Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.
It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html?hpt=T2
I don't suppose we should worry much about this......
Oh fuck me running.
Fucking left coast.
Great, now I have to invest in some questionably legal security devices.
Quote from: Sigmatic on August 25, 2010, 06:17:44 PM
Great, now I have to invest in some companies that make questionably legal security devices.
You know somebody is going to make a killing off of this.
Does a garage count as private property? I mean, they're not ubiquitous, but they're more common than electric fences, fun as those would be.
It's a locked door. I don't see how it could be seen as a public place.
Right? RIGHT?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on August 25, 2010, 06:20:52 PM
Does a garage count as private property? I mean, they're not ubiquitous, but they're more common than electric fences, fun as those would be.
Yes.
Open driveways are what they are using to call "public" rather than private party. I hope this is taken to the wall, because it's out and out bullshit.
Can we put GPS devices on government vehicles, then?
Quote from: Sigmatic on August 25, 2010, 06:22:05 PM
It's a locked door. I don't see how it could be seen as a public place.
Right? RIGHT?
When you go somewhere, will you park in a public place?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 06:23:14 PM
Can we put GPS devices on government vehicles, then?
I think so!
Quote from: Doktor Blight on August 25, 2010, 06:24:42 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 06:23:14 PM
Can we put GPS devices on government vehicles, then?
I think so!
Somehow, I think that would be different. For reasons that do not concern us peasants.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 06:23:14 PM
Can we put GPS devices on government vehicles, then?
From what I read in the article, the Right is extended to the Government. Not you citizen, now back in line.
Now, are there any other questions concerning the morality - or lack thereof - of Dok handing out mad science to homeless people in the legal district?
Didn't think so.
The downhill rolling Snowball of Going Straight to Hell Freedom™ is gaining momentum, I think
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 25, 2010, 06:28:21 PM
The downhill rolling Snowball of Going Straight to Hell Freedom™ is gaining momentum, I think
And that's why I have dedicated the rest of my life to inflicting horrible awful shit on Americans.
Poo on a stick: It's just the beginning.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE
:FFF:
I fixxored the link.
The comments at that link make me want to vomit.
America deserves this.
What would be funny, is if we can find the gps devices and start trading them like baseball cards. On a regular basis. Like daily.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 25, 2010, 06:56:31 PM
What would be funny, is if we can find the gps devices and start trading them like baseball cards. On a regular basis. Like daily.
Or gather some up and mail them in a group cross country at random.
Or feed them to sea gulls.
Well, if this clears all of the hurdles ahead of it, expect auto manufacturers to be required to include it in the vehicle computer system.
Fuck that. I'm always going to buy an old car if that happens.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 25, 2010, 06:52:16 PM
The comments at that link make me want to vomit.
America deserves this.
QuoteMike Foster
People are always afraid of a police state.... who is terrified of the government tracking them via GPS, except for those that are going where they shouldn't? They can track me all they want.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html?hpt=T2#ixzz0xdtfH9qs
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Something tells me that while there are huge pockets in Maine where i can't get a cell signal, the government will have no problems whatsoever getting a signal in to track where I am in shit-middle-of-nowhere, Maine.
Yup, fucking satellites.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 07:09:35 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 25, 2010, 06:52:16 PM
The comments at that link make me want to vomit.
America deserves this.
QuoteMike Foster
People are always afraid of a police state.... who is terrified of the government tracking them via GPS, except for those that are going where they shouldn't? They can track me all they want.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html?hpt=T2#ixzz0xdtfH9qs
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This is why our rights are being ripped from us.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 25, 2010, 07:13:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 07:09:35 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 25, 2010, 06:52:16 PM
The comments at that link make me want to vomit.
America deserves this.
QuoteMike Foster
People are always afraid of a police state.... who is terrified of the government tracking them via GPS, except for those that are going where they shouldn't? They can track me all they want.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html?hpt=T2#ixzz0xdtfH9qs
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This is why our rights are being ripped from us.
Bullshit. We're giving them away.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 07:28:00 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 25, 2010, 07:13:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 07:09:35 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 25, 2010, 06:52:16 PM
The comments at that link make me want to vomit.
America deserves this.
QuoteMike Foster
People are always afraid of a police state.... who is terrified of the government tracking them via GPS, except for those that are going where they shouldn't? They can track me all they want.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html?hpt=T2#ixzz0xdtfH9qs
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This is why our rights are being ripped from us.
Bullshit. We're giving them away.
Unfortunately this is an accurate statement. God Bless Apathy and Safety, right?
I read about this a couple of years ago. Cops in states all over the country have BEEN using it, but evidence gathered this way hasn't been being used in criminal cases, only to help gather OTHER evidence.
They didn't want the people or their city government and judges finding out they were doing it, so they never tried to submit evidence that pointed to the fact that they used them.
Someone blew the lid on it a few years ago and the cops fessed up, but claimed to be able to do it regardless of the 4th amendment, claiming it's gathering no more evidence against the person than they would gain by tailing a suspect in person.
The whole thing stinks like a dockyard whore's vagina.
not that I know what that would smell like..
srsly.
So, is this something they were allowed to do before, but only with a warrant?
It's new tech, presumably they'd be allowed to do it with a warrant (I can't think of a reason why not anyway), but as far as I know they've never requested a warrant for it.
QuoteSo, is this something they were allowed to do before, but only with a warrant?
Judges weren't being told it was common practice to track a suspect this way.
From the article;
In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited.
Quote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on August 25, 2010, 07:44:30 PM
QuoteSo, is this something they were allowed to do before, but only with a warrant?
Judges weren't being told it was common practice to track a suspect this way.
Can you provide links?
A fence is not that difficult or expensive to put up. It is kind of a pain in the butt to have to open a gate every time you pull into your driveway. Having driveway gates (which can be as simple as a length of barbwire that you pull aside to get into your driveway) going up across suburbia would be greatly amusing.
I'm also curious what happens when some media sort plants a GPS on a rich person's car when it is not in their protected driveway.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 25, 2010, 07:47:26 PM
A fence is not that difficult or expensive to put up. It is kind of a pain in the butt to have to open a gate every time you pull into your driveway. Having driveway gates (which can be as simple as a length of barbwire that you pull aside to get into your driveway) going up across suburbia would be greatly amusing.
I'm also curious what happens when some media sort plants a GPS on a rich person's car when it is not in their protected driveway.
That just pushes the burden down to people who live in apartments if it becomes widespread though.
QuoteQuote from: Dr. Vrtig0 on Today at 10:44:30 AM
Quote
So, is this something they were allowed to do before, but only with a warrant?
Judges weren't being told it was common practice to track a suspect this way.
Can you provide links?
Id have to do some serious digging. It's been awhile since I read that article. Let me see what I can find.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 25, 2010, 07:49:49 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 25, 2010, 07:47:26 PM
A fence is not that difficult or expensive to put up. It is kind of a pain in the butt to have to open a gate every time you pull into your driveway. Having driveway gates (which can be as simple as a length of barbwire that you pull aside to get into your driveway) going up across suburbia would be greatly amusing.
I'm also curious what happens when some media sort plants a GPS on a rich person's car when it is not in their protected driveway.
That just pushes the burden down to people who live in apartments if it becomes widespread though.
You could always just put a barbed wire fence around your car!
...or maybe just get a "No Trespassing" bumper sticker?
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 25, 2010, 07:44:45 PM
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private.
