Silver Alerts

I really have to say that the Silver Alerts here in Florida seem to happen quite frequently. I see one every day that I am driving on the local highways. I honestly had no idea that the elderly drove off without a trace so frequently. I seriously worry that one day soon, coming to a community near you, that the silver alert may be "repurposed" by the law enforcement agencies. I can see it now:

"C'mon Bill, let's just flash the perp's car info up on the silver alert. No body needs to know. We'll have the eyes of worried citizens from Miami to Pensicola as our personal leads."

All it takes is one abuse for the system to overreach its legitimacy. Let's be honest. Who wouldn't like everybody looking for the guy who stole your car, broke into your house, killed a local acquaintance, sold drugs to your kid, etc. However, it is a slippery slope. I see from the wikipedia page on silver alerts that some states have alerts for cop killers. How long before such legislation is so common place that there is a "red alert" (since the color names seem to be prevalent) that indicates a known or suspected terrorist. The court of public opinion does not easily see the differences between suspected, alleged, presumed or guilty, so long as the name, picture and relevant stats are up on the jumbotron.

**Mind you that the signs are being extended to informative entry ramp indicators as well down here. How soon before they are all over town? It sure is great to know it will take me 7 to 10 minutes to get to my exit! (...about as reliable as Google maps, I already know from experience how long it takes to get to my exit. If there is an accident, there is little you can do about it unless you know a surface street shortcut. You should leave home earlier anyway to account for such happenstance, which is inevitable on any urban area's highways.)

reply to post by Sphota


I totally agree.

Alerts are good for emergency purposes only, such as the amber alert system, but other than that, they just cause paranoia.

Just look at walmart.

I foresee a list showing up on walmart screens with local people who have been "reported" by there neighbors in a effort to catch "terrorists"

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I think that such situations are what makes the NWO possible, if not probable. People are going to and do enjoy the conveniences such systems provide. They either choose to ignore the very real possibility of abuse of such a system, or are openly accepting that risk.

This is one of the main reasons I will never buy a vehicle that is OnStar capable. (That and GM took a bailout.) Sure, on the surface, OnStar is there to notify emergency services if it detects an accident, unlock your car if you baby is locked inside, and disable the vehicle and activate flashers if your car is stolen. Likewise, they can track you every move, let someone in your vehicle, or disable your vehicle if they choose.

I fear for the future because people are wanting and they are providing, technology that networks everything, and social networking has people wanting to broadcast their likes, interests, activities and whereabouts. Smart appliances that talk to a grid and can likewise be controlled via a grid may provide some benefits, but come with a clause renouncing control.

God help us.

After QE2+ when the dollar crashes gold might hit like 3000+ per ounce. Even China is stokcing up

reply to post by Wolf321


Regarding crime, I had a friend say to me "Screw Big Brother, we need cameras in San Francisco like they have in London" (This friend is a 911 operator in SF visiting me in Florida).

We were driving in my car and I pointed up to the intersection in my neighborhood and the four cameras that seemingly have no purpose. Starting in 2008 here in Florida, I noticed a wave of bucket-trucks installing loads of cameras. I noticed them first at the major (three-lane each direction) intersections. Then on the two-lanes. And finally, they appeared on little, insignificant intersections, such as within my neighborhood. We're talking intersections with 1 lane each direction, speedbumps yards before and after on the cross-street, a crossing guard in the afternoons standing on the corner waving at you.

This is an intersection that is flanked by one house with ficus bushes on the southwest, a two-story 4-plex on the southeast, a duplex on the northeast and another hedge-lined house on the northwest. We're talking 35 mph on the main artery from east to west and 25mph on the north-south road through the neighborhood. It's not some crack-infested area. It's not an intersection with high-rate of accidents. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw an accident there in 25 years. No pedestrians killed. Nothing.

Why do cameras need to be in this little area?

They are aimed AT on-coming traffic, so they are not like the red-light cameras that I remember from Phoenix, AZ - aimed at your license plate and your face.

If they are meant to change the light, i.e., a motion detection camera, then why do I still sit unnecessarily at this light while it stays green for over a min for absolutely no one, having changed to green for absolutely no one?

I'm not trying to be paranoid, I just want to know why my neighbors yard is clearly available to one of these city cameras. What are they for? How can they be justified (i.e., the tax payer money spent on them).

reply to post by Sphota


I thought I would bump this with good reason. I was driving on I-95 the other day and looked up at the silver alert. It said 2011 Black Impala with plate number XYZ 123. At any rate, the point of the silver alert - akin to the "Amber Alert" (I guess even though that was the girl's name, they're gonna go with the color analogy) - is to find elderly people with dementia or Alzheimer's who have wandered off.

Well, apparently not only do the elderly wander off everyday, they are driving away everyday (cause that is the frequency I see these alerts posted on the highway). And not only are they driving, but apparently there are a few elderly with dementia who have access to 2011 Impalas????

Again, I really have a suspicion that the intention of finding lost old people has been usurped by institutionalized snitching. Whether the person being hunted is guilty or not is moot, because as I see it the same social context that has led to the crime we deal with on a daily basis is the same exact one that has lead to a surveillance state. I figure, you can't have one without the other, so why have either???