Judge Restricts New York Police Surveillance

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared
The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering. The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another's home or office.
Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245, 249 (9th Cir. 1971).

And I will show you dozens of cases where video from security cameras was used to help convict criminals.

I would bet those cameras are on private property.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
quote: Originally posted by shooterbrody
If we are afforded no political privacy as you state why do we have a secret ballot system?

From you:

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.

There you are, your words.

And just what does that have to do with "political privacy"? What is "political privacy", anyway?

Well, that's their goal, isn't it? And with the help of sympathizers that want to protect their "rights" at the expense of our safety, they will win.

You were responding to my quote who else were you communicating with?

Wrapping yourself in the flag doesn't work here

Don't have to I served.

And just what does that have to do with "political privacy"? What is "political privacy", anyway?

Does your ignorance know no bounds?

Originally posted by shooterbrody
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared
The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering. The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another's home or office.
Dietemann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245, 249 (9th Cir. 1971).

I emphasized the part that may help you to understand the difference between public and private. This is where you are unclear on the concept, and where your argument falls apart.

And I will show you dozens of cases where video from security cameras was used to help convict criminals.

I would bet those cameras are on private property.

So? Makes no difference. It could be argued that a dash-cam in a police car is public property.

Originally posted by shooterbrody

And just what does that have to do with "political privacy"? What is "political privacy", anyway?

Does your ignorance know no bounds?

You're losing, so you have to resort to personal attacks. That's the final clue.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Show me the law that states you have the right to not be videotaped in public.

And I will show you dozens of cases where video from security cameras was used to help convict criminals.

Obviously there is now "Law", however your argument doesn't apply in this case. Well, let me rephrase - if you mean video tape that was taken in a supermarket, thrift store or other private establishment or business then yes - it is the OWNERS right to video tape whoever comes into their property. You consent to being videotaped upon entrance of the property.

However, if you video taped me walking around having fun, and you either made profit off of it - used it as slander against me - used it in basically any way I did not approve of - I would take you to court and have remove the video - as has been done numerous times by celebrities against the paparazzi.

I guess its not exactly the fact your being videotaped, but rather what is done with the video. If no one knows you have video of me, and it is never used - then there is no harm and all is well with the world. The legality comes in when the video is used against someone without their consent and/or knowledge of it.

Originally posted by zeeon
However, if you video taped me walking around having fun, and you either made profit off of it - used it as slander against me - used it in basically any way I did not approve of - I would take you to court and have remove the video - as has been done numerous times by celebrities against the paparazzi.

I believe that I acknowledged that fact earlier on...???

Edit: No, not "acknowledged". I was the one to bring it up in the first place.

[edit on 16-2-2007 by jsobecky]

In all honestly, I haven't read the whole thread, so if you did I probably didn't read it.

Originally posted by jsobecky

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.

If I'm not making money off of it, there's no law to stop me. Even so, paparazzi do it all the time. That's how they make their living.

Sorry, but people like you are always so full of answers, until the government/law enforcement topic at hand, gets out of control, begins effecting more than just the intended criminal element.

See you in about 2 years, when there is a web list for EVERY known felony, misdemeanor, ticket or faux pas, showing the names and address of all of us.

In the meantime, we can all just sit back, and watch our lawmakers bring every crazy idea, money making scheme, or evil plan they have, into existence.

Enjoy your new National ID card, and I will see you soon, as we stand in line for our new computer tracking chip!

Neat!

jso
You need someone to draw you a map in crayon and write the directions phonetically so you can get in the same general area as a clue.
As far as personal attacks you fired the opening shot with the atta remark then proceded to infer I was a terrorist sympathizers.Then after your suspect cognative skills are called into question you fall back on the personal attack defense.

So? Makes no difference. It could be argued that a dash-cam in a police car is public property.

Just what else would it be?Those cams do not run 24/7.They turn them on to gather evidence of a crime while in commission.Evidense already viewed by the officer.

Nice to see not everybody is an idot in NYC. Especially after the just used tax payer money to build an all Arabic studies public school.

Originally posted by jsobecky

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.

Unacceptable, iyo. Illegal, no.

Who is going to protest when they know the government is keeping track of who attended.

These are the kind of things/reasons our forefathers (in the U.S.) started the revolution over. Too much government trying to manipulate what the people can do to change things for what they feel is the better.

I pretty much know how George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjiman Franklin feel about this.

I don't think they would think that this is what they had planned for or wanted to happen in the country they wrote the rules for and started.

The things that they wrote in "The Constitution" were not suppose to be open to interpretation by the "Supreme Court", they were suppose to be read and understood by everybody, "The Constitution" is not that hard to understand.

But it always seems like "The Supreme Court" understands it more than anybody else in the U.S. and can make it look "legal" anytime they want to infringe on our rights or privacy that we were suppose to have as a citizen of the U.S.

I think our forefathers, who believed so much in the country they started, " The United States of America", would probably be the first ones to raise arms now, if they were here, and say, this is NOT the country I fought to start.