Because he's HIS-PANIC, obviously. Suddenly, all becomes clear.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081203275_3.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/12/AR2008081203275_3.html)
Washington Post article from 2008. Not sure if this was the first time I heard about it, but it's clear from the story they were using it well before then, and some judges in some states have weighed in on it, and most have declared they don't need a warrant.
SMUDGY PEOPLE GETS NO RIGHTS!
And since most of them are also poor, marginalizing this type of "right" on the basis of who can own property big enough to secure their belongings makes a clear path to which way the courts were awarding this one.
It's fucktarded in the extreme.
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2010, 07:59:02 PM
SMUDGY PEOPLE GETS NO RIGHTS!
And since most of them are also poor, marginalizing this type of "right" on the basis of who can own property big enough to secure their belongings makes a clear path to which way the courts were awarding this one.
It's fucktarded in the extreme.
LOL AMERICA
I know for a fact that they were doing this back as far as 2001.
That doesn't make it okay.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 25, 2010, 07:49:49 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 25, 2010, 07:47:26 PM
A fence is not that difficult or expensive to put up. It is kind of a pain in the butt to have to open a gate every time you pull into your driveway. Having driveway gates (which can be as simple as a length of barbwire that you pull aside to get into your driveway) going up across suburbia would be greatly amusing.
I'm also curious what happens when some media sort plants a GPS on a rich person's car when it is not in their protected driveway.
That just pushes the burden down to people who live in apartments if it becomes widespread though.
Apartments parking areas are public, that's not something that anyone can change. Security conscious apartment dwellers need to check their cars for GPS locators I guess. I wonder what the penalties for tampering/removing/attaching to a bus is.
It's ok Citizens. The Government has your best interests at heart. Ignore that group of Bureaucrats clustered around that CCTV of your house. Also ignore that large box of tissue and the over flowing trashcan. We are not stalking you Citizen. We are following you out of love.
They never say they "love" us...just that they want us "safe." You know, in case the smudgies come to fuck up our chi. Then ol' Uncle Samworthy will deport 'em, making THEM safe.
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2010, 09:14:37 PM
They never say they "love" us...just that they want us "safe." You know, in case the smudgies come to fuck up our chi. Then ol' Uncle Samworthy will deport 'em, making THEM safe.
Hawk,
on his way to the tanning booth.
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2010, 09:14:37 PM
They never say they "love" us...just that they want us "safe." You know, in case the smudgies come to fuck up our chi. Then ol' Uncle Samworthy will deport 'em, making THEM safe.
The State wants us safe because the State Loves us. We are the children of the State, and we should consider ourselves fortunate that the State loves us enough to track our every movements.
Naw, I'm tellin' you, the state doesn't say it LOVES us. The state says, "You love your CHILDREN and want THEM to be safe? You love your CUNTRY, and you want IT to be safe to live in? With your CHILDREN?
THEN GIVE US ALL YOUR RIGHTS, CITIZEN, SO WE CAN KEEP YOU FREEEEEE!"
Has nothing to do with how much gummament "loves" us. Gummament just wants us SAFE, and FREE, and DOING all the RIGHT things for their "RIGHT" reasons.
I see fellow Citizen. We don't need all these silly rights, so long as we do the right things.
Exactly, there's nothing to fear if you do all the RIGHT things.
Big Brother just wants you safe.
When you sleep, and your children sleep, you can rest assured that Big Brother is NOT resting, but forever searching, and seizing.
For your protection.
So they don't need a warrant to tail someone and I can see the argument that this is just tailing someone sans humans. (Still disagree that my driveway is somehow not Private) In the end though, if we declare driveways as Private, they'll just tail us to the grocery store and stick it on while we're shopping.
Adams and Jefferson are probably telling old King George that they're sorry for bothering with that waste of time Revolution.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 25, 2010, 08:41:45 PM
That doesn't make it okay.
Oh I never once thought it was ok, just saying, this is not something new.
:sad:
This is horrible news for strip clubs, fetish shops and preachers wanting to go to a good old peep show and do some meth.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 25, 2010, 10:01:25 PM
:sad:
This is horrible news for strip clubs, fetish shops and preachers wanting to go to a good old peep show and do some meth.
After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 25, 2010, 10:25:56 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 25, 2010, 10:01:25 PM
:sad:
This is horrible news for strip clubs, fetish shops and preachers wanting to go to a good old peep show and do some meth.
After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
The guy who invents a face-stomping machine will be one rich motherfucker.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 10:30:58 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 25, 2010, 10:25:56 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 25, 2010, 10:01:25 PM
:sad:
This is horrible news for strip clubs, fetish shops and preachers wanting to go to a good old peep show and do some meth.
After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
The guy who invents a face-stomping machine will be one rich motherfucker.
I think Martin-Lockheed already has the contract.
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2010, 07:59:02 PM
And since most of them are also poor, marginalizing this type of "right" on the basis of who can own property big enough to secure their belongings makes a clear path to which way the courts were awarding this one.
I wanted to comment on this, because it's not true. Most smudgy people in the US are middle or working class. A higher percentage of smudgy people are impoverished than the percentage of white people based on the total population, but the widespread idea that "most" brown people are poor, uneducated, or have gang affiliations is purely a media misrepresentation designed to make white people afraid of us.
Given the government has recently asserted it can legally kill the fuck out of you without any kind of trial or given reason whatsoever, is it just me or do things like this come across as small fry?
I expect that this clashes fairly heavily with some existing laws about vandalism... I'd be interested in seeing someone approach it from that angle.
Quote from: Nigel on August 25, 2010, 11:35:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2010, 07:59:02 PM
And since most of them are also poor, marginalizing this type of "right" on the basis of who can own property big enough to secure their belongings makes a clear path to which way the courts were awarding this one.
I wanted to comment on this, because it's not true. Most smudgy people in the US are middle or working class. A higher percentage of smudgy people are impoverished than the percentage of white people based on the total population, but the widespread idea that "most" brown people are poor, uneducated, or have gang affiliations is purely a media misrepresentation designed to make white people afraid of us.
define 'not poor', for the purpose of this conversation, anybody who lives in an apartment building, or who doesn't have a garage at their house, is 'poor'. That sounds like a good chunk of the working class to me.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 25, 2010, 11:45:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 25, 2010, 11:35:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2010, 07:59:02 PM
And since most of them are also poor, marginalizing this type of "right" on the basis of who can own property big enough to secure their belongings makes a clear path to which way the courts were awarding this one.
I wanted to comment on this, because it's not true. Most smudgy people in the US are middle or working class. A higher percentage of smudgy people are impoverished than the percentage of white people based on the total population, but the widespread idea that "most" brown people are poor, uneducated, or have gang affiliations is purely a media misrepresentation designed to make white people afraid of us.
define 'not poor', for the purpose of this conversation, anybody who lives in an apartment building, or who doesn't have a garage at their house, is 'poor'. That sounds like a good chunk of the working class to me.
Basically anyone who cannot maintain physical control over their property unless physically present.
car on the street? tagged
you don't have a gated yard/drive way? tagged
you left your gate open? probably tagged.
If a civilian does this it's stalking.
If the cops do this it's tailing someone with out being physically present.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 25, 2010, 11:45:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 25, 2010, 11:35:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2010, 07:59:02 PM
And since most of them are also poor, marginalizing this type of "right" on the basis of who can own property big enough to secure their belongings makes a clear path to which way the courts were awarding this one.
