Where is the outrage again? (Page 5)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you have no probable cause, then the speech of my mouth (person) is none of your business.  You're not supposed to monitor it.  Again, the 4th amendment still applies when I walk out my door.  Technology, nor air space, nor location, trump the 4th amendment....period. 

I had to LOL at that.  Really?  Your defense is the Nazi styled patriot act?  oooookkkkaaaayyy.

All the unPatriot Act does give the gov't ways around the Constitution.   But good luck with all that.   Trust the gov't, what could possibly go wrong?

Hmmm, indefinite detention of US citizens (happening today) oh and drone strikes without due process on US citizens.

Wow, just wow.  

Duh

LOL, SIX pages to bring up the Nazis????   You people are slacking

I got here late...LOL

Ha ha!  Well I'm not a tin-foil guy.  I just believe right is right and wrong is wrong.  I don't necessarily believe its a conspiracy, I believe it's abuse of power.

That's the problem with things like the patriot act or 'giving up our rights.'  We give them up to people who don't have our best interests at heart.

To bifurcate a person's position from Pro-Patriot Act to tin-foil hats, doesn't address the vast shades of grey in between.  

I wouldn't like to be associated with either group.  I believe in liberty, whether or not there's a gov't conspiracy.

Again, my problem is ABUSE of power.  You give up your Bill of Rights, you are at the mercy of the gov't. 

Do those aliens follow the Bill of rights anyway?  he he

I had to eat. I'm not a lawyer, you are. I can Google cases all day and you can tell me why they don't apply. I just thought that one was interesting because of "expectation of privacy"... but I understood placing GPS devices on cars is not the same as cameras on a bus.

Bottom line is in this electronic age, a "reasonable expectation of privacy " is an issue, it has been an issue, and it will remain an issue. Just because the government has different "means" to search us, does not give them the right to do it today any more than it did 200 years ago. The courts will continue to determine what is right and what is not according to the Constitution for the at least the next 20 years when it comes to the government electronically monitoring us.

And as I said... I sort of don't have a problem being on camera... after all, I'm not doing anything wrong right.... but I do have a problem having a case built against people from just "observing" people.

And the recent deal with military drones surveilling U.S. citizens to gather evidence for law enforcement agencies... that's a big problem for me, even if I do not have the legal citations to whip out and quote.

That's my problem too... Bradley can dismiss all this with idiotic jokes and tin foil references... but it's a problem. And no it isn't a conspiracy... the U.S. government does not have to seize power from the people, we have voluntarily handed it over since a few days after the ink dried.

This has nothing to do with a government conspiracy to gain control... somebody thinks it's a good idea, somebody else twists it a different way, precedence is set, 20 years later some other guy you don't happen to like decides to use it in a way it was not intended then all of a sudden it's a problem. It was all great giving up rights when it didn't bother you... but the problem with giving up rights and power to the Federal government is that you never get them back.

Fair enough, honestly, I wasn't trying to play lawyer and try to outplay you, not my style.  In general, I agree with you, but I was honestly wondering if you were just talking "off the cuff" or had something in mind that you could cite to.  unfortunately, or fortunately, Con Law is a very litigated subject, never know what's out there on any given issue

I don't like big brother any more than anyone else.  Which is why I sell my crack  pies out of my kitchen, not on a street corner

Yes, drones are the next big sticky issue.  We've gone from a cop walking the beat looking into an undraped window seeing pot on the table, to overhead infrared cameras.

And the way to prevent the gov't from seizing control?

wait for it

GUNS!  

You are well within your right to pull my covers. I did not think you were trying to pull a "gottcha". I actually love it when the law types speak up and explain what the laws are. Because most times what people think has nothing to do with what the law actually is. Myself included.

And how do we prevent it... well we keep fighting and stop giving it away... and no not with guns, but with lawyers. I love hearing about how unreasonable the NRA is, but then the UCLA is praised for what ever stupid case they won to let a child molester go.... they all fight for our rights, and whether I agree with every case or not, I'm glad we have people fighting.

... then ya... lot's of guns.

I can say this, despite all the ways to use the available technology, so far I couldn't even say I saw it "abused" even once.  The police still chase bad guys and have the good of the citizenry at heart (yes, there are bad apples.....few and far between).  The cops don't care to pull up information on you unless you become a target through a criminal investigation.....becoming a target is really hard unless you are involved in criminal activity, we're just too busy.

My worries all center around bad guys getting their hands on the technology.....THAT'S scary.  

Still, it's good to know what's out there for the govt. to use....and I promise this, the use of plate readers will wind up in front of the Supreme Court before too long....and the Court may decide they are too intrusive.  We just lost the ability to slap a GPS on a car without a search warrant ....and I think that was the right decision.  Eventually a criminal caught because he was just driving down the street and a machine read his license plate which alerted the cops to his presence will get his arrest and conviction in front of the SCOTUS...and they will decide whether it violates 4A.  It'll be interesting.

And to get back to the OP.....cameras in every corner of the public sector will end up in front of the SCOTUS too.  They decide.  Typically they have held that we have no expectation of privacy in public places.  Maybe we'll get to a point where they decide enough is enough.  Again, it'll be interesting.

I tend to agree with bradley on most of this.......tin foil hats not needed............yet. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50199210/ns/local_news-minneapolis_st_paul_mn/#.UMtTKeS5OYU

Surveillance Photos from a Metro Bus lead to arrest:

"Sex Crimes Unit Lieutenant Nancy Dunlap says the release of surveillance photos from a Metro Transit bus Wednesday generated immediate tips that led investigators to a home on the 500 block of Oliver Avenue North Thursday morning"