[edit on 17/2/07 by Keyhole]

..You're losing, so you have to resort to personal attacks. That's the final clue.

That's pretty much the only motivation it seems: the Win/lose scheme.. but i've got to warn you there is such a thing as a lose/lose situation and certain tendencies of today lead me to believe you're steaming into one at break-neck speed.

Living in a surveillance state is particularly fun, because at first, people who desire liberty or, for some reason, 'just don't fit in', are being targetted and once the system inevitably collapses, devout followers are lead to the firing range in a climactic spasm of revenge...

it's pretty much like playing Russian Roulette with two bullets in the drum

Originally posted by Horrificus
Sorry, but people like you are always so full of answers, until the government/law enforcement topic at hand, gets out of control, begins effecting more than just the intended criminal element.

No, I don't have all the answers. But I do state the facts. That doesn't mean that I agree with the facts.

You, and "people like you", on the other hand, would rather live in a fantasy land where everything is just to your liking. Butterflies and kittens. But that's not real life.

It's understandable that you take your frustration out on me, who states the facts of life, and that you commiserate with those who would blow smoke up your butt and dream of a life and a land that never existed and could never exist.

Originally posted by Keyhole
I pretty much know how George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjiman Franklin feel about this.

I don't think they would think that this is what they had planned for or wanted to happen in the country they wrote the rules for and started.

The things that they wrote in "The Constitution" were not suppose to be open to interpretation by the "Supreme Court", they were suppose to be read and understood by everybody, "The Constitution" is not that hard to understand.

And they never envisioned a world of camera phones and GPS either.

But it always seems like "The Supreme Court" understands it more than anybody else in the U.S. and can make it look "legal" anytime they want to infringe on our rights or privacy that we were suppose to have as a citizen of the U.S.

What "rights" have been violated or infringed upon?

Originally posted by Long Lance

..You're losing, so you have to resort to personal attacks. That's the final clue.

That's pretty much the only motivation it seems: the Win/lose scheme.. but i've got to warn you there is such a thing as a lose/lose situation and certain tendencies of today lead me to believe you're steaming into one at break-neck speed.

The losers here are the one that cannot accept the facts. When you step onto public property, you pretty much give up your right to privacy. That is a fact. You may not like it, and you may hate me for saying it, but it doesn't change the facts.

So please, stop it with the finger pointing.


You folks are hilarious. You're getting all upset with me because I'm telling you the way it is. You immediately think that I agree with the laws. It doesn't, necessarily. But you would be better off educating yourself to the way things work than mis-directing your anger and frustration at me.

But if you need a lightning rod, I'm here.

jso

The losers here are the one that cannot accept the facts. When you step onto public property, you pretty much give up your right to privacy. That is a fact.

Have a source for that?

If that were so then why do we have secret ballot elections?

privacy: the quality or state of being apart from company or observation



It is obvious that certain people on this thread do not understand what their rights are. Specific rights are protected by the Constitution, of which I see more and more each day, willingly turning their back to it, in order to purchase "a false sense of security" as afforded to them from our "fearless leaders" in the Government we have today.

The Constitution does in fact provide you with your right to privacy. The fact of the matter, jsobecky, is that the issue hasn't been pushed to it's fullest extent, in order to obtain a Supreme Court Ruling (of which this is the only means you have to stand by)... why, you might ask? People like you that "assume" that they don't have that right.

Although not explicitly stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone', of which has developed into the 14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
source

Some key words that you may or may not understand:




abridge: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense

privileges and immunities:
the fundamental rights that people enjoy in free governments, protected by the U.S. Constitution in Article IV: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities in the several States," and specifically to be protected against state action by the Constitution's 14th Amendment (1868): "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The definition of "privileges and immunities" was first spelled out by Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington in 1823: "protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole." However, the exact nature of privileges and immunities which the state governments could limit has long been in dispute, with the U.S. Supreme Court gradually tipping toward protecting the individual rights of citizens against state statutes that might impinge on constitutional rights.

liberty: freedom from restraint and the power to follow one's own will to choose a course of conduct. Liberty, like freedom, has its inherent restraint to act without harm to others and within the accepted rules of conduct for the benefit of the general public.



The Constitution by it's wording, as you can see by the definitions of said "wording", actually does in fact provide each Citizen, as yet again defined by the Constitution, the rights to privacy.


All American Citizens really need to take the time to study, learn, and live the Constitution and all that it protects. There are numerous "corrupt" people in seats of power that are trying with all their might to pick away at our Constitution and our provided rights for their own agenda. Those "corrupt" people I refer to are hoping and praying that more and more people accept jso's (and the Attorney General's) stance.

Common sense goes a long way.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Horrificus
Sorry, but people like you are always so full of answers, until the government/law enforcement topic at hand, gets out of control, begins effecting more than just the intended criminal element.

No, I don't have all the answers. But I do state the facts. That doesn't mean that I agree with the facts.

You, and "people like you", on the other hand, would rather live in a fantasy land where everything is just to your liking. Butterflies and kittens. But that's not real life.

