More Invasion of Privacy
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| beirwin Jul 20, 2007 3:58 PM EDT |
I'm getting sick and tired of our right to privacy being violated. If someone breaks the law with their printer nail 'em but don't assume we're all guilty just by owning and using our printers. This smacks of prior restraint to me. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 20, 2007 4:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:If someone breaks the law with their printer nail 'em [devils-advocate]But how are we going to find said law-breaker without the dots?[/devils-advocate] But this is the exact reason I do not have a color laser printer (well, that and money). I saw Konicka Minolta on that list as well. I think I'm going top run my color prints from the office through a scanner and have a look. We have two of those big KM copier/fax/scanner machines there. Edit: my devil's advicate tags got eaten by the forum |
| Scott_Ruecker Jul 20, 2007 6:17 PM EDT |
Here's the problem, They started doing it many years ago.. and we weren't supposed to find out. That's the problem, we found out. |
| dinotrac Jul 20, 2007 8:24 PM EDT |
This wouldn't bother me too much if the codes couldn't be traced to an individual printer via serial number or any means other than having the printer itself. I could see the value in that: Police read code in counterfeit bills, then, when they have suspects, check to see if suspects' printers embed the same code. Nice bit of evidence with no loss of privacy. Being able to tie it to serial numbers is very bothersome. It's especially so when you consider that sophisticated criminals won't get caught by it. They will simply procure their printers in a way that keeps anybody from know that they have serial number xxxxx. It will be honest every-day schmucks like you and me, who buy their printers from retailers and send in the registration cards who give up their freedom. And what is with this "Nothing to hide" crap? How about having a right not to share every freakin' detail of our lives with the government? If "Nothing to hide" is so powerful, why do we need search warrants or warrants to tap telephones? Screw that. |
| jdixon Jul 21, 2007 4:45 AM EDT |
> If "Nothing to hide" is so powerful, why do we need search warrants or warrants to tap telephones? Well, with this particular administration, they don't seem to think they do. :( |
| NoDough Jul 23, 2007 8:27 AM EDT |
Quoting:Well, with this particular administration, they don't seem to think they do. :(The same laws used by this administration for warrantless taps have been used by every administration since and including Carter's. I forget the source for this, but I'll look it up if you like. |
| dinotrac Jul 23, 2007 8:32 AM EDT |
>The same laws used by this administration for warrantless taps And before that, administrations used warrantless taps without regard to any law. |
| tuxchick Jul 23, 2007 8:51 AM EDT |
It's still wrong and it still sucks. |
| dinotrac Jul 23, 2007 9:10 AM EDT |
>It's still wrong and it still sucks. It does suck, but wrong is an interesting question. The constitution allows a little latitude in the area of national security. There may be times when normal process is inappropriate, which is why that latitude exists. Note the "may". Note also that the latitude is far more frequently abused than merely used. |
| jdixon Jul 23, 2007 9:16 AM EDT |
> The same laws used by this administration for warrantless taps have been used by every administration since and including Carter's. Not exactly. There were substantial changes made by the patriot act and such, and the Bush administration was ignoring even those. However, your point has some validity. Other administrations have also used and abused the system. > And before that, administrations used warrantless taps without regard to any law. Yes, but the way they did so indicated that they knew what they were doing was wrong. That minor detail appears to have escaped this administration's grasp completely. Their attitude might as well be "Of course we have the right to break the law whenever we want, we're the executive branch". |
| jdixon Jul 23, 2007 9:18 AM EDT |
> ...but wrong is an interesting question. She didn't say illegal Dino, she said wrong. The two aren't exactly the same thing. :) |
| tuxchick Jul 23, 2007 9:23 AM EDT |
And I left out "stupid waste of time and resources". The beauty of "probable cause" is you have a reason to suspect someone. All this anti-terror nonsense is nothing but excuses to pry and surveil without any cause or real reasons, and ultimately without any beneficial results. Just a bunch of snoopy thugs hiding behind their badges. |
| dinotrac Jul 23, 2007 10:01 AM EDT |
>Just a bunch of snoopy thugs hiding behind their badges. Ah...memories of the 60s... |
| NoDough Jul 23, 2007 10:48 AM EDT |
I heard about the printer tracking stuff in 2002. It's been around longer than the article suggests. The real question is about a right to privacy. I think we can all agree that this right exists in theory. I think we can also agree that the courts (at least in the US) have, as of yet, failed to define whether it exists legally and, if so, what its limitations are. I'll start with the devil's advocate position. The right to privacy is not absolute. If I am planning to murder or otherwise violate the human rights of another then my actions should not be defensible by claiming that the investigators violated my right to privacy (thereby exposing and foiling my plan.) Therefore, those who's job it is to protect citizens from criminal activity need a way to find me out in time to prevent my criminal act. The only way that I can be found out is if my privacy rights are violated to some undefined degree. On the other hand, I don't want to give every government employee free, unwarranted access to all of my communications (printed, phone, internet, etc.) There are people in government who will abuse that access and bring false charges against people for personal gain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong So, if this issue is not black and white, then what shade of gray is acceptable? Should a warrant always be the deciding factor? What about circumstances that prevent warrants due to time constraints? |