I wanted to comment on this, because it's not true. Most smudgy people in the US are middle or working class. A higher percentage of smudgy people are impoverished than the percentage of white people based on the total population, but the widespread idea that "most" brown people are poor, uneducated, or have gang affiliations is purely a media misrepresentation designed to make white people afraid of us.
define 'not poor', for the purpose of this conversation, anybody who lives in an apartment building, or who doesn't have a garage at their house, is 'poor'. That sounds like a good chunk of the working class to me.
How has this been established? Are we redefining "Not rich" as "Poor"? Because that's stupid.
Quote from: Nigel on August 25, 2010, 11:51:30 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 25, 2010, 11:45:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 25, 2010, 11:35:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2010, 07:59:02 PM
And since most of them are also poor, marginalizing this type of "right" on the basis of who can own property big enough to secure their belongings makes a clear path to which way the courts were awarding this one.
I wanted to comment on this, because it's not true. Most smudgy people in the US are middle or working class. A higher percentage of smudgy people are impoverished than the percentage of white people based on the total population, but the widespread idea that "most" brown people are poor, uneducated, or have gang affiliations is purely a media misrepresentation designed to make white people afraid of us.
define 'not poor', for the purpose of this conversation, anybody who lives in an apartment building, or who doesn't have a garage at their house, is 'poor'. That sounds like a good chunk of the working class to me.
How has this been established? Are we redefining "Not rich" as "Poor"? Because that's stupid.
For purposes of this particular case I think it makes sense.
Yeah, I guess it's cool if we just decide words mean whatever we want them to in any given situation.
I mean, I own a $400,000 house across the street from Irving Park but I'm poor, because I don't have a gate. Sure, totally. And most brown people are poor, because they don't have gates.
Impeccable logic! Blue ribbon time.
I would define most "not rich" as poor in the USA, if only because the middle class is shrivelling up over there like a dessicated husk.
I'm sure there is a downside to that, though.
Goddammit, I am a fucking dragon.
Quote from: Nigel on August 25, 2010, 11:35:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2010, 07:59:02 PM
And since most of them are also poor, marginalizing this type of "right" on the basis of who can own property big enough to secure their belongings makes a clear path to which way the courts were awarding this one.
I wanted to comment on this, because it's not true. Most smudgy people in the US are middle or working class. A higher percentage of smudgy people are impoverished than the percentage of white people based on the total population, but the widespread idea that "most" brown people are poor, uneducated, or have gang affiliations is purely a media misrepresentation designed to make white people afraid of us.
Working poor--does that suit better? Sorry, but most of the poor in San Diego/CA don't tend to be white.
And I need to see data on what you're talking about. Most data sets I know of on government assistance programs and school performance data DO show a significant gap in income levels across cultural, racial and language differences.
Quote from: Nigel on August 25, 2010, 11:51:30 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 25, 2010, 11:45:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 25, 2010, 11:35:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2010, 07:59:02 PM
And since most of them are also poor, marginalizing this type of "right" on the basis of who can own property big enough to secure their belongings makes a clear path to which way the courts were awarding this one.
I wanted to comment on this, because it's not true. Most smudgy people in the US are middle or working class. A higher percentage of smudgy people are impoverished than the percentage of white people based on the total population, but the widespread idea that "most" brown people are poor, uneducated, or have gang affiliations is purely a media misrepresentation designed to make white people afraid of us.
define 'not poor', for the purpose of this conversation, anybody who lives in an apartment building, or who doesn't have a garage at their house, is 'poor'. That sounds like a good chunk of the working class to me.
How has this been established? Are we redefining "Not rich" as "Poor"? Because that's stupid.
The distinctions between working poor and underemployed middle class are growing thin, according to US and world data collected in recent years since the economic crash.
So, across subsets, Blacks and Latinos have lost their homes at faster rates than Asians and Whites. I think we can agree that if you have equity, you're not, technically, poor. You rarely have food stamps and unemployment, free school lunch programs and qualify for Head Start.
However, there's a lower middle class (the underemployed or single income folks--and most of these are what my family consist of, actually) that do not own homes but are also not POOR either. Yet they really need the above services to not continue to go into debt because the cost of living is so damned high, especially for renters.
Quote from: Nigel on August 26, 2010, 12:11:09 AM
I mean, I own a $400,000 house across the street from Irving Park but I'm poor, because I don't have a gate. Sure, totally. And most brown people are poor, because they don't have gates.
Impeccable logic! Blue ribbon time.
No, turn it around, upside down.
Those without the means to gate their property from the nuisance that is the government and the public usurption are likely poor, and less likely to be White, though of course they exist as well.
I was saying this was another way for those with the power (who still are mostly white) to not give a shit about what's happening to the people who can't afford to care about such overreaching.
Quote from: Secret Level on August 25, 2010, 11:49:18 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 25, 2010, 11:45:23 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 25, 2010, 11:35:37 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 25, 2010, 07:59:02 PM
And since most of them are also poor, marginalizing this type of "right" on the basis of who can own property big enough to secure their belongings makes a clear path to which way the courts were awarding this one.
I wanted to comment on this, because it's not true. Most smudgy people in the US are middle or working class. A higher percentage of smudgy people are impoverished than the percentage of white people based on the total population, but the widespread idea that "most" brown people are poor, uneducated, or have gang affiliations is purely a media misrepresentation designed to make white people afraid of us.
define 'not poor', for the purpose of this conversation, anybody who lives in an apartment building, or who doesn't have a garage at their house, is 'poor'. That sounds like a good chunk of the working class to me.
Basically anyone who cannot maintain physical control over their property unless physically present.
car on the street? tagged
you don't have a gated yard/drive way? tagged
you left your gate open? probably tagged.
If a civilian does this it's stalking.
If the cops do this it's tailing someone with out being physically present.
Yeah, mostly. I mean, you can default that if the government wants to, they will, and if you protest, you are likely the one to be slapped for protesting, rather than the government for mistakenly going there in the first place.
Even if you have a fucking gate/fence.
But having one would, of course help.
That's why gated communities are so "ooh-ah" (or were back in the day, I think they've been debunked as havens for thievery and other nefarious deeds if someone wishes rather than the other way around). They tell the world "you have no exclusive rights to our property!" when in reality no one has anything other than the right to be watched and surveilled.
Nevermind that how many vehicles have some sort of built in GPS/OMG HELP MAH NAO button built in nowadays. If they definitely make this a 'it's cool we are teh guberment' thing then everyone with onstar or lowjack(lol you just paid to have your vehicle tracked by the cops) will already be on the grid.
http://www.thechildrensinitiative.org/pdfs/report_card/CI_ReportCard_2009_final_web.pdf
That's where I get most of my data for San Diego--I work for these people through PTA. And they have some great facts/figures for countywide data on what ethnicities have low birth rates (a number one indicator of poverty, welfare and health), poverty levels and food stamp users across the county. Central, south and east counties, where the highest concentration of minorities live, have more than the rest of the parts of the county combined.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 06:25:33 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on August 25, 2010, 06:24:42 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 25, 2010, 06:23:14 PM
Can we put GPS devices on government vehicles, then?
I think so!
Somehow, I think that would be different. For reasons that do not concern us peasants.
that would make you a terrorist
The definition of poor, as far as this topic is concerned, is the less than privileged.
QuoteAfter all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
there may be a concept being overlooked here.
If it gets to the point where the courts only rule that they can't come on your private property and plant a tracking device, then they'll simply
begin to use man hours and follow you (completely legal if you're a government agency investigating someone) and plant it on your car when you park it in a public parking lot.
