Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Don't You Want to be "Safe"?
TaoPhoenix:
Extra Credit: The Supreme Court is looking at cases about sending sniff dogs onto your private property to look for evidence to nail you with too.
-TaoPhoenix (October 31, 2012, 04:41 PM)
--- End quote ---
Oh that's going to go very well
Unauthorized dogs on my lawn are met with flying bits of lead as they are a threat to the livestock.
I wonder how the court would deal with that one.
"Sorry Officer, I thought it was a stray that would kill my chickens."
-SeraphimLabs (October 31, 2012, 04:48 PM)
--- End quote ---
Watch them get you with a sentence of first degree murder of a police officer on duty! :o
Stoic Joker:
In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans' privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.-TaoPhoenix (October 31, 2012, 04:41 PM)
--- End quote ---
I wonder exactly how hard it really is to generate a 'small' EMP..
Tinman57:
Welcome to planet Earth, where every year is 1984! :P
-Renegade (October 29, 2012, 01:41 AM)
--- End quote ---
Then the powers that be produced this:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57542510-38/court-oks-warrantless-use-of-hidden-surveillance-cameras/
Court OKs warrantless use of hidden surveillance cameras
In latest case to test how technological developments alter Americans' privacy, federal court sides with Justice Department on police use of concealed surveillance cameras on private property.
...
---------
The article goes on a red herring wailing about how "new" tech is vs citizen rights. Sorry, surveillance cameras are ... cameras. Cameras are the cutting edge news of 1920, though it would be hard to hide a couple of the early ones.
What has happened is that someone Sent A Memo that says "look how much fun we can have now!" For you math types out there, here's my analogy:
Divide by zero.
Now STFU about this "illegal operation crap." I SAID, Divide by Zero NOW or you are a terrorist!
And remember all that cool Founding Fathers stuff about "inalienable rights"? Sorry, rights are very very alienable. :(
Extra Credit: The Supreme Court is looking at cases about sending sniff dogs onto your private property to look for evidence to nail you with too.
-TaoPhoenix (October 31, 2012, 04:41 PM)
--- End quote ---
I live out in the middle of nowhere. Dogs that come on my property are normally shot on site.... I have problems with feral dogs, coyotes that like to run my horses... My AR15 has that "reach out and touch someone" effect. >:D
Renegade:
Watch them get you with a sentence of first degree murder of a police officer on duty! :o
-TaoPhoenix (October 31, 2012, 05:15 PM)
--- End quote ---
That reminds me of this:
http://www.copblock.org/5475/when-should-you-shoot-a-cop/
When Should You Shoot A Cop
That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.
In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.
--- End quote ---
TaoPhoenix:
More links in the Orwellian chain. >:(
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/09/1452243/google-patents-guilt-by-association
Google Patents Guilt-By-Association
""Guilt by association is defined as the attribution of guilt (without proof) to individuals because the people they associate with are guilty. It's also at the heart of U.S. Patent No. 8,306,922, which was awarded to Google on Tuesday for Detecting Content on a Social Network Using Links, the invention of three Googlers. In its patent application, Google argues that if an individual posts content to social networks such as Facebook, MySpace, Orkut, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, etc. 'that is illegal (e.g., content violating copyright law, content violating penal statutes, etc.), inappropriate for minors (e.g., pornography, "R" or "NC-17" rated videos, adult content, etc.), in contravention of an end user licensing agreement (EULA), etc.', then their friends 'may be likely to post content to their profile pages related to similar topics.'"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version