The Real Problem: Privacy or Bad Laws?

reply to post by brandiwine14


During an Amber Alert police have search and detain powers in that given quadrant. They can conduct warrant less searches of automobiles and persons.

A child's life could hang in the balance. Does your need to be 'private' trump the desperate search for a child?

When you choose to turn on your cell phone you release all your information to the public sphere.

No one forces you to use a cell phone and right or wrong that is just the society we live in.

Yes, my privacy is more important, though if a child was missing i'd certainly offer to help in the search. Any good profiler who is doing their job would know that no missing child would ever be inside my house.

That's part of the problem, this instant info has made the police lazy and turned many of them into goons because they have so much time on their hands now.

I do have a cell phone yes, but I keep no important information on it, it is not a smartphone. Nor will I own a smartphone. I don't have a facebook, a tablet, or any such thing.

I find it shameful and disgusting that a country as great as this has people grow up in it who have no basic understanding of The Constitution and the rights that it gives us, or you simply don't care.

NO ONES rights should trump anyone elses, period.

Yes, my privacy is more important, though if a child was missing i'd certainly offer to help in the search. Any good profiler who is doing their job would know that no missing child would ever be inside my house.

The right only extends to automobiles and persons-Research shows that if an abducted child gets away from the original dragnet (Amber Alert quadrant search) it's chances of being found diminish greatly. And logically you are correct-the child would not be in your home.

If you are staying below the radar then you practice what you preach and you have a legitimate privacy argument. Since your marketing profile is not available to advertisers I was wondering if you receive junk mail that seems to be tailored to you specifically-if you do then you have a leak somewhere. I found out that my junk mail was coming from a periodical that I had once subscribed too. I wrote them and ask to be taken their list for marketeers-they did and almost all my junk mail ceased.

It's good to know I won that round.

reply to post by spooky24


You know what you make a good point there about leaks. I have a Roku and have discussed this before in wonder if there are microphones in them?
I told my husband one day my razor was getting old and I needed a new one and a week or so later a brand spanking new one arrived in my mailbox. I have not figured that one out yet, if there is a leak then I could only assume that it is that. Even on the computer i don't think I ever searched for a razor to buy.


I had a facebook account but got rid of it about two years ago, I had an iphone and got rid of that around the same time. I have an old computer now and no video feed hooked up to it. I realized what was going on and took necessary steps to at least try and preserve my privacy.

I take my privacy and other peoples privacy seriously. I am the type who would never read a private diary, I don't eavesdrop on others and I expect the same respect from everyone else including my government. Doesn't mean i'll get it but i'll fight for it to the bitter end.

spooky24
reply to post by brandiwine14

 

During an Amber Alert police have search and detain powers in that given quadrant. They can conduct warrant less searches of automobiles and persons.

A child's life could hang in the balance. Does your need to be 'private' trump the desperate search for a child?

When you choose to turn on your cell phone you release all your information to the public sphere.

No one forces you to use a cell phone and right or wrong that is just the society we live in.

Frankly, there is nothing that trumps the constitution.

If there is someone who may be making human tempura pops in a secret dungeon somewhere, that does not nullify the rights of everybody.

The answer for extreme circumstances is extreme action and lawful consequences. If the police need to violate the constitution to save the life of a child, they should do so and accept the legal punishment of some jail time.

Would any of us behave any differently?

reply to post by greencmp


The answer for extreme circumstances is extreme action and lawful consequences. If the police need to violate the constitution to save the life of a child, they should do so and accept the legal punishment of some jail time.


Although the ACLU is right they have never challenged the warrant less search in court. Even they realize what would happen if an abducted child got out of the quadrant and meet a bad end because law enforcement had to find a judge to sign a warrant.

The timing in some of these cases shows that minutes and even seconds count. Once a child gets out of the original AA quadrant the odds of survival are not very good. One of the good things about smart phones and the internet is non custodial abductions have dropped considerably. It's kind of hard to hide with an IPhone in your ear.

The basic security I use is simply distance-being a long ways away. About your snailmail box-you can cut the junk off if you want, all it takes is some effort.

My problem, along with millions of others is AARP who will not take no for an answer. If you complain they double the garbage they send. It took some time but I finally cut it off. The worst thing is preapproved credit cards however if your personal security is up to date even stealing them from mailboxes they can't really use them.

It's also a good idea to stay on friendly terms with your mail carrier because any mailbox tampering they will report it-local police have no jurisdiction with the FED's mailboxes.

reply to post by ArtemisE



I suppose some people might feel that way but in reality, no, because it really shouldn't be the fact that people might worry about being "busted" doing something shady. It really should be about the principle of the thing. Rights are based upon principles. You shouldn't be peering in someone's bedroom window in the middle of the night even if they're not doing anything but laying there with their mouths open snoring (the government shouldn't be doing it either without a warrant). It's creepy and it's just plain wrong.

You shouldn't be secretly watching someone take a dump even though they're not doing anything everyone else doesn't do because this is a time when they WANT to be alone. You have no right to intrude when people don't want you there. Period.

It should never be seen as OK to violate someone's privacy even if they aren't doing anything shady.

greencmp

The answer for extreme circumstances is extreme action and lawful consequences. If the police need to violate the constitution to save the life of a child, they should do so and accept the legal punishment of some jail time.

Would any of us behave any differently?

What? Should the cops do a door to door search every time a child goes missing? No. I wouldn't do that. If it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone had a nuke and was going to set it off, a door to door search might be warranted. But I'm pretty sure they could detect something like that with some kind of equipment without violating the privacy of every person in a 50 mile radius of where they think it is.

Whats the point. Theres no getting through to folks.

BrianFlanders

greencmp

The answer for extreme circumstances is extreme action and lawful consequences. If the police need to violate the constitution to save the life of a child, they should do so and accept the legal punishment of some jail time.

Would any of us behave any differently?

What? Should the cops do a door to door search every time a child goes missing? No. I wouldn't do that. If it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone had a nuke and was going to set it off, a door to door search might be warranted. But I'm pretty sure they could detect something like that with some kind of equipment without violating the privacy of every person in a 50 mile radius of where they think it is.

I just mean that if they suspect a child being held in a particular place but, don't have the legal authority to search, they should break the law and be punished for the sake of the child. Not change the law to allow them to do it at will without legal consequences.

Furthermore, if the home which they illegally search is defended by lawful citizens having no connection to the crime in question, they should take a bullet for their troubles in the very worst case scenario with no consequences for the home defenders.

reply to post by ArtemisE


the real problem is the subtle ass process of doom, of slowly being forced to lose our rights, the politicians being bought out to make these laws , and nobody being able to do anything about it, because the military has their prideful head so far up their ass, it seems like theyll follow any order given as long as its from their superior uniform/badge buddy