throw down my positions, and my reasons for some of them.

License plate recordings and databases. LEOs are enforcing traffic (parking) laws on public roads and property, and incidentally gathering data that's searched for stolen vehicles, wants and warrants. No citizens' rights to privacy are being violated, no inconvenience to law-abiding citizens. Win-win, except for repo agencies and data miners getting involved.

NSA surveillance programs. Bad, very bad.

Gov't dossiers on every citizen. Straw man, doesn't exist.

No expectation of privacy in public places. Well established by case law. With few exceptions (e.g. public phone booths, public restrooms), I can photograph and follow and publicize your activities in public, including what I can see from the street through your windows.

Warrantless tracking by GPS was ruled unconstitutional because the device was placed in the subject's property, violating his privacy rights. Other tracking methods have not yet been ruled unconstitutional, so extending GPS tracking unconstitutionality to all other tracking is an unjustified stretch.

"As Americans, we have every expectation of going where we want, when we want," but that certainly doesn't apply to other peoples' property. You also forgot that in public places, it's anybody's business, not nobody's business.

"And while blatantly violating constitutionally protected rights, thousands of cops lock down a 20-block area..." What constitutional rights were blatantly violated? Do you have any proof that any cop forced his way into a home without consent? That exigency didn't exist?

Third Amendment. Meh. It's the one Amendment in the Bill of Rights that's never had an issue rising to Supreme Court consideration. Much ado about nothing.

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that allowed the United States Border Patrol to set up permanent or fixed checkpoints on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border, and that these checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The videos show that ICE agents can ask their questions, and only stop you with consent or probable cause. Some of those videos show the driver almost crossing the probable cause line by refusing to answer questions about other occupants in the vehicle. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the guy whose window got busted gave the officers probable cause to search his vehicle.

What do I think about it? The current pro-Wall Street activist SCOTUS is a disaster for our individual rights.