I'm east coast, so maybe someone west coast with some knowledge about "duh law" regarding stalkers could elaborate on whether this might be able to be argued in court as a stalker case against the state?
I realize that realistically, this is very unlikely, as there needs to be intent to "fill in the blank" but fuck, there has to be a legal precedent somewhere that helps in the fight against this shit.
The thing is, you have "probable cause" to contend with when it comes to government stalking. Patriot Acts totally blew privacy out of the picture. If you are a suspect of the state, then you are culpable by just breathing.
QuoteThe thing is, you have "probable cause" to contend with when it comes to government stalking. Patriot Acts totally blew privacy out of the picture. If you are a suspect of the state, then you are culpable by just breathing.
"for terrorist activities"
which is increasingly defined to include ANY actions against the established order.
that means.. *gasp* some of us could be terrorists.
the HLSA is a joke and more and more reason why I would choose to live in a poverty stricken state like Mexico, adjusting to the means required to survive, than stay another decade on the land in which I was born.
Quote from: The Dancing Pickle on August 26, 2010, 05:08:09 AM
QuoteThe thing is, you have "probable cause" to contend with when it comes to government stalking. Patriot Acts totally blew privacy out of the picture. If you are a suspect of the state, then you are culpable by just breathing.
"for terrorist activities"
which is increasingly defined to include ANY actions against the established order.
that means.. *gasp* some of us could be terrorists.
the HLSA is a joke and more and more reason why I would choose to live in a poverty stricken state like Mexico, adjusting to the means required to survive, than stay another decade on the land in which I was born.
Mexico is preferable to live in than the US now?
:O
Well, I bet the food is better.
Id say that "poor" is about being in the lower 1/3rd (33.3%) of the income scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Income_distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Income_distribution)
So let me improvise some mathemadjicks...
So about 35.21% of the population makes $17,499 or less...
I think thats what "poor" would be.
ETA: fixx
Middle class would be an income between $17,499-35,000... (33.3%ish-70%ish)
Of course that high class would mean from $35,000 to the billions that the top 6% own and puts everyone to shame...
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 26, 2010, 11:30:58 AM
Middle class would be an income between $17,499-35,000... (33.3%ish-70%ish)
Of course that high class would mean from $35,000 to the billions that the top 6% own and puts everyone to shame...
I don't think earning above £22k a year makes you high class.
Yeah, living costs in America are cheaper, but not that much cheaper. £22k is about subsistence wage in London, and starting pay for young professionals or graduates elsewhere. Taking into account the cost of housing or renting, food, taxes and other basics (which Americans would know better than us) would give us a good idea of how much of that money is actually potentially saved/spent on luxury goods, which would be a better indicator of income and class.
Or we could just do the Marxist thing and point out probably 90%+ of people in America don't own any means of production and so are working class by definition. Which is a lot simpler, but also causes a lot more other problems.
Well, this is for the USA, so, talking about pounds and England would mean a different set of calculations.
Also, income, as far as i understand it, is after taxes deducted.
Isn't it fiendishly difficult to categorise classes broadly, anyway? On an individual level I guess it would be pretty easy, but I would've thought there are too many variables for a universal system?
I perceived some dead-ends earlier in the conversation over a definition of "poor".
So this got me thinking about what would make a good criterion for class, say: low, middle, high... on what little i know of statistics and correlation, the percentage of something being "significant" is 66.6% (2/3).
So i ran with that idea, looked up income and promptly did what i did.
In other words, i came up with an arbitrary definition; this categories seem good to me (in terms of wealth), which isnt getting into more complex definitions like taking into account if a class is f.e. "working" or not which i think is beyond my ability.
Also, statistics have been known for their terrible lies.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 26, 2010, 11:30:58 AM
Middle class would be an income between $17,499-35,000... (33.3%ish-70%ish)
Of course that high class would mean from $35,000 to the billions that the top 6% own and puts everyone to shame...
35k is not considered upper class in the US by any means. That's middle class. You have to be making 6 figures (or close to it) to be upper class.
Quote from: Cain on August 26, 2010, 12:00:34 PM
Yeah, living costs in America are cheaper, but not that much cheaper. £22k is about subsistence wage in London, and starting pay for young professionals or graduates elsewhere. Taking into account the cost of housing or renting, food, taxes and other basics (which Americans would know better than us) would give us a good idea of how much of that money is actually potentially saved/spent on luxury goods, which would be a better indicator of income and class.
Or we could just do the Marxist thing and point out probably 90%+ of people in America don't own any means of production and so are working class by definition. Which is a lot simpler, but also causes a lot more other problems.
US still has a pretty sizable petite Bourgoisie if you are using Marxist definitions. It depends on how you define means of production (and ownership, factoring in stocks and whatnot can make this confusing) but I'd say it's definitely more than 10% most are very petite though and plenty of them are in the lower part of middle class.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 26, 2010, 01:59:58 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 26, 2010, 11:30:58 AM
Middle class would be an income between $17,499-35,000... (33.3%ish-70%ish)
Of course that high class would mean from $35,000 to the billions that the top 6% own and puts everyone to shame...
35k is not considered upper class in the US by any means. That's middle class. You have to be making 6 figures (or close to it) to be upper class.
Yeah, I certainly don't feel very upper class.
Seriously.....rich in this thread is defined by gated communities, motion detectors, security systems......
Keep in mind, also, that the same income in one state will get you further than living in another. $50K in California will get you middle-to-lower middle class living. In other words, you're still paycheck to paycheck *without* servicing debt. You're in a big sinkhole financially if you're servicing debt, of any kind, and most are. You're probably also without health care if you have children. If your employer carries it, you're probably paying for it, but your spouse and kids are on their own (and you probably won't qualify for Healthy Families unless the spouse is pregnant).
However, that same $50K in say, Missouri, would get you a much better state of living, and you'd be able to handle debts and larger expenses more easily.
There's a lot of "equalizing" formulas out there, my husband knows a few of them so I will ask him where they are found. He has to do cost analysis a lot in his job as he writes grants for his clinic.
Quote from: Jenne on August 26, 2010, 02:42:06 PM
Keep in mind, also, that the same income in one state will get you further than living in another. $50K in California will get you middle-to-lower middle class living. In other words, you're still paycheck to paycheck *without* servicing debt. You're in a big sinkhole financially if you're servicing debt, of any kind, and most are. You're probably also without health care if you have children. If your employer carries it, you're probably paying for it, but your spouse and kids are on their own (and you probably won't qualify for Healthy Families unless the spouse is pregnant).
However, that same $50K in say, Missouri, would get you a much better state of living, and you'd be able to handle debts and larger expenses more easily.
There's a lot of "equalizing" formulas out there, my husband knows a few of them so I will ask him where they are found. He has to do cost analysis a lot in his job as he writes grants for his clinic.
I think thats a great perspective and contribution.
So, a GPS device needs to receive transmitter information, and then re-broadcast it, like a cellphone or some sort of wireless/wifi gadget, yes?
There must be some sort of scanner that can identify if a wireless device is broadcasting somewhere in the vicinity. The GPS device itself couldn't be too fancy, simpley due to cost considerations, so there may be an easy way to figure out if you've been tagged.
Hell, there's probably even an app for that.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 26, 2010, 03:01:15 PM
I think thats a great perspective and contribution.
Thanks! In the end, I'm becoming a public welfare and assistance student since I do so much research and whatnot, so coupled with the role my husband plays in the community, I end up with a lot of info. And I'm sick in the head enough to do this on my "off time."
