Mike Kruger wrote:
> "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Mike Kruger wrote:
> >>
> >> The question in my mind isn't so much the raw material -- like videos
> >> taken
> >> by embedded police -- it's whether it is used inappropriately or whether
> >> the
> >> whole program is operated outside the oversight mechanisms that provide
> >> checks and balances in democratic systems.
> >
> > Leaving aside the issue of how to determine what groups are "bad",
> > i.e., pose a significant credible threat to the public good, without
> > any research/intelligence gathering, I'm curious- what "inappropriate
> > use" of videotapes of public events do you think possible? Again, the
> > videotaping we are discussing is being done at PUBLIC events that take
> > place on PUBLIC streets. If you or I choose to appear at a public event
> > we don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to our
> > physical appearance. The types of rallies and protests we're discussing
> > are designed as physical demonstrations of support for whatever
> > viewpoint the participants hold so if we attend a public rally in
> > support of a particular cause we not only give up that particular right
> > to privacy we INVITE publicity.
> > The question that remains then is what inappropriate use could such
> > images be put to by the police? Since we don't "disappear" political
> > dissidents in the US and US police actions are *all* subject to
> > oversight in the form of the courts, I'm at a loss to even imagine what
> > inappropriate use you envision.
> >
> Bob, you are setting up a situation in which information is collected in
> PUBLIC situations and where "police actions are *all* subject to oversight
> in the form of the courts"
>
> In order to answer your question about inappropriate use, I have to engage
> in what I hope is paranoia -- i.e. I hope I am expressing irrational fears
> about
>
> 1. Police informing my employer about certain suggestive political ideas I
> seem to hold.
>
> (in my case, my boss frankly couldn't care less, but ...)
>
> 2. Using this information as a way to create entries to other, less savory
> activities -- e.g. mining this information for leads to other activities
> that are questionable. Specifically, the fact that Bush seems to be stating
> he needs no court oversight for the NSA surveillance is very disturbing.
> And yes, I would feel the same way if Clinton had made the same claim.
>
> I'm aware the NSA isn't a local police agency. For your side of the fence,
> you can more easily make distinctions between the various roles of various
> policing bodies. They tend to blend together for us ordinary citizens.
Before I address your post I'd like to say thanks for keeping this
discussion on a civil level, Mike. After reading your posts here over
the years I expected no less of you but frankly, I'm often sadly amused
at how some of the people that accuse police of being jackbooted
fascists (not you) are unable to express themselves rationally but
instead resort to namecalling as if namecalling was a form of
persuasion.
Anyway, on to your post...
When I wrote that, "US police actions are *all* subject to oversight in
the form of the courts", I wasn't setting up a situation or creating a
hypothetical instance. That is the reality. Can I or any police officer
intentionally make a bad arrest, violate a person's constitutional
rights, or otherwise disregard the limitations placed upon us? Of
course. Do those things ever occur? Only a fool would argue that they
don't. That's why we have oversight in the form of courts. The judge
hearing the case can throw out a bad arrest. A federal prosecutor can
charge me with a crime if I violate someone's rights. A civil court can
award damages if I overstep my authority.
As to your specific concerns:
> 1. Police informing my employer about certain suggestive political ideas I
> seem to hold.
First, we're talking about police monitoring public actions on public
streets. Your boss is more likely to see you at that
rally/protest/whatever in a newspaper photo or on the 10:00 news than
he is to get a phone call from the police informing him that you're a
dangerous anti-American subversive. No faith in the good will of the
police is necessary to accept this. It's a matter of practicality. Even
if we had the inclination to inform your employer, why would we? To
leak information is in many cases a crime and in almost all cases an
actionable cause civilly so why would I or any cop risk my job, my
freedom, and my life savings to tell your boss, "Mike is a lefty?" That
leads us right back to the far more likely situation that someone's
boss will see them in the paper or on the television. Shall we then ban
all cameras from such events? I can hear the howls of the civil
libertarians at the mere suggestion of such an idea. Heck, I'd be
howling right along with them and I don't *like* the media; I view them
much the same as many view the police- often incompetent but a
necessary evil. (I think we are more necessary but others may disagree.
I also think we are more competent at our job than the media is at
their job but IMO that's not saying a whole lot. <g>)
> 2. Using this information as a way to create entries to other, less savory
> activities -- e.g. mining this information for leads to other activities
> that are questionable.
Do you mean that you fear being videotaped at a public event will lead
to an intensive investigation into your life? While that may happen in
novels, movies, and television it doesn't occur in real life. An
example- the Secret Service has been investigating possible threats to
US presidents for years. Being videotaped at certain types of events
will land you in a database as will checking certain books out of the
public library. What happens when you land in that database? Not much.
No agent is assigned to black bag your house, interview your neighbors,
audit your taxes, or follow you unless you keep popping up
spontaneously in that database. About all you could expect then would
be a visit by an agent from the local Secret Service field office. If
you don't foam at the mouth when you speak to him or her, that's it.
Why not? Mostly because even if the inclination to pursue it further
were there, the manpower is not and never will be. A background
investigation into even a bland, middle of the road, not a darned
unusual thing about him, individual takes on average 30 to 40 man
hours. Multiply that by one million- a ridiculously understated figure
of those that have protested against the war in Iraq, for instance- and
you'll begin to see why such fears are baseless.
> Specifically, the fact that Bush seems to be stating
> he needs no court oversight for the NSA surveillance is very disturbing.
> And yes, I would feel the same way if Clinton had made the same claim.
I believe that the claim being made by the Administration is that they
don't need *prior* approval in the form of search warrants for the
surveillance. As long as their activities remain in the public arena-
monitoring the Internet, for instance- they are on solid legal ground
but like any other exercise of police power, those activities are
*still* subject to oversight after the fact through the courts. The
biggest problem I see is that society is having difficulty keeping up
with technology where the law is concerned.
Regards,
Bob Hunt
(Read: more liberals think that "people