anyone, besides me,think the courts fucked this one up?

ib1yysguy said:
It has a lot to do with the amount of creditability people give you. Nothing more. You are clearly ignorant of some very basic science, which makes you unfit to vote. Meet me at dawn for a duel, and shoot yourself please.
Click to expand...

So now you profess that only those that have attended College have any creditabiltiy, when it comes to discussing opinions!!

Interesting.
Totally asinine; but still interesting.
 
Beefy said:
You believe they should have the power, thus you trust them. You would not grant them your approval if you didn't trust them, unless you're an idiot.

Wait.....
Click to expand...


Could you show me where I said they "SHOULD" have the power; because what I said was that the Courts wouild probably rule in favor of this??

I'm curious and was just wondering, how long have you had this problem with reading and cognitive reasoning??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So now you profess that only those that have attended College have any creditabiltiy, when it comes to discussing opinions!!

Interesting.
Totally asinine; but still interesting.
Click to expand...

'Cept wether or not a scientific poll of 2000 can represent the population of the US within a certain percentage degree of accuracy is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of science. Being ignorant of the science and refusing to admit your error when confronted with the fact of your ignorance makes one worthy or ignoring.
 
ib1yysguy said:
'Cept wether or not a scientific poll of 2000 can represent the population of the US within a certain percentage degree of accuracy is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of science. Being ignorant of the science and refusing to admit your error when confronted with the fact of your ignorance makes one worthy or ignoring.
Click to expand...


Then maybe you could explain why they fail, if there're so accurate??
I anxiously await your excuse.
 
He is just plain ignorant, most people on the WOT board had him on IA. He reminds me of the character Chance in the film Being There.

ib1yysguy said:
'Cept wether or not a scientific poll of 2000 can represent the population of the US within a certain percentage degree of accuracy is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of science. Being ignorant of the science and refusing to admit your error when confronted with the fact of your ignorance makes one worthy or ignoring.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This court decision is total bullshit.

Even if you want to argue the line that they are not invading my prvacy (which I would disagree with), they are installing electronic devices on my private property and doing so, not only witout my permission but without my knowledge.

Total bullshit.
 
this has implications far beyond what people are currently looking at. If you take the case that brought this issue to the courts, this now makes it feasible for law enforcement to place a gps on every vehicle in their community, then if a crime occurs, simply look up all the vehicles that were in that area during that time frame and go pay a visit. the number of people that are going to wind up as a suspect initially are enormous and, i know WM will disagree with me, but that's not what this country was built on.
 
Beefy said:
....
When they are installing surveillance equipment on your private property without your knowledge, without warrants, and without cause, that's a big difference. ....
Click to expand...
This is the only way that this case can be argued against, IMHO. A tracking device actively sends a signal from your private property without your knowledge or consent. I predict this will get nixed, but it won't stop the basic technique from being used. The cops will figure out how to track based on cell phone signals emanating from the vehicle, or by some computer or visual "fingerprint" that occurs due to vehicle design.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Therefore they AREN'T accurate and really don't portray that which you promote.
Thanks for agreeing with me. :clink:

NEXT!!
Click to expand...

oh my god, so fucking retarded

They're accurate 95 percent of the time within 3 percentage points of the projected figure. That's very, very accurate.
 
The decision is troubling to me, but I have to admit that the precedence of remote surveillance not needing warrant is legally accurate. In this case I would say it is the law, not the courts, at fault. Even without using GPS, movement can be tracked in any city using traffic control cameras, parking security cameras, toll stations cameras, etc.

Until (relatively) recent developments in technology, remote surveillance involved a significant amount of resources. As such, the use of limited resources was, by sheer necessity and without the need of additional oversight or regulation, limited to specified suspects of crimes under investigation. But modern technology allows the use of random and wide spread remote surveillance without overstretching limited resources. And there in lies the problem - as having available relatively unlimited surveillance resources opens up the means to abuse. As such, it needs to be regulated - meaning new laws - or even new constitutional protections - need to be written.

A good start would be for the people of each state to amend their state constitutions to add movement as a protected aspect of privacy. Using a court decision to add movement as an aspect of privacy would be, IMO, inadequate, for unless it is added to the actual language of the Constitution, it only takes a contrary court decision at a later time to take it away again. If we actually add it to our constitutions (start with the states because it is easier and can be accomplished through direct legislation) then it will take another amendment to take it away again - which a WAY less likely than a court reversal.

Addendum: of note is the state of Montana has taken a first step in addressing the issue of remote surveillance through technology by outlawing traffic light cameras.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top