NYPD Unveils Crime- And Terror-Fighting ‘Domain Awareness System’

[Danimal]

Deleted

[SNAFU]

Big Brother keeps getting bigger

[BigBear]

"Coming to a neighborhood near you..." Beware folks... I told my kids in class this morning that if I see a cell phone out, it's gone. Too many people recording clips and putting it on youtube and all these other places. Take stock of your daily actions.

Not trying to beat a drum, and no I don't need any aluminum foil.

[Teufelhund]

It's not paranoia if it's true. I just read an article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/8/sen-rand-pauls-government-reckoning/#.UCPZgBPJUUt.facebook) about it this morning:


Gazillions. That’s the number of times that the federal government has spied on Americans since Sept. 11, 2001, through the use of drones, legal search warrants, illegal search warrants, federal agent-written search warrants, and just plain government spying. This is according to Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, who, when he asked the government to tell him what it was doing to violate our privacy, was given a briefing that was classified. The senator — one of just a few in the U.S. Senate who believes that the Constitution means what it says — was required by federal law to agree not to reveal what spies and bureaucrats told him during the briefing in reply to his inquiries about the government’s violations of the right to privacy.

Of course Senator Paul knows "gazillions" isn't a real word. That's exactly the point. He asked for the report, was given the report, was shocked by the report, and is not allowed to divulge to us the real numbers in the report.

Here's the speech he's referring to:

cZ9jBWjZWvI

[Pancho Villa]

Makes me uneasy, especially with the proliferation of laws that we violate every day without even knowing it.

Though a former DA once said that he switched from that to defense when he realized something. Whenever he had a witness that wasn't being cooperative, he just had the cops follow him or her for a couple days. Without fail they would commit a crime and he would bring them in and threaten to throw the book at them unless they testified.

Every time. Think of that.

[sellersm]

Wow. Don't forget that neither you nor I define 'criminal', 'terrorist' or any other vilified segment of the population upon which these kinds of things can be used.

[Danimal]

Deleted

[10mm-man]

Like this comment best: SickOfTheStupid • 5 hours ago • parent −
police state laws like the NDAA and patriot act get bipartisan support from both the fascist partys . The police state , Bush tested, Obama approved.

[10mm-man]

Thank Bloomburg!

Really?? Dude acts like a strait up libratard! I'm lost for words, what party isn't retarded now?

Political party Democratic Party (until 2001)
Republican Party (2001–2007)
Independent (2007–present

[theGinsue]

Got into a serious disagreement at work today with my boss & 2 other coworkers over this.

They see no problem with this program. They believed that the cameras would dissuade crime. I heard proof that this isn't the case in an incident that happened today here in Colo Spr. Two co-workers of my best friend were watching out the window of their office into the parking lot of The Citadel Mall (which has cameras around the parking lot) at about 11AM. They watched a guy bust out a window of a car, steal the pkg on the front seat & WALK over to a second guy. They hung around the parking lot for about 10 minutes then walked straight over to a Pawn Shop. 911 was called immediately after the crime occurred & the dispatcher kept them on the phone for 15 minutes. They gave the dispatcher updates until the 2 BG's went into the pawn shop. The police called back & said they were on their way to get a statement.... at 5PM! (They never showed up at the pawn shop to catch those guys). In broad daylight, with people & cameras everywhere, these guys committed a crime completely unconcerned by the chance they could be caught. Criminals don't care!

I pointed out to my co-workers how this NYPD system was a serious intrusion on a persons sense of maintaining a degree of privacy - even in public places. They used the old "if you've got nothing to hide then it shouldn't be a problem". I didn't think of it at the time, but the next time someone uses that on me I'll demand they hand over their purse or wallet for me to look through. I'm certain they'll object (if they don't object, I'll call their bluff & look through their stuff). Once they object I'll ask if it's because they believe the contents are private & remind them that "if you've got nothing to hide then it shouldn't be a problem".

Some folks don't get that privacy (however small) really does matter.

[theGinsue]

The part that bothers me most is that it is system or product that is for sale. It is not NY screwing over NY like usual, they have created a marketable product that they plan to sell to other municipalities around the country. They will have working numbers to put on it because it is violating the right to privacy, so it will get positive press. Then from there it all depends on who wants in and who can afford it. It has the potential to spread all over just like big brother in Britain. It just keeps growing, upgrading, and costing the tax payers more money to operate. But it is not going anywhere because now the police there are so reliant on it that they could not do their jobs without it.
Yup. I agree with ya brother. Worked so well for the Brit's that the version of this system of theirs, along with their total gun ban, that not too long ago most Bobbie's (Brit street cops) have had to start carrying guns for the first time ever.

Several peeple I mentioned this system to said "Well, I can kind of see how this is a good thing - it is New York with all of their crime after all". I asked them where does the line get drawn? Since it's a product they intend to sell to any municipality who can afford it, when is it not okay? What if Colo Spr. bought it & installed cameras all over the city? Does our much lower crime level make it not okay? What happens if they legislate that everyone will have cameras in their homes & businesses? Hey, most crimes are planned & prepared for in homes so having cameras there would surely help prevent crime or at the very least, allow the intended criminal to be caught before they committed their crime. So, wouldn't that be okay too?

Just where does the line get drawn to when it's no longer acceptable?

[Danimal]

Deleted