| tuxchick Jul 23, 2007 11:18 AM EDT |
NoDough, the magic words are "probable cause." Not Big Brother. If you do nothing to raise suspicions, then law enforcement has no right to be watching you and poking into your business. |
| jdixon Jul 23, 2007 11:26 AM EDT |
> Therefore, those who's job it is to protect citizens from criminal activity need a way to find me out in time to prevent my criminal act. Actually, no; at least not in the US. Police are not there to protect citizens, and citizens can have no expectation of such protection. This is backed up in numerous court cases. Police are there to investigate crimes after the fact, and hopefully to catch those responsible. And, as TC has pointed out, that's only the start of the problems with your position. |
| dinotrac Jul 23, 2007 11:34 AM EDT |
jdixon - >Actually, no; at least not in the US. Police are not there to protect citizens, and citizens can have no expectation of such protection. Shhhh. Gun-control folks don't want you to know that. |
| NoDough Jul 23, 2007 11:55 AM EDT |
Quoting:If you do nothing to raise suspicions, then law enforcement has no right to be watching you and poking into your business.Give me an example of something I might do "to raise suspicions." |
| techiem2 Jul 23, 2007 12:23 PM EDT |
Posting here? :) |
| tuxchick Jul 23, 2007 12:25 PM EDT |
why dino, all the smart kids are in favor of gun control. I mean geesh already, if you can't control it you shouldn't use it. |
| techiem2 Jul 23, 2007 12:43 PM EDT |
In all seriousness though, NoDough raises a good point. What IS "probable cause"? Owning a printer? Buying high grade paper? Looking at pictures of kittens? |
| dinotrac Jul 23, 2007 12:50 PM EDT |
>What IS "probable cause"? Multiple specific definitions for different contexts, but for a warrant it is something along the lines of information sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe that criminal evidence will be found in a search. |
| tuxchick Jul 23, 2007 1:16 PM EDT |
techiem, reading certain books, knowing the Bill of Rights, refusing to "consent" to a warrantless search, having a suspect skin color or religious faith- the usual. |
| NoDough Jul 23, 2007 1:42 PM EDT |
TC, That's pretty harsh. I hope you're not referring to techiem or myself as racists, or we may have a forum war on our hands. I suppose, in the same spirit as your post, we could include having an opinion other than yours. |
| techiem2 Jul 23, 2007 2:12 PM EDT |
And that's where it gets really confusing.
It seems to be all relative to A. The person looking for trouble. and B. What he thinks of the people he's looking at.
So it seems to come down to the prejudices and judgments of the person looking for a probable criminal. So say I see this NoDough guy reading hunter forums and buying gun equipment. "Meh, he looks like an ok guy to me, I'll just ignore him." Now I see this TuxChick person looking up cute kittens and buying gun equipment. "Hmm..Just doesn't seem right to me. Better tap her phones and make sure she's not in some evil anti-kitten conspiracy!" Maybe it's more complicated than that. But that's just how the whole thing seems to me. Of course, as usual, I could be totally off base and completely wrong. :) |
| dinotrac Jul 23, 2007 2:43 PM EDT |
>So it seems to come down to the prejudices and judgments of the person looking for a probable criminal. Which is the whole idea behind warrants. Face it, judges are people, too, and they can be as bad as anybody else, but... a warrant means that one person has to look at another person with a straight face and explain why he or she wants to do something. It's better than nothing. |
| jdixon Jul 23, 2007 5:10 PM EDT |
> I hope you're not referring to techiem or myself as racists... No, she's saying those are the things the government will use to determine probable cause, whether they're valid or not. > I could be totally off base and completely wrong. No. Pretty much dead on. Which, as Dino points out, is why we require warrants. As he says, it's better than nothing. |
| tuxchick Jul 23, 2007 6:16 PM EDT |
You folks are pretty close. The absolute mania of this administration to put all citizens under surveillance, and to try to glean guilty knowledge from innocent activities, is absurd. It's hard enough to investigate an actual crime- these tinpot despots think they can see it coming and head it off, if only they are allowed to collect enough data and intrude deeply enough into our lives. What utter rubbish. That's not their goal anyway- their real goal is more abuse of power. NoDough, I read and re-read my comment and I'm mightily puzzled how you read that as racist. The issue of 'what is probable cause' is mostly not a gray area at all. Law enforcement does not have the right to intercept your communications or place you under surveillance or take any sort of action against you without probable cause. Under the Bill of Rights they have no right to collect data on what you read, watch, eat, wear, or who you hang out with. Unless you do something to get their attention, other than draw breath. Like commit an actual criminal act, or threaten to. I am so sick and tired of the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" crap. I have plenty to fear from a government that does not respect the US Constitution or its citizens. This country was founded on mistrust of power. How did we get to this ridiculous condition where people make excuses for all these abuses of power? Now we're in this ridiculous condition where "terrorism" is the magic word that causes people to roll over and take it."Oh we must be secure!" Pah. Taking away our civil rights is terrorism. Co-opting private businesses into serving as arms of law enforcement is just plain evil. |
