- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Seeing yellow over color printer tracking devices
|
|
|
Comments (39)
19 earlier comments in the full thread.
why dino, all the smart kids are in favor of gun control. I mean geesh already, if you can't control it you shouldn't use it.
In all seriousness though, NoDough raises a good point.
What IS "probable cause"?
Owning a printer? Buying high grade paper? Looking at pictures of kittens?
What IS "probable cause"?
Owning a printer? Buying high grade paper? Looking at pictures of kittens?
>What IS "probable cause"?
Multiple specific definitions for different contexts, but for a warrant it is something along the lines of information sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe that criminal evidence will be found in a search.
Multiple specific definitions for different contexts, but for a warrant it is something along the lines of information sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe that criminal evidence will be found in a search.
techiem, reading certain books, knowing the Bill of Rights, refusing to "consent" to a warrantless search, having a suspect skin color or religious faith- the usual.
TC,
That's pretty harsh. I hope you're not referring to techiem or myself as racists, or we may have a forum war on our hands.
I suppose, in the same spirit as your post, we could include having an opinion other than yours.
That's pretty harsh. I hope you're not referring to techiem or myself as racists, or we may have a forum war on our hands.
I suppose, in the same spirit as your post, we could include having an opinion other than yours.
And that's where it gets really confusing.
It seems to be all relative to A. The person looking for trouble. and B. What he thinks of the people he's looking at.
So it seems to come down to the prejudices and judgments of the person looking for a probable criminal.
So say I see this NoDough guy reading hunter forums and buying gun equipment. "Meh, he looks like an ok guy to me, I'll just ignore him."
Now I see this TuxChick person looking up cute kittens and buying gun equipment. "Hmm..Just doesn't seem right to me. Better tap her phones and make sure she's not in some evil anti-kitten conspiracy!"
Maybe it's more complicated than that. But that's just how the whole thing seems to me. Of course, as usual, I could be totally off base and completely wrong. :)
So say I see this NoDough guy reading hunter forums and buying gun equipment. "Meh, he looks like an ok guy to me, I'll just ignore him."
Now I see this TuxChick person looking up cute kittens and buying gun equipment. "Hmm..Just doesn't seem right to me. Better tap her phones and make sure she's not in some evil anti-kitten conspiracy!"
Maybe it's more complicated than that. But that's just how the whole thing seems to me. Of course, as usual, I could be totally off base and completely wrong. :)
>So it seems to come down to the prejudices and judgments of the person looking for a probable criminal.
Which is the whole idea behind warrants. Face it, judges are people, too, and they can be as bad as anybody else, but... a warrant means that one person has to look at another person with a straight face and explain why he or she wants to do something.
It's better than nothing.
Which is the whole idea behind warrants. Face it, judges are people, too, and they can be as bad as anybody else, but... a warrant means that one person has to look at another person with a straight face and explain why he or she wants to do something.
It's better than nothing.
> I hope you're not referring to techiem or myself as racists...
No, she's saying those are the things the government will use to determine probable cause, whether they're valid or not.
> I could be totally off base and completely wrong.
No. Pretty much dead on. Which, as Dino points out, is why we require warrants. As he says, it's better than nothing.
No, she's saying those are the things the government will use to determine probable cause, whether they're valid or not.
> I could be totally off base and completely wrong.
No. Pretty much dead on. Which, as Dino points out, is why we require warrants. As he says, it's better than nothing.
You folks are pretty close. The absolute mania of this administration to put all citizens under surveillance, and to try to glean guilty knowledge from innocent activities, is absurd. It's hard enough to investigate an actual crime- these tinpot despots think they can see it coming and head it off, if only they are allowed to collect enough data and intrude deeply enough into our lives. What utter rubbish. That's not their goal anyway- their real goal is more abuse of power.
NoDough, I read and re-read my comment and I'm mightily puzzled how you read that as racist.
The issue of 'what is probable cause' is mostly not a gray area at all. Law enforcement does not have the right to intercept your communications or place you under surveillance or take any sort of action against you without probable cause. Under the Bill of Rights they have no right to collect data on what you read, watch, eat, wear, or who you hang out with. Unless you do something to get their attention, other than draw breath. Like commit an actual criminal act, or threaten to.
I am so sick and tired of the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" crap. I have plenty to fear from a government that does not respect the US Constitution or its citizens. This country was founded on mistrust of power. How did we get to this ridiculous condition where people make excuses for all these abuses of power? Now we're in this ridiculous condition where "terrorism" is the magic word that causes people to roll over and take it."Oh we must be secure!" Pah. Taking away our civil rights is terrorism. Co-opting private businesses into serving as arms of law enforcement is just plain evil.
NoDough, I read and re-read my comment and I'm mightily puzzled how you read that as racist.
The issue of 'what is probable cause' is mostly not a gray area at all. Law enforcement does not have the right to intercept your communications or place you under surveillance or take any sort of action against you without probable cause. Under the Bill of Rights they have no right to collect data on what you read, watch, eat, wear, or who you hang out with. Unless you do something to get their attention, other than draw breath. Like commit an actual criminal act, or threaten to.
I am so sick and tired of the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" crap. I have plenty to fear from a government that does not respect the US Constitution or its citizens. This country was founded on mistrust of power. How did we get to this ridiculous condition where people make excuses for all these abuses of power? Now we're in this ridiculous condition where "terrorism" is the magic word that causes people to roll over and take it."Oh we must be secure!" Pah. Taking away our civil rights is terrorism. Co-opting private businesses into serving as arms of law enforcement is just plain evil.
