Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 293 posts

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#141

Post by Mendenhall »

Hmm I wonder how this would work considering its all things openly available to be recorded.

Follow a federal agent home from work and film them and their house. Film their children going to school and post pictures locations and times online, also taking photos of other relatives, friends etc and where they live and their phone numbers and post it all online.

Have your friends join in and keep posting every detail and picture you can get of federal agents and their families etc and compile it into a website.

Then let me know how that works out.

Edit: Does anyone know of any USA law that stands against such activity?

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#143

Post by rayiner »

themartorana wrote: post #135
optforfon wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has vastly more information on everyone in America. Orders of magnitude. (and by extension maybe foreign intelligence agencies) The government is just playing catch-up! I rather our slightly dysfunctional government have more information about me than an ad company that's the play toy of tech-utopian billionaires

Why? One wants you to look at ads more relevant to you than random placement. The other wants you to stay in line, not question your leaders, accept the oligarchy, and if you don't, your life will be made a living hell until you are rendered neutral. Yeah go government.

The government doesn't need to coerce the average person to stay in line. The government is the instrument through which the average person forces the fringe elements to stay in line. The average person, thus, has a lot more to fear from corporations than from the government.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#144

Post by woodman »

askldfhjkasfhd wrote: post #95
woodman wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives have a pretty obvious hole in their logic, where they both want to legislate morality and reduce the state's ability to enforce such legislation. The modern liberal on the other hand is much more single minded in the expansion of federal responsibility, and logically granting the powers necessary to accomplish said responsibilities (firearm registration, clipper chip, etc). Pretending that it isn't a fa…

On one hand, it's isn't a false choice -- the reality is that if you want to support a political candidate in the US in 2016, you're making that exact choice. On the other, I totally agree -- they both want to legislate morality. On the gripping hand, I'm forced to wonder if there was a situation where conservatives started burning their garbage in their home , would liberals be OK with it? Or is the "gay sex in the…

> ...if you want to support a political candidate...

That is the false choice, also commonly found in the form "the lesser of two evils" or "the most electable".

> That's the only way to torture this analogy into shape.

I can think of a better one, better because it actually happened. An anarchist starts making a bunch of noise about how 3d printers enable individuals to produce extremely low quality guns in the privacy of their own homes. Liberals are outraged, propose legislation to ban such activity - then float the lead balloon of 3d printer technology regulation. Like the burning garbage analogy, externalities are used as justification for liberty curtailment, but unlike burning garbage - such externalities are not a certainty (in fact home firearm production has been legal for a very long time). The liberal's real beef is with the threat to the state's authority, the more often the state's regulations are sidestepped - the weaker it appears.

So the short answer is this: liberals, like conservatives, are fine with private activities that don't threaten their world views. Unfortunately liberals have a very detailed idea of the way the world should work, whereas the conservative imagination doesn't go much further than approved penis destinations.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#145

Post by rayiner »

Mendenhall wrote: post #141

Hmm I wonder how this would work considering its all things openly available to be recorded. Follow a federal agent home from work and film them and their house. Film their children going to school and post pictures locations and times online, also taking photos of other relatives, friends etc and where they live and their phone numbers and post it all online. Have your friends join in and keep posting every detail a…

I don't see how that's relevant. The whole point of the government is for it to have a monopoly on law enforcement. They're supposed to be able to do stuff you and I can't do.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#147

Post by marincounty »

maxxxxx wrote: post #70
imaginenore wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't have an expectation of privacy in public places. Facial recognition can be beat by a hat + sunglasses (which is the hugest plot hole in Person of Interest, the characters never even attempt to disguise themselves).

I don't want to live in a world where I have to wear a hat + sunglasses.

I think it's a good idea to get used to wearing sunglasses.

This next paragraph is a bit offtopic, but I think we will look back with regret at how free we were with our picture being taken.

Right now--I don't think it's acceptable behavior to be clicking away. It used to be cute, now it's just teenage behavior. To the Shutterbug who can't go anywhere without taking your pictures--at at least don't automatically post? Or, maybe put the camera/phone in your pocket? Enjoy the moment? Or, at least let the people around you enjoy the moment?

If anyone cares the microphone in the courthouse light was for these realeste investors whom were rigging foreclosures in Alameda, San Mateo, etc. They were paying other buyers to not bid on foreclosures. I always felt not enough people show up at these auctions. Just don't violate The Sherman Anti-trust Act.

https://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2015/two-nor...

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#148

Post by srtjstjsj »

rayiner wrote: post #145
Mendenhall wrote: post #141

Hmm I wonder how this would work considering its all things openly available to be recorded. Follow a federal agent home from work and film them and their house. Film their children going to school and post pictures locations and times online, also taking photos of other relatives, friends etc and where they live and their phone numbers and post it all online. Have your friends join in and keep posting every detail a…

I don't see how that's relevant. The whole point of the government is for it to have a monopoly on law enforcement. They're supposed to be able to do stuff you and I can't do.

That's not the whole point of government, that is a radical statist perspective.

See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

> the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area

#150

Post by rdtsc »

mike_hock wrote: post #4

> If you're going to conduct criminal activity, do it in the privacy of your own home. > That was the original intention of the 4th amendment. Wat. The intention of the 4th amendment was to enable criminal activity, but confine it to private property? Not to protect citizens' privacy from government snooping without probable cause? The intent was to prevent the executive branch from indiscriminately "searching" (and…

> Wat.

It is true if it is true for you. Let's pay attention who says it: "Jeff Harp, a KPIX 5 security analyst and former FBI special agent"

That is absolutely how FBI and large parts of the executive branch see the Constitution. This annoying piece of paper, that prevents them doing their job, and enables criminals to get away with crimes.

Post reply on HN