The quotes from the former FBI agent, showing complete disregard for the 4th Amendment, send a clear message about how deep illegal behavior runs in the FBI.
Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
161–170 of 293 posts
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether a warrant is required is a federal Constitutional question. Requiring consent to record a conversation is a statutory creation (and state law at that). State law doesn't define what does or does not violate the Constitution.
Presumably State law still applies to the activities of FBI employees in that state, unless the Federal government has passed a law specifically exempting them.
Interesting point. In regards to wiretaps https://www.privacyrights.org/content/wiretapping-and-eavesd... seems to imply that no, Federal Agents when investigating are not bound by State law but by federal law:
---
Courts have held that the California law does not apply to wiretaps by federal agents authorized by a valid federal warrant. For example, federal agents may go to federal court and obtain a warrant to place a wiretap in California, even though state officials may be barred by state law from obtaining a wiretap under similar circumstances.
---
In general I suspect they cannot be prevented by local state laws from doing their jobs.
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
#3. Other countries are spying on us and are sharing the data with our government...
Yes, but my point is that this is done in the interest of national/international security (there is no financial incentive for the government). Corporations do their monitoring purely for their own financial gain. The government is like a parent watching a child to make sure that the child doesn't get hurt - The interests of the parent are aligned with those of the child. A corporation is more like a pedophile - The…
> The government is like a parent watching a child
I think it's great that you've lived in a bubble all your life.
But you should make a conscious decision whether to remain in that bubble, or find out the truth about the world around you.
Because the truth is an ugly thing these days.
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's a statist perspective, but hardly radically-so. From your link: > The Home Office has explained this approach as "the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual. No individual can choose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law." That's the difference between the police and private citi…
Your quote says nothing about the police having unique or extreme powers, it says only that individuals have no right to opt out of society's defense mechanisms.
Further, your quoted line, that conflates aggregate consent with individual consent, while trying to distinguish them, making the utterly self-contradictory claim that "no individual can chose to withdraw his or her consent" , which comes from a 2012 commentary opinion by the Home Office, not the classic Peelian principles. (And it is likely a confusion of wording, not their actual understanding of the law or principles.)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-conse...
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Perhaps you are mistaking the ideal government from the actual government. Governments are repeat offenders, and they lie to the public constantly. Its no secret - look it up. Yet they are so powerful, that it happens anyway. Its also no secret that the people who control the government have interests in retaining power and accumulating wealth. Politicians don't even deny that they can be bought, money is free speech…
I'm not describing the ideal, I'm describing the reality.
Digression: my mom loves Hillary Clinton. She's an immigrant, consumes very little American media, but she is a staunch Clinton supporter. Clinton recites all the buzzwords she likes: children, education, security. She views politically radical ideas with deep suspicion and views nonconformity as a character flaw. I look at the government we have, and can't help but think it's exactly what she would do if she were in charge: lots of benefits for retirees, enormous spending on education, vigorous enforcement of drug laws, long punishments for criminals. What exactly would we do differently if my mom were in charge instead of the shadowy cabal of rich people and purchased politicians? Very little.
And the fact is, she is in charge. She's who votes, without fail, in every election. The government doesn't need to keep her in line. The government is what she uses to keep everyone else in line.
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a statist perspective, but hardly radically-so. From your link: > The Home Office has explained this approach as "the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual. No individual can choose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law." That's the difference between the police and private citi…
Your quote says nothing about the police having unique or extreme powers, it says only that individuals have no right to opt out of society's defense mechanisms. Further, your quoted line, that conflates aggregate consent with individual consent, while trying to distinguish them, making the utterly self-contradictory claim that "no individual can chose to withdraw his or her consent" , which comes from a 2012 comment…
Individuals can withdraw their consent from interactions with other individuals. They cannot do so in interactions with the police. That's a unique power. And while the Home Office stated it, it's the basis for policing in every developed country.
And there is nothing contradictory about the Home Office quote. The government is the instrument through which the people, acting collectively, coerce individuals to behave. The collective needs to consent, but the individual doesn't need to. That's the point of government.
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#167If that's true we are moving into a scary world pretty much like 1984 where everything you do is monitored all the time. Add voice, face recognition, surveillance drones, cheap data storage and AI to the mix it seems pretty soon everything you do in a public place will be recorded and analyzed. And all this can be done fully automated. I hope people will recognize that some laws need to change. Surveillance makes sen…
Total surveillance is sold under guise of preventing terrorism, but the main effect is simple: it allows the status quo to become entrenched and permanent. You are rendered economically exploitable and politically neutered. There is a reason the state and intelligencies, from the Pinkertons to the FBI, have had a historical obsession with extensive spying on political movements and economic assembly. Both have real p…
"Entrenched and permanent" is a bit exaggerated, as the governments of pervasive-surveillance East Germany and the Soviet Union discovered.
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#168The frequency response of most microphones (before DSP filtering) does not perfectly cut-off above 20 khz. I suppose if you were really paranoid you could walk around blasting exceptionally loud noise around and above this freq for privacy ;). Although your local dogs might not be too happy
I realize I'm being a stereotypical message board nerd about what was presumably a joke, but: I don't understand what you're proposing. Surely the extraneous frequencies could just be filtered out at playback? Or ignored entirely, since--as you imply--human ears filter that out anyway.
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#169As this seems to come up more and more. I can't fathom why most people can't get what's being fed to them by our media sources. http://craigbhulet.com/10%20Mega-Corporations.jpg
This chart albeit a bit big of a image demonstrates which media entities are owned/connected to whom. Pretty interesting
Re: Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Program in the Bay Area
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's a statist perspective, but hardly radically-so. From your link: > The Home Office has explained this approach as "the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual. No individual can choose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law." That's the difference between the police and private citi…
BTW, is it really your opinion that the state has a legitimate claim to nigh-unlimited rule over the public? The Constitution and Bill of Rights was a best-effort attempt to prevent tyranny, not an effort to draw a line for rulers to toe and reach over as far as they can.