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 26, 2010, 03:22:58 PM
So, a GPS device needs to receive transmitter information, and then re-broadcast it, like a cellphone or some sort of wireless/wifi gadget, yes?
There must be some sort of scanner that can identify if a wireless device is broadcasting somewhere in the vicinity. The GPS device itself couldn't be too fancy, simpley due to cost considerations, so there may be an easy way to figure out if you've been tagged.
Hell, there's probably even an app for that.
...Dude where's my car? (and yeah, there's an app for that)
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 26, 2010, 03:22:58 PM
So, a GPS device needs to receive transmitter information, and then re-broadcast it, like a cellphone or some sort of wireless/wifi gadget, yes?
There must be some sort of scanner that can identify if a wireless device is broadcasting somewhere in the vicinity. The GPS device itself couldn't be too fancy, simpley due to cost considerations, so there may be an easy way to figure out if you've been tagged.
Hell, there's probably even an app for that.
http://www.spyassociates.com/spy-hawk-pro-rf-gps-bug-detector-phone-tap-security-p-1962.html?affiliate_banner_id=1&ref=254
http://www.gpsjammers.net/
Oh Internets, Thou Provideth Everything
That spy stuff you can get to spy on your wife/nanny/etc.--most of it DID originate in military ops/government spy labs (or by contract), right? That's what I've always heard, anyway.
It would stand to reason, the way engineers and inventors are contracted...
Quote from: Jenne on August 26, 2010, 03:32:12 PM
That spy stuff you can get to spy on your wife/nanny/etc.--most of it DID originate in military ops/government spy labs (or by contract), right? That's what I've always heard, anyway.
It would stand to reason, the way engineers and inventors are contracted...
Its difficult to tell sometimes. I think many of the companies got their start that way... but at this point the home market for 'spying' is pretty huge according to some of the people I've met in the security business. Hell, I know one guy that has a company which does fingerprint readers/scanners and just recently got his first government contract a good 10 years after starting the business...
(Fingerprint reader tied to a switch tied to the fuel pump = no more stolen HumVees in Iraq. So the theory goes).
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on August 26, 2010, 03:22:58 PM
So, a GPS device needs to receive transmitter information, and then re-broadcast it, like a cellphone or some sort of wireless/wifi gadget, yes?
There must be some sort of scanner that can identify if a wireless device is broadcasting somewhere in the vicinity. The GPS device itself couldn't be too fancy, simpley due to cost considerations, so there may be an easy way to figure out if you've been tagged.
Hell, there's probably even an app for that.
If there are detectors for hidden cameras, there MUST/SHOULD exist ones for GPS.
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 26, 2010, 03:36:02 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 26, 2010, 03:32:12 PM
That spy stuff you can get to spy on your wife/nanny/etc.--most of it DID originate in military ops/government spy labs (or by contract), right? That's what I've always heard, anyway.
It would stand to reason, the way engineers and inventors are contracted...
Its difficult to tell sometimes. I think many of the companies got their start that way... but at this point the home market for 'spying' is pretty huge according to some of the people I've met in the security business. Hell, I know one guy that has a company which does fingerprint readers/scanners and just recently got his first government contract a good 10 years after starting the business...
(Fingerprint reader tied to a switch tied to the fuel pump = no more stolen HumVees in Iraq. So the theory goes).
...but I'm thinking the technology maybe STARTS at the development level FOR the gummament or it swipes it up after surveying the up-and-comers on the horizon, cornering the market before they hit retail.
Seems all the new drugs start out that way, too.
If they send out via Wi-Fi, you could totally man in the middle that shit. All you'd need is a cheap ass router and a netbook.
Quote from: BDS on August 26, 2010, 04:50:24 PM
If they send out via Wi-Fi, you could totally man in the middle that shit. All you'd need is a cheap ass router and a netbook.
Interesting.
http://www.phrack.org/issues.html?issue=60&id=13#article
Fuck I know I should hung out with my grandpa more and gotten into ham radio.
Quote from: Jenne on August 26, 2010, 01:25:50 AM
http://www.thechildrensinitiative.org/pdfs/report_card/CI_ReportCard_2009_final_web.pdf
That's where I get most of my data for San Diego--I work for these people through PTA. And they have some great facts/figures for countywide data on what ethnicities have low birth rates (a number one indicator of poverty, welfare and health), poverty levels and food stamp users across the county. Central, south and east counties, where the highest concentration of minorities live, have more than the rest of the parts of the county combined.
"Higher rates of poverty" is different from "most brown people are poor".
This is important to me. Most smudgy people are working or middle-class. Most smudgy people are educated. This is in defiance of media misrepresentation, because they want you to think that we are mostly impoverished and undereducated and therefore, ignorant and likely to steal from you.
Yes, too many smudgy people live in poverty and are under-educated, but that is very, very different from "most".
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 26, 2010, 01:59:58 PM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on August 26, 2010, 11:30:58 AM
Middle class would be an income between $17,499-35,000... (33.3%ish-70%ish)
Of course that high class would mean from $35,000 to the billions that the top 6% own and puts everyone to shame...
35k is not considered upper class in the US by any means. That's middle class. You have to be making 6 figures (or close to it) to be upper class.
As an aside, 32k is median income for Latino households in the US.
The 2010 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 --------------- $10,830
2 --------------- 14,570
3 --------------- 18,310
4 --------------- 22,050
5 --------------- 25,790
6 --------------- 29,530
7 --------------- 33,270
8 --------------- 37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.
2010 Poverty Guidelines for Alaska
Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 --------------- $13,530
2 --------------- 18,210
3 --------------- 22,890
4 --------------- 27,570
5 --------------- 32,250
6 --------------- 36,930
7 --------------- 41,610
8 --------------- 46,290
For families with more than 8 persons, add $4,680 for each additional person.
2010 Poverty Guidelines for Hawaii
Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 --------------- $12,460
2 --------------- 16,760
3 --------------- 21,060
4 --------------- 25,360
5 --------------- 29,660
6 --------------- 33,960
7 --------------- 38,260
8 --------------- 42,560
For families with more than 8 persons, add $4,300 for each additional person.
SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 148, August 3, 2010, pp. 45628–45629
Quote from: Nigel on August 26, 2010, 06:47:28 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 26, 2010, 01:25:50 AM
http://www.thechildrensinitiative.org/pdfs/report_card/CI_ReportCard_2009_final_web.pdf
That's where I get most of my data for San Diego--I work for these people through PTA. And they have some great facts/figures for countywide data on what ethnicities have low birth rates (a number one indicator of poverty, welfare and health), poverty levels and food stamp users across the county. Central, south and east counties, where the highest concentration of minorities live, have more than the rest of the parts of the county combined.
"Higher rates of poverty" is different from "most brown people are poor".
This is important to me. Most smudgy people are working or middle-class. Most smudgy people are educated. This is in defiance of media misrepresentation, because they want you to think that we are mostly impoverished and undereducated and therefore, ignorant and likely to steal from you.
Yes, too many smudgy people live in poverty and are under-educated, but that is very, very different from "most".
I get a different sort of media than you, obviously. Because the media *I* listen to is wanting to help EVERYONE, especially when the agenda of Fox News and the like is to make you afraid of the poor, while espousing simultaneously that they are one of them, too. Folksy vs. down-home I guess.
I see no reason to be afraid of what the stats show, consistently, in terms of public and government aid, as well as education levels and low birthrates. To me, that's a standard bearer of where aid should be applied, where best practices should be shared, where the most resources set aside to HELP should be lifted up and given.