It's understandable that you take your frustration out on me, who states the facts of life, and that you commiserate with those who would blow smoke up your butt and dream of a life and a land that never existed and could never exist.

It CAN exist, and it MUST exist!
If fanaticism is what it takes to bring about small changes, it should be obvious that your position will ensure NO changes.

Thomas Jefferson had something to say on the subject of keeping the people who are temporarily "in charge" aware of where their power truly comes from:

www.loc.gov...

Thomas Jefferson to William Smith

...God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion...

...what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.

[edit on 2/17/2007 by Horrificus]

Originally posted by jsobecky

The losers here are the one that cannot accept the facts. When you step onto public property, you pretty much give up your right to privacy. That is a fact. You may not like it, and you may hate me for saying it, but it doesn't change the facts.

So please, stop it with the finger pointing.

you stated that there is no right to privacy

This is the most common, and unfortunately erroneous, argument given for the "right to privacy". Nowhere is the right to privacy guaranteed by our Constitution. It may be inferred in certain passges, but nowhere is it guaranteed.

i and many others don't care if some document 'guarantees' this or that, laws are there to facilitate life not for a self serving apparatus of control freaks.

storing personal information, tracking people, recording their activity is a direct threat, meant to intimidate and it's easily proven: simply try the same on someone of your choice, preferably a politician or official and you'll see if you can get away with it. chances are you'll be arrested for stalking, at the very least.

Q: is a governemntal body somehow endowed with more rights than you are? is that ok with you? is there a limit to usurping power?

PS: no-one hates you, you just can't handle disagreement, that's all. just because that's how things are currently handled, they are not set in stone, things were different before 9/11 ad they will revert to normal again one way or the other.

Originally posted by shooterbrody
jso

The losers here are the one that cannot accept the facts. When you step onto public property, you pretty much give up your right to privacy. That is a fact.

Have a source for that?

If that were so then why do we have secret ballot elections?

Probably because there are laws which guarantee privacy while voting.

Originally posted by Infoholic
It is obvious that certain people on this thread do not understand what their rights are. Specific rights are protected by the Constitution, of which I see more and more each day, willingly turning their back to it, in order to purchase "a false sense of security" as afforded to them from our "fearless leaders" in the Government we have today.

The Constitution does in fact provide you with your right to privacy. The fact of the matter, jsobecky, is that the issue hasn't been pushed to it's fullest extent, in order to obtain a Supreme Court Ruling (of which this is the only means you have to stand by)... why, you might ask? People like you that "assume" that they don't have that right.

Please don't ascribe the "those who give up liberty for security deserve neither" philosphy to me.

You say I "assume' that we don't have the right to privacy while in public. I ask you to show me where it is written in law that we do have that right.

And I don't want your hopes and dreams. I want to see Supreme Court rulings that prove it.

Although not explicitly stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890 then to be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left alone', of which has developed into the 14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
source

That was a nice passage but it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. You still haven't shown me where the Constitution protects your privacy while in public.

Some key words that you may or may not understand:

abridge: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense

privileges and immunities:
the fundamental rights that people enjoy in free governments, protected by the U.S. Constitution in Article IV: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities in the several States," and specifically to be protected against state action by the Constitution's 14th Amendment (1868): "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The definition of "privileges and immunities" was first spelled out by Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington in 1823: "protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole." However, the exact nature of privileges and immunities which the state governments could limit has long been in dispute, with the U.S. Supreme Court gradually tipping toward protecting the individual rights of citizens against state statutes that might impinge on constitutional rights.

liberty: freedom from restraint and the power to follow one's own will to choose a course of conduct. Liberty, like freedom, has its inherent restraint to act without harm to others and within the accepted rules of conduct for the benefit of the general public.

I know how to read a dictionary, thank you. However, I emphasized the passage that blows this particular argument of yours out of the water.

The Constitution by it's wording, as you can see by the definitions of said "wording", actually does in fact provide each Citizen, as yet again defined by the Constitution, the rights to privacy.


All American Citizens really need to take the time to study, learn, and live the Constitution and all that it protects. There are numerous "corrupt" people in seats of power that are trying with all their might to pick away at our Constitution and our provided rights for their own agenda. Those "corrupt" people I refer to are hoping and praying that more and more people accept jso's (and the Attorney General's) stance.

Common sense goes a long way.

Excuse me. Don't paint me as someone who is trying to convince anyone to give away their rights. That is totally uncalled for.

I am trying to educate people, while you are trying to sell them a bill of goods. You are harming those who would believe you without researching the facts.

Originally posted by Long Lance

i and many others don't care if some document 'guarantees' this or that, laws are there to facilitate life not for a self serving apparatus of control freaks.

Well, we are a nation of laws, so if you don't care what is written, then you are disregarding the law. Change the laws if you don't like them.

PS: no-one hates you, you just can't handle disagreement, that's all. just because that's how things are currently handled, they are not set in stone, things were different before 9/11 ad they will revert to normal again one way or the other.

I can handle disagreement just fine, as long as it is backed up by facts. What I can't handle is ignorance of the facts.