It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Under the guidelines, the police may conduct investigations — including videotaping — at political events only if they have indications that unlawful activity may occur, and only after they have applied for permission to the deputy commissioner in charge of the Intelligence Division,
Please don't cite the non-existent "right to privacy".
Originally posted by shooterbrody
Please don't cite the non-existent "right to privacy".
What?
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons
I believe that would cover it.
Again from Amendment IV
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.
With out probable cause the govt. or in this case the nypd have no right to cast a video net and compare those images to images already in their database.
I supose it would come down to if the judge would find it unreasonable.Is it unreasonable to ask to walk down the street without the police watching you.
You are presumed innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.
It may be inferred in certain passges, but nowhere is it guaranteed.
Originally posted by shooterbrody
How about illegally seizing my digital image when I have committed no crime.
Cops want to have a physical presence no problem;take my digital image keep it on file when I have done no wrong;big problem.
Oh yeah that and the judge said they had to stop.
Originally posted by ThePieMaN
This is good news especially since the NYPD was sharing the videos taken with the CIA as well as a foreign government in the Middle East who they were being trained by. Arab-Americans here should not have to worry about being arrested or tortured by Shin Beit merely because they protest against Israeli policy while in the USA when they go to visit their families in Palestine.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Originally posted by shooterbrody
How about illegally seizing my digital image when I have committed no crime.
Cops want to have a physical presence no problem;take my digital image keep it on file when I have done no wrong;big problem.
What is illegal about taking your picture while you are in public? Absolutely nothing at all.
What is illegal about taking your picture while you are in public? Absolutely nothing at all.
Originally posted by ThePieMaN
If there is a film crew out that gets your face in a scene they must usually either ask you to sign a release form or they should alter the image to blank out your face. Normally you can't just go out and film people without their permission.
Originally posted by shooterbrody
What is illegal about taking your picture while you are in public? Absolutely nothing at all.
Any form of government taking your picture when you are at a peacefull political protest is unacceptable.
Who is going to protest when they know the government is keeping track of who attended.
Unless you break a law the government has no right to infringe on your right to protest.Keeping a list of peacefull protestors is an infringement.
Just how do you figure the case will be overruled?The judge that made the original ruling narrowed his definition as it was confusing.Who better to define a ruling other than the judge who made said ruling.
The atta remark is simply out of line.
If we let our government fundamentally change our way of life in the US post 9/11 then the terrorists have won no matter what happens in the middle east.
The NYPD have every right to videotape you, or to watch you via CCTV. And so do I, if I so wish. If you are walking down the streeet, they have every right, and an obligation, to watch you.
And with the help of sympathizers that want to protect their "rights" at the expense of our safety, they will win.
Originally posted by shooterbrody
HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A SYMPATHIZER!
I served our country during the first gulf war.I served out of a sense of duty to my country and to protect my country.Just because you don't believe in your own personal rights in no way makes you less safe than you were pre-9/11.I did not serve my country only to let it turn into a police state with terrorism as the catylist.For you to call me a sympathizer because I have a differing opinion than yours reminds me of the "red scare"and McCarthyism.That tactic did not work then and it will not work now.
Originally posted by shooterbrody
If we are afforded no political privacy as you state why do we have a secret ballot system?
Nowhere is the right to privacy guaranteed by our Constitution. It may be inferred in certain passges, but nowhere is it guaranteed.
The NYPD have every right to videotape you, or to watch you via CCTV. And so do I, if I so wish. If you are walking down the streeet, they have every right, and an obligation, to watch you.
What is illegal about taking your picture while you are in public? Absolutely nothing at all.
No, keeping a list is not an infringement. Neither is snapping your picture.
Originally posted by zeeon
The NYPD have every right to videotape you, or to watch you via CCTV. And so do I, if I so wish. If you are walking down the streeet, they have every right, and an obligation, to watch you.
No, they really don't. If I don't consent to being on video - you really don't have a right to videotape me. And If saw your video tape on the Internet, or the news, I'd take you to court.
You are failing to note the difference between being *Witnessed* in public, and *Recorded* in public. People have the right *not* to be videotaped in public, but obviously, if you do something stupid in public, you will be witnessed.
Hence why the justice system has, and continues to, rely on witness testimony. And this is how it should be.
[edit on 16-2-2007 by zeeon]
Originally posted by shooterbrody
HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A SYMPATHIZER!