Big Brother is searching you

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by JRViejo, Aug 21, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,940
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Computerworld Article by Mike Elgan.​
     
  2. LockBox

    LockBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    2,275
    Location:
    Here, There and Everywhere
    What great points! In some parts of Europe certain book titles are illegal to own, what if the technology existed to scan the book titles from a van in the streets? (Give it a few years.) All kinds of possibilities to consider with this new technology. I LOVED the last sentence of the article, I won't quote it here so as to not spoil it. Great line though.

    Thanks for posting, JR.
     
  3. hierophant

    hierophant Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Posts:
    854
    Hey, I've a solution. Cover your entire property with PV panels, a few meters off the ground. Power + privacy :D Wait, you'd need a permit for that :'(
     
  4. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,940
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    LockBox, you're welcome! Take care.
     
  5. hugsy

    hugsy Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Posts:
    167
  6. LockBox

    LockBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    2,275
    Location:
    Here, There and Everywhere
  7. chronomatic

    chronomatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,343
    I am torn on this one. While I am a huge supporter of the constitution and especially 4th amendment protections, I also think there is no expectation of privacy in one's backyard. If you want such privacy, enclose the backyard along with a roof.

    Think about it, police have been using choppers and airplanes for decades to search for marijuana fields. No doubt many of these fields are on private property. I see little difference in this and in that scenario. No one complains when it's "fighting drugs" but suddenly people get testy when they have to pay hefty fines for their swimming pools. ;)

    (P.S. I think the whole issue of forcing people to buy permits for a swimming pool is BS, but, hey, they chose to live in that type of neighborhood).
     
  8. LockBox

    LockBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    2,275
    Location:
    Here, There and Everywhere
    I'm sorry, chronomatic, I should have specified - I am talking about the private company that has the van that can scan the inside of a car (using the same technology they use at the airport). It was on the 2nd page. Here's a link to the full article on one page:
    http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ching_you_?taxonomyName=Privacy&taxonomyId=84

    "A company called American Science and Engineering sells a high-end, tricked out security vehicle called the Z Backscatter Van. Its sole purpose, if used by government agencies, is to violate the 4th Amendment.

    The van sits there by the side of the road and X-rays cars passing by. It's like a full-body scan at the airport, but for cars. The manufacturer brags about the fact that the van keeps a "low profile." The Web site says: "The system is unobtrusive, as it maintains the outward appearance of an ordinary van."

    What the van does is unreasonable searches without probable cause and without the knowledge of the person who owns the property being searched. That's its only function.
    Private companies and your privacy

    American Science and Engineering would no doubt argue that they're selling it to private companies, which raises yet another question. Is it acceptable for private companies to do what would be a 4th Amendment violation if it were done by a government agency?" ​

    Don't miss that last line of the article. I literally laughed out loud.
     
  9. chronomatic

    chronomatic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Posts:
    1,343
    The constitution and Bill of Rights are not there to protect us from private citizens. They're there to protect us from government. If you have a problem with a private company, you call the Police or file a civil suit.

    I am sure snooping on private property and spying on people is illegal for other private citizens to carry out. Therefore, this would be a Police matter and not a 4th amendment one.
     
  10. LockBox

    LockBox Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    2,275
    Location:
    Here, There and Everywhere
    No question. Did you read the article to see who they are selling the services to? Law enforcement agencies. That's why the article said that it seems its sole purpose is to violate the 4th amendment.
     
  11. hierophant

    hierophant Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Posts:
    854
    This seems very much like the strategy of fighting wars using contractors rather than soldiers -- different rules of engagement.
     
  12. hugsy

    hugsy Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Posts:
    167
    Every citizen and organization/corporation inside a certain country must follow its laws. And constitution is above every law, no law can bypass the constitution or bend it or whatever. So if constitution applies to one organization then it applies to all, and if it is for one citizen it is for all citizens. It is not important if it is established by the gov or private sector, or if one person works for the gov or for private sector. If police officer can carry guns, every citizen (when he or she comes to full age) can carry a gun. If a secret agent can't search my car or house without a probable cause or court order then neither can any other citizen.
    And constitution rights and obligations are mandatory always, everywhere and forever, not important if you are taking your kids up for a soccer game or are transporting weapons or hiding taxes etc.

    P.s. when agency is searching for drug fields with planes and helicopter, they are scanning fields that may be in private ownership but are not subject to the same privacy status as the house, apartment, back yard, car or a closed phone booth.
    So if someone is scanning your car or a house with any device at any distance without a court order, then anything obtained form that search would not count as evidence, no mater how important and no mater what law or "pat.riotic act" allowed it and the deed itself would be in conflict with the constitution, therefor the deed would be stopped and gov would use all its power to enforce the const. (at least it should :(
     
  13. caspian

    caspian Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    Oz
    Sickening!
     
  14. mvario

    mvario Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Posts:
    339
    Location:
    Haddonfield, IL
    Pretty ironic that the US government at one time gave us the Bill of Rights, and they have been trying ever since to circumvent those rights.
     
  15. Searching_ _ _

    Searching_ _ _ Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Posts:
    1,988
    Location:
    iAnywhere
    The Founders have always been protective of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
    Others have tried to circumvent and challenge same.
    There is no guarentee that powerful men will respect the laws especially when seeking more power.
     
  16. hierophant

    hierophant Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Posts:
    854
    Well, actually, a bunch of angry colonists declared independence from England, won a war with the help of France, and created a government. There was considerable disagreement about what exactly they were creating. Notable were the disagreements among Washington/Hamilton (seriously statist) and Jefferson/Madison (essentially libertarian, IMHO).

    Washington/Hamilton won, obviously :'(
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.