With regard to these yellow dots what would happen if you used a background colour the same colour as the dots?
hehe.
"Decode this!"
"Decode this!"
Quoting:With regard to these yellow dots what would happen if you used a background colour the same colour as the dots?
You'd run out of yellow ink pretty fast. Using yellow paper won't cut it. I bet that there's a way to make the dots visible even on yellow paper (probably some kind of substance that reacts to the ink but not the coloring agent in the paper).
Quoting:Give me an example of something I might do "to raise suspicions."
Quoting:What IS "probable cause"?
Quoting:...having a suspect skin color...TC: I read you saying that those concerned about terrorism would consider someone guilty based on their skin color. I may have read it wrong, but that's racism any way you look at it.
I am perfectly capable of being wrong, but here's how I see the phone-tapping thing. The current administration was tapping only international calls made to/from people on terrorist watch lists. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The previous administration, OTOH, was doing warrantless taps on calls originating and terminating within the U.S. on people that were in no way linked with terrorism. However, all the animus is directed at the current administration. In my opinion, that's hypocrisy. I believe you have been duped by the media.
Concerning the yellow dots, I just have a hard time getting myself worked up over it. Is it wrong? Probably. Do I really care? Not really. I guess there are too many other things that get my goad. No room left for yellow dots.
> ...but that's racism any way you look at it.
Perhaps, but then you're not the one being racist, are you? That's why she wasn't calling you a racist.
> The current administration was tapping only international calls made to/from people on terrorist watch lists. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
With a warrant, yes. As I understand it, this administration was doing so without warrants. Even the greatly expedited and almost always approved super secret warrants allowed for by current laws.
> The previous administration, OTOH, was doing warrantless taps on calls originating and terminating within the U.S. on people that were in no way linked with terrorism.
You expected anything else from the Clintons? Well, be prepared for more of the same in another 18 months.
> I believe you have been duped by the media.
Well, some folks have.
> it wrong? Probably. Do I really care? Not really.
I care a lot. However, unless someone can show me something I can do about it, I don't see where my caring makes any difference. :(
Perhaps, but then you're not the one being racist, are you? That's why she wasn't calling you a racist.
> The current administration was tapping only international calls made to/from people on terrorist watch lists. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
With a warrant, yes. As I understand it, this administration was doing so without warrants. Even the greatly expedited and almost always approved super secret warrants allowed for by current laws.
> The previous administration, OTOH, was doing warrantless taps on calls originating and terminating within the U.S. on people that were in no way linked with terrorism.
You expected anything else from the Clintons? Well, be prepared for more of the same in another 18 months.
> I believe you have been duped by the media.
Well, some folks have.
> it wrong? Probably. Do I really care? Not really.
I care a lot. However, unless someone can show me something I can do about it, I don't see where my caring makes any difference. :(
And here's my other gripe- "well the other guys did it too!" Yeah, so what? Is that supposed to legitimize illegal and un-Constitutional practices?
It's sad how so many American citizens are willing to discard their rights, and are so easily manipulated by fear.
"TC: I read you saying that those concerned about terrorism would consider someone guilty based on their skin color. I may have read it wrong, but that's racism any way you look at it."
Yes, a considerable bit of the terrorism fear-mongering is racist.
"The current administration was tapping only international calls made to/from people on terrorist watch lists. That seems perfectly reasonable to me."
How did those people get on the watch lists in the first place? Again, we're back to probable cause. If the US government actually has some evidence that supports watching certain people, then they have enough information to support a warrant. If they don't, then why watch these people? There has to be a reason- is that so hard to understand? The principle of probable cause is also a fundamental principal of sound police work- if you don't have actual evidence that leads you to suspect someone, then why are you wasting your time and resources and violating their rights putting them under surveillance?
It's sad how so many American citizens are willing to discard their rights, and are so easily manipulated by fear.
"TC: I read you saying that those concerned about terrorism would consider someone guilty based on their skin color. I may have read it wrong, but that's racism any way you look at it."
Yes, a considerable bit of the terrorism fear-mongering is racist.
"The current administration was tapping only international calls made to/from people on terrorist watch lists. That seems perfectly reasonable to me."
How did those people get on the watch lists in the first place? Again, we're back to probable cause. If the US government actually has some evidence that supports watching certain people, then they have enough information to support a warrant. If they don't, then why watch these people? There has to be a reason- is that so hard to understand? The principle of probable cause is also a fundamental principal of sound police work- if you don't have actual evidence that leads you to suspect someone, then why are you wasting your time and resources and violating their rights putting them under surveillance?
Quoting:If the US government actually has some evidence that supports watching certain people, then they have enough information to support a warrant.I don't think you understand. These were international calls. They cannot get a warrant to monitor the calls of some guy in the middle east.
> They cannot get a warrant to monitor the calls of some guy in the middle east.
Eh? Of course they can. Do you think they're monitoring the calls at the middle east telco where the calls originate? No, in most cases, they're monitoring at the US telcos where the calls terminate. That's what requires a warrant.
Eh? Of course they can. Do you think they're monitoring the calls at the middle east telco where the calls originate? No, in most cases, they're monitoring at the US telcos where the calls terminate. That's what requires a warrant.
Quoting:Eh? Of course they can. Do you think they're monitoring the calls at the middle east telco where the calls originate? No, in most cases, they're monitoring at the US telcos where the calls terminate. That's what requires a warrant.Well, you may have me there.
>That's what requires a warrant.
Usually.
Usually.
> Usually.
Point acknowledged.
Point acknowledged.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post