I don't see the stats I use as indicating anything but a need to, as they say in the biz, "close the gap."
Most of anyone is going to be the majority, because the majority is, after all, the majority for a reason. But in CA, that tide is changing, and rapidly. Whites here give birth to less babies. So what does that leave?
By the bye, poverty guidelines are what you are to BEAT. So saying a family of 4 making $27K is poor means what, exactly, to the government?
That's a pretty damned important question.
Quote from: Jenne on August 26, 2010, 07:28:49 PM
By the bye, poverty guidelines are what you are to BEAT. So saying a family of 4 making $27K is poor means what, exactly, to the government?
That's a pretty damned important question.
I just know those are the guidelines you have to be below to qualify for State of Federal help. Foodstamps, TANF, Medicaid and such.
Quote from: Jenne on August 26, 2010, 07:28:49 PM
By the bye, poverty guidelines are what you are to BEAT. So saying a family of 4 making $27K is poor means what, exactly, to the government?
That's a pretty damned important question.
It means your opinions can be ignored safely.
Quote from: Khara on August 26, 2010, 08:58:46 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 26, 2010, 07:28:49 PM
By the bye, poverty guidelines are what you are to BEAT. So saying a family of 4 making $27K is poor means what, exactly, to the government?
That's a pretty damned important question.
I just know those are the guidelines you have to be below to qualify for State of Federal help. Foodstamps, TANF, Medicaid and such.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 26, 2010, 08:59:39 PM
It means your opinions can be ignored safely.
exactly.
Or, somewhere between paying them off and poverty, you're pretty much nonexistent, until you pay taxes.
Forgive me if this has already come up, but if a police agency is putting a tracking device on your car, wouldn't they already have a warrant to enter your property anyway?
Quote from: Risus on August 26, 2010, 09:14:40 PM
Forgive me if this has already come up, but if a police agency is putting a tracking device on your car, wouldn't they already have a warrant to enter your property anyway?
No. That's the whole point.
They sell GPS jammers that you can power with your in-car cig lighter. For thirty bucks. :lulz:
Kinda want to get one and test it.
link-o?
ETA: THX, Sig..
hxxp://www.thejammerstore.com/handheld-gps-jammer-gj02-p-152.html
I want one, not cause I think the cops are tailing me, but because I want to shut off the TomTom of the guy next to me in traffic.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 26, 2010, 09:15:16 PM
Quote from: Risus on August 26, 2010, 09:14:40 PM
Forgive me if this has already come up, but if a police agency is putting a tracking device on your car, wouldn't they already have a warrant to enter your property anyway?
No. That's the whole point.
Alright. Didn't see that part.
So, is the upshot of all of that, Jenne and Khara, that you are still insisting that "most" minorities in the United States are impoverished?
Why? Is it just to be "right" about something that could easily have been blown off as merely a poor choice of wording?
Because I'm starting to be pretty fucking offended.
Quote from: Nigel on August 26, 2010, 10:05:45 PM
So, is the upshot of all of that, Jenne and Khara, that you are still insisting that "most" minorities in the United States are impoverished?
Why? Is it just to be "right" about something that could easily have been blown off as merely a poor choice of wording?
Because I'm starting to be pretty fucking offended.
So I think rather than most minorities are poor, maybe it should have been stated as most poor are minorities? Would you agree Nigel?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 26, 2010, 09:38:31 PM
I want one, not cause I think the cops are tailing me, but because I want to shut off the TomTom of the guy next to me in traffic.
I almost spat out my burger all over. Thanks :D
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 26, 2010, 10:09:46 PM
Quote from: Nigel on August 26, 2010, 10:05:45 PM
So, is the upshot of all of that, Jenne and Khara, that you are still insisting that "most" minorities in the United States are impoverished?
Why? Is it just to be "right" about something that could easily have been blown off as merely a poor choice of wording?
Because I'm starting to be pretty fucking offended.
So I think rather than most minorities are poor, maybe it should have been stated as most poor are minorities? Would you agree Nigel?
No, that is also incorrect. The correct statement is that a higher percentage of minority populations are poor compared to the percentage of the white population. By sheer numbers, most poor people are white.
This thread is now about which race is the poorest PER CAPITA.
I'm not trying to redirect the thread, I just really have a peeve against massively incorrect stereotypes like "most brown people are low-income" and "most brown people are undereducated" and "most brown people are gang members" etc.
Yes, there are serious social inequities and they need to be addressed, but the word "most" is rarely accurate, unless you are saying "most brown people are working or middle-class and have at least a high-school diploma".
I will, however, go right out on a limb and say that "most brown people, like most white people, don't really understand statistics".
It doesn't matter.
I had a big long post, but fuck it. You're right, Nigel, most poor are White.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on August 26, 2010, 09:38:31 PM
I want one, not cause I think the cops are tailing me, but because I want to shut off the TomTom of the guy next to me in traffic.
THIS. I hate those things.
Quote from: Nigel on August 26, 2010, 10:05:45 PM
So, is the upshot of all of that, Jenne and Khara, that you are still insisting that "most" minorities in the United States are impoverished?
Why? Is it just to be "right" about something that could easily have been blown off as merely a poor choice of wording?
Because I'm starting to be pretty fucking offended.
Hush you poor smudgy person, we just want to help you. Now admit that you are poor.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 27, 2010, 04:50:08 AM
Quote from: Nigel on August 26, 2010, 10:05:45 PM
So, is the upshot of all of that, Jenne and Khara, that you are still insisting that "most" minorities in the United States are impoverished?
Why? Is it just to be "right" about something that could easily have been blown off as merely a poor choice of wording?
Because I'm starting to be pretty fucking offended.
Hush you poor smudgy person, we just want to help you. Now admit that you are poor.
Is this helping?
Damn. A one line response.
Quote from: Jenne on August 27, 2010, 03:41:22 AM
I had a big long post, but fuck it. You're right, Nigel, most poor are White.
Sigh. That's not even the point I was trying to correct. The point I was trying to correct was that in the USA, most brown people are
not in fact poor.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 27, 2010, 04:50:08 AM
Quote from: Nigel on August 26, 2010, 10:05:45 PM
So, is the upshot of all of that, Jenne and Khara, that you are still insisting that "most" minorities in the United States are impoverished?
Why? Is it just to be "right" about something that could easily have been blown off as merely a poor choice of wording?
Because I'm starting to be pretty fucking offended.
Hush you poor smudgy person, we just want to help you. Now admit that you are poor.
:lulz:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 27, 2010, 04:50:08 AM
Quote from: Nigel on August 26, 2010, 10:05:45 PM
So, is the upshot of all of that, Jenne and Khara, that you are still insisting that "most" minorities in the United States are impoverished?
Why? Is it just to be "right" about something that could easily have been blown off as merely a poor choice of wording?
Because I'm starting to be pretty fucking offended.
Hush you poor smudgy person, we just want to help you. Now admit that you are poor.
Fuck the smudgy people. I'm poor give me free shit.
Is a joke. Don't shank me.
Quote from: Secret Level on August 27, 2010, 06:54:37 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 27, 2010, 04:50:08 AM
Quote from: Nigel on August 26, 2010, 10:05:45 PM
So, is the upshot of all of that, Jenne and Khara, that you are still insisting that "most" minorities in the United States are impoverished?
Why? Is it just to be "right" about something that could easily have been blown off as merely a poor choice of wording?
Because I'm starting to be pretty fucking offended.