| tracyanne Jul 23, 2007 8:01 PM EDT |
With regard to these yellow dots what would happen if you used a background colour the same colour as the dots? |
| techiem2 Jul 23, 2007 9:25 PM EDT |
hehe. "Decode this!" |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 23, 2007 10:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:With regard to these yellow dots what would happen if you used a background colour the same colour as the dots? You'd run out of yellow ink pretty fast. Using yellow paper won't cut it. I bet that there's a way to make the dots visible even on yellow paper (probably some kind of substance that reacts to the ink but not the coloring agent in the paper). |
| NoDough Jul 24, 2007 6:34 AM EDT |
Quoting:Give me an example of something I might do "to raise suspicions." Quoting:What IS "probable cause"? Quoting:...having a suspect skin color...TC: I read you saying that those concerned about terrorism would consider someone guilty based on their skin color. I may have read it wrong, but that's racism any way you look at it. I am perfectly capable of being wrong, but here's how I see the phone-tapping thing. The current administration was tapping only international calls made to/from people on terrorist watch lists. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. The previous administration, OTOH, was doing warrantless taps on calls originating and terminating within the U.S. on people that were in no way linked with terrorism. However, all the animus is directed at the current administration. In my opinion, that's hypocrisy. I believe you have been duped by the media. Concerning the yellow dots, I just have a hard time getting myself worked up over it. Is it wrong? Probably. Do I really care? Not really. I guess there are too many other things that get my goad. No room left for yellow dots. |
| jdixon Jul 24, 2007 6:50 AM EDT |
> ...but that's racism any way you look at it. Perhaps, but then you're not the one being racist, are you? That's why she wasn't calling you a racist. > The current administration was tapping only international calls made to/from people on terrorist watch lists. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. With a warrant, yes. As I understand it, this administration was doing so without warrants. Even the greatly expedited and almost always approved super secret warrants allowed for by current laws. > The previous administration, OTOH, was doing warrantless taps on calls originating and terminating within the U.S. on people that were in no way linked with terrorism. You expected anything else from the Clintons? Well, be prepared for more of the same in another 18 months. > I believe you have been duped by the media. Well, some folks have. > it wrong? Probably. Do I really care? Not really. I care a lot. However, unless someone can show me something I can do about it, I don't see where my caring makes any difference. :( |
| tuxchick Jul 24, 2007 8:56 AM EDT |
And here's my other gripe- "well the other guys did it too!" Yeah, so what? Is that supposed to legitimize illegal and un-Constitutional practices? It's sad how so many American citizens are willing to discard their rights, and are so easily manipulated by fear. "TC: I read you saying that those concerned about terrorism would consider someone guilty based on their skin color. I may have read it wrong, but that's racism any way you look at it." Yes, a considerable bit of the terrorism fear-mongering is racist. "The current administration was tapping only international calls made to/from people on terrorist watch lists. That seems perfectly reasonable to me." How did those people get on the watch lists in the first place? Again, we're back to probable cause. If the US government actually has some evidence that supports watching certain people, then they have enough information to support a warrant. If they don't, then why watch these people? There has to be a reason- is that so hard to understand? The principle of probable cause is also a fundamental principal of sound police work- if you don't have actual evidence that leads you to suspect someone, then why are you wasting your time and resources and violating their rights putting them under surveillance? |
| NoDough Jul 24, 2007 9:05 AM EDT |
Quoting:If the US government actually has some evidence that supports watching certain people, then they have enough information to support a warrant.I don't think you understand. These were international calls. They cannot get a warrant to monitor the calls of some guy in the middle east. |
| jdixon Jul 24, 2007 9:36 AM EDT |
> They cannot get a warrant to monitor the calls of some guy in the middle east. Eh? Of course they can. Do you think they're monitoring the calls at the middle east telco where the calls originate? No, in most cases, they're monitoring at the US telcos where the calls terminate. That's what requires a warrant. |
| NoDough Jul 24, 2007 10:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:Eh? Of course they can. Do you think they're monitoring the calls at the middle east telco where the calls originate? No, in most cases, they're monitoring at the US telcos where the calls terminate. That's what requires a warrant.Well, you may have me there. |
| dinotrac Jul 24, 2007 10:45 AM EDT |
>That's what requires a warrant. Usually. |
| jdixon Jul 24, 2007 10:57 AM EDT |
> Usually. Point acknowledged. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!