Hush you poor smudgy person, we just want to help you. Now admit that you are poor.
Fuck the smudgy people. I'm poor give me free shit.
Is a joke. Don't shank me.
*shank*
Seriously though, this whole "poor" argument is pointless and pedantic. I have now officially used that word twice on this board. In the same day.I need to learn a new word.
Well, I wanted to comment on this thread, but apparently the topic is now about racial demographics :|
I'm gonna give it a try anyhow.
1. Cain, everybody ignored that bit you said about the government killing you dead. What was the context of that event?
2. This all reminds me of the film "Enemy of the State", which I can recommend for those who haven't seen it. Even if it's mainly an action flick starring Will Smith. I watched it long ago (before 2001), back then all the stuff they did to him seemed really over the top, though all I could think of was "this may seem over the top, but the technology is available and systems are already in place, they *could* potentially do all this" (except for the MovieOS computer interfaces).
The only reason I could come up with for why, then, why aren't they already doing all of this, was that probably the big security and intelligence agencies were too fragmented, left hand not knowing what the right hand does, because you need(ed) a LOT of central coordination to do the kind of tracking shown in that movie. So yeah I was a good little proto-Discordian back then, familiar with the Law for Escalation of Order :)
I should really watch it again to check which bits make me go "holy fuck, they ARE doing that already right now" :horrormirth:
3. I wonder why they need to place GPS on cars? Because they can already track people via their mobile phones. Even the ones without GPS, by triangulating the relative strengths of the cells. And the ones with GPS, even easier of course. Quite sure that a GPS query transmits a ID number tied to the phone or subscription with the request.
4. For the people that'd rather talk about demographics, here is a histogram I made for Roger a while back (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23807.msg813071#msg813071), from a big US data website called BLS that gave lists of occupation groups, by county, and how much an occupation group earns on average in a certain county and how many people are in that group in that county. That gave me tens of thousands of data points, enough to create a reasonable histogram for the actual income distribution in the US 2008:
(http://a.imageshack.us/img19/7413/2008usincomedistributio.png)
It's not sorted by race, sorry.
Trip
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations
QuoteIn late January, I wrote about the Obama administration's "presidential assassination program," whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they're involved in Terrorism. At the time, The Washington Post's Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush's policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile "hit lists" of Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list. The following week, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the "right" to carry out such assassinations.
Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield. I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they're sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind. I won't repeat those arguments -- they're here and here -- but I do want to highlight how unbelievably Orwellian and tyrannical this is in light of these new articles today.
http://opiniojuris.org/2010/02/06/are-obamas-assassinations-of-us-citizens-constitutional/
QuoteIt is an article of faith of many critics of the Bush policies that the detention of U.S. citizens as enemy combatants is almost always illegal, that the U.S. is bound by constitutional requirements even when acting abroad in a war zone, and especially when it is acting against U.S. citizens. But if one believes all of these things, then one cannot possibly believe that deliberately assassinating U.S. citizens is constitutional. As I've said before, if the U.S. cannot designate a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant without a hearing (and this is now a requirement of U.S. law), then I can't quite see how the U.S. can at the same time deliberately assassinate that same U.S. citizen without a hearing. Am I missing something?
As some of the commenters have pointed out, the nationality of the victim is not that important from the perspective of international law. Under international law, the main question is whether there is legal authority to kill or assassinate anyone, much less one's own nationals. But even under international law, as readers of Ken Anderson's posts here and at Volokh know, it is still not all that clear. Indeed, there seems a more than plausible argument that certain kinds of assassinations, as currently executed by the Predator drones, could indeed constitute a violation of the law of war.
http://original.antiwar.com/fisher/2010/02/05/legal-experts-slam-assassinations-of-us-citizens/
QuoteIn an admission that took the intelligence community and its critics by surprise, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a congressional hearing Wednesday that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism.
The American Civil Liberties Union is among those expressing serious concern about the lack of public information about the policy and the potential for abuse of unchecked executive power.
Attorney George Brent Mickum, who has defended a number of Guantánamo Bay detainees, told IPS, "I guess my sense is that it's just more fear mongering. They kill somebody and don't need to offer any justification."
"We have killed thousands of innocent civilians while attempting to target alleged operatives. And let us not forget how frequently our intelligence has been wrong about alleged operatives," Mickum noted.
He added, "My clients Bisher al Rawi, Jamil el-Banna, Martin Mubanga, abu Zubaydah, and Shaker Aamer all are alleged to have been operatives based on intel. In every case that intel was incorrect. I don't have any expectation that our intel with respect to alleged American operatives is likely to be any better."
Another constitutional scholar, Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois Law School, told IPS that "this extrajudicial execution of human beings" violates both international human rights law and the fifth amendment of the U.S. constitution.
"The U.S. government has now established a 'death list' for U.S. citizens abroad akin to those established by Latin American dictatorships during their so-called dirty wars," he said.
The human rights advocacy community was equally forceful in its pushback. Daphne Eviatar, an attorney with Human Rights First, told IPS, "The short answer is that combatants can be targeted and civilians cannot under international law. Their citizenship isn't relevant. But just being a 'suspected terrorist' doesn't necessarily mean they're a combatant."
She added, "The key question, and where there may be serious disagreement, is whether the person targeted is 'directly participating in hostilities'. If not, and they're targeted, it's a war crime."
Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, told IPS, "As with its embrace of the [George W.] Bush approach to indefinite detention, the Obama administration's even greater reliance on targeted extra-judicial killing – including of U.S. citizens – is a tragic legal, moral, and practical mistake."
"Even for those who accept the legitimacy of the death penalty, this further undermines the rule of law that is our best weapon in the fight against true terrorists, while completely subverting due process and constitutional rights of U.S. citizens," he said.
Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, said, "It is alarming to hear that the Obama administration is asserting that the president can authorize the assassination of Americans abroad, even if they are far from any battlefield and may have never taken up arms against the U.S., but have only been deemed to constitute an unspecified 'threat.'"
Testifying before the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Blair said, "We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community."
He said U.S. counterterrorism officials may try to kill U.S. citizens embroiled in extremist groups overseas with "specific permission" from higher up.
In response to questions from the panel's top Republican, Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, Blair said, if "we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."
Blair's remarks followed a Washington Post article reporting that U.S. President Barack Obama had embraced his predecessor's policy of authorizing the killing of U.S. citizens involved in terrorist activities overseas.
The Post reported that "After the Sep. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for example, has to pose 'a continuing and imminent threat' to U.S. persons and interests."
The Obama administration appears to have adopted exactly the same policy as its predecessor.
The Post, citing anonymous U.S. officials, said the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Joint Special Operations Command have three U.S. citizens on their lists of specific people targeted for killing or capture.
Blair said he was offering such unusually detailed information in public because "I just don't want other Americans who are watching to think that we are careless."
I just find it hard to get outraged about surveillance when, well, this is ongoing.
The way in which these are being pursued is different enough that I certainly think the GPS thing is worth getting upset about. The Kill list is compiled by very high government officials and, so far, has only been implemented overseas. The GPS thing is decided by local police and is implemented at home. Two different bodies acting in two different inappropriate ways.
Anybody catch this story that is related to the surveillance state?
Full-Body Scan Technology Deployed In Street-Roving Vanshttp://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/
it's about the backscatter type imaging devices like what caused a stink in the airports, which have been set up on mobile units for the purpose of scanning vehicles going down the road.
apparently the company that makes them have sold 500 of these units to US and foreign govt agencies.
i like this quote from the article:
QuoteThough Reiss admits that the systems "to a large degree will penetrate clothing," he points to the lack of features in images of humans like the one shown at right, far less detail than is obtained from the airport scans. "From a privacy standpoint, I'm hard-pressed to see what the concern or objection could be," he says.
that's great.... "we can barely see your package, so you shouldn't be concerned about privacy."
Quote from: Nigel on August 27, 2010, 06:52:40 AM
Quote from: Jenne on August 27, 2010, 03:41:22 AM
I had a big long post, but fuck it. You're right, Nigel, most poor are White.
Sigh. That's not even the point I was trying to correct. The point I was trying to correct was that in the USA, most brown people are not in fact poor.
I think you had a two-pronged argument, as I went through the posts. But I didn't want to prolong this because people like Hawk who started the OP were getting annoyed. In the end, we actually AGREE, but I refuse to spend longer clarifying a point that's not a misconception on my part but in fact a misstatement. You're right: only about (a little less than) 1/4 of blacks and Latinos, according to wikipedia, are at or below povery level. The actual definition of "poor" can really vary, though, and I'm not getting into that, either, anymore (though we can start a new thread). And the majority of ANY level of income tends to be whites, by sheer volume of whites in the country.
This varies state to state, however. Which was the thrust of my original point about the OP, as well as the disenfranchisement of the non-whites when it comes to our legal system, and their lack of wherewithall to make that different.
I don't disagree with you...ymmv, and seems to do so. (Hawk, if you want this business lopped out of this thread, please ask an admin, that might make it better, dunno)
Trip, I like your post. I'm interested in Cain's answer to #1 especially!~~> Which I am reading now!
Quote from: Iptuous on August 27, 2010, 03:20:18 PM
Anybody catch this story that is related to the surveillance state?
Full-Body Scan Technology Deployed In Street-Roving Vans
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/
it's about the backscatter type imaging devices like what caused a stink in the airports, which have been set up on mobile units for the purpose of scanning vehicles going down the road.
apparently the company that makes them have sold 500 of these units to US and foreign govt agencies.
i like this quote from the article:
QuoteThough Reiss admits that the systems “to a large degree will penetrate clothing,” he points to the lack of features in images of humans like the one shown at right, far less detail than is obtained from the airport scans. “From a privacy standpoint, I’m hard-pressed to see what the concern or objection could be,” he says.
that's great.... "we can barely see your package, so you shouldn't be concerned about privacy."
Nice...see, this is what I was talking about re: spy shit going to the government (and of course non-gov't, whom I bet still work as an unofficial OFFSHOOT of the gov't)...
Quote from: Cain on August 27, 2010, 12:25:02 PM
I just find it hard to get outraged about surveillance when, well, this is ongoing.
Ok, so...is this NEW? I'm wondering if this is stuff they've ALWAYS done (CIA/FBI/WhoeverTF), but is only now being made public? Or is this something that 9/11 opened up so that "justifiable lawlessness" is now the name of the day?
Quote from: Jenne on August 27, 2010, 04:10:28 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 27, 2010, 12:25:02 PM
I just find it hard to get outraged about surveillance when, well, this is ongoing.
Ok, so...is this NEW? I'm wondering if this is stuff they've ALWAYS done (CIA/FBI/WhoeverTF), but is only now being made public? Or is this something that 9/11 opened up so that "justifiable lawlessness" is now the name of the day?
No, it isn't new. What concerns me the most is before they at least had to sneak around to do it. By the government 'giving' themselves the
right to do it by association erodes our rights. Another brick in the wall of a police state.
If evidence gathered this way previously was introduced as evidence the judge would have to throw it out as a violation of our rights. Now the judge will have to view it as the government exercising their right.
By the way, I think I can answer my own point 3:
Quote from: me3. I wonder why they need to place GPS on cars? Because they can already track people via their mobile phones. Even the ones without GPS, by triangulating the relative strengths of the cells. And the ones with GPS, even easier of course. Quite sure that a GPS query transmits a ID number tied to the phone or subscription with the request.
The difference is they don't need a warrant to place a GPS tracker on cars because it's (supposedly) the same as stalking someone, which (apparently) the US police are also allowed to do if they feel like it.
Tracking mobile phones and triangulating positions can be done but requires a little more paperwork, so it's probably reserved for the bigger crime gangs.
And Cain, thanks for the quotes+links, I haven't had time to read them yet, but I will later.
Quote from: Charley Brown on August 27, 2010, 05:20:08 PM
Quote from: Jenne on August 27, 2010, 04:10:28 PM
Quote from: Cain on August 27, 2010, 12:25:02 PM
I just find it hard to get outraged about surveillance when, well, this is ongoing.
Ok, so...is this NEW? I'm wondering if this is stuff they've ALWAYS done (CIA/FBI/WhoeverTF), but is only now being made public? Or is this something that 9/11 opened up so that "justifiable lawlessness" is now the name of the day?
No, it isn't new. What concerns me the most is before they at least had to sneak around to do it. By the government 'giving' themselves the right to do it by association erodes our rights. Another brick in the wall of a police state.
If evidence gathered this way previously was introduced as evidence the judge would have to throw it out as a violation of our rights. Now the judge will have to view it as the government exercising their right.
Right. That's what I meant by "justifiable lawlessness."
Thought of this thread when I read it.
American student finds GPS tracker stuck to car, FBI shows up to reclaim its 'federal property' (http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/08/american-student-finds-gps-tracker-stuck-to-car-fbi-shows-up-to/)
QuoteMechanics spot strange things stuck under cars all the time, but when 20-year-old Yasir Afifi's ride was put up on lifts his shop found something that hadn't been kicked up from the road: a cylindrical tube connected to a device with an antenna. An extremely paranoid person would think they'd found a bomb, but the truth isn't much better. It was an FBI tracking device. Afifi posted pictures and his story on Reddit while a friend contemplated cunning things to do with it, sticking it to someone else's car or selling it on Craigslist. They didn't have long to ponder before long two "sneaky-looking" people were spotted outside his apartment. Afifi got in his car and drove off, only to be pulled over by FBI agents who demanded the device back, threatening "We're going to make this much more difficult for you if you don't cooperate."
Now, we've already given our opinions on using GPS technology like this and, while it's unknown whether these agents had a warrant to place this device, the 9th US Court of Appeals recently made one unnecessary for this sort of thing. The ACLU is working with Afifi to fight that ruling, and for now we're hoping that he, who is an American with an Egyptian father, is currently able to hit the town without agents following his every move. However, at this point they may not need a tracker: one agent who retrieved the device took the time to list off his favorite restaurants and even congratulated him on his new job.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 27, 2010, 06:52:40 AM
Quote from: Jenne on August 27, 2010, 03:41:22 AM
I had a big long post, but fuck it. You're right, Nigel, most poor are White.
Sigh. That's not even the point I was trying to correct. The point I was trying to correct was that in the USA, most brown people are not in fact poor.
I BLAME
the north.
AND ALSO
what do you mean by
poor and
most?
:mittens:
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 27, 2010, 04:50:08 AM
Quote from: Nigel on August 26, 2010, 10:05:45 PM
So, is the upshot of all of that, Jenne and Khara, that you are still insisting that "most" minorities in the United States are impoverished?
Why? Is it just to be "right" about something that could easily have been blown off as merely a poor choice of wording?
Because I'm starting to be pretty fucking offended.
Hush you poor smudgy person, we just want to help you. Now admit that you are poor.
:mittens: