| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/11/2010 12:31:10 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by bmatt17:
I lost a little bit of respect for Canada when they caved to US pressure and sent Mark Emery to us. |
That was because almost all of his seeds were sold in the US. He was supposed to be gone for 25 years when first caught. |
|
|
|
10/11/2010 12:41:37 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by bmatt17:
I lost a little bit of respect for Canada when they caved to US pressure and sent Mark Emery to us. |
That was because almost all of his seeds were sold in the US. He was supposed to be gone for 25 years when first caught. |
I may be wrong, but the way I understood it was that he wasn't breaking any Canadian laws. I wouldn't expect to be deported if I posted a blasphemous comment online or mailed a blasphemous letter to someone that requested it to a country that doesn't have the same freedom of speech that the US does. I would expect Canada to stand up for it's citizens rights when they weren't breaking any Canadian laws. |
|
|
|
10/11/2010 12:50:35 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by bmatt17:
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by bmatt17:
I lost a little bit of respect for Canada when they caved to US pressure and sent Mark Emery to us. |
That was because almost all of his seeds were sold in the US. He was supposed to be gone for 25 years when first caught. |
I may be wrong, but the way I understood it was that he wasn't breaking any Canadian laws. I wouldn't expect to be deported if I posted a blasphemous comment online or mailed a blasphemous letter to someone that requested it to a country that doesn't have the same freedom of speech that the US does. I would expect Canada to stand up for it's citizens rights when they weren't breaking any Canadian laws. |
He broke the law in the U.S., and the U.S. has an extradition treaty with us. If you send materials that are illegal in the U.S., TO the U.S., you are bound by their laws. Period. If he wanted to sell seeds in the U.S., he should have done so from a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty. |
|
|
|
10/11/2010 01:02:43 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sometimes it seems we hold personal freedom up so high that we lose sight of reasonableness. Personal responsibility and law enforcement have their very real place and I would hate to live in a state that had neither.
The issue in front of the court, BTW, wasn't whether the guy's car could be tracked with a GPS transponder, the issue was whether they could put it on his car when it was in his driveway. |
When I park my car in my driveway, I expect it will be left alone without having to construct a private fortress.
"This strict application of precedent really means that only people who can afford to fence off their driveways have a reasonable expectation of privacy, as pointed out by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski in his dissenting opinion."
Evidently, as the ninth circuit court sees it, real privacy is just for the rich.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2010 01:37:48 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sometimes it seems we hold personal freedom up so high that we lose sight of reasonableness. Personal responsibility and law enforcement have their very real place and I would hate to live in a state that had neither.
The issue in front of the court, BTW, wasn't whether the guy's car could be tracked with a GPS transponder, the issue was whether they could put it on his car when it was in his driveway. |
When I park my car in my driveway, I expect it will be left alone without having to construct a private fortress.
"This strict application of precedent really means that only people who can afford to fence off their driveways have a reasonable expectation of privacy, as pointed out by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski in his dissenting opinion."
Evidently, as the ninth circuit court sees it, real privacy is just for the rich. |
How rich do you think two garbage bags of marijuana will getcha? :P Enough to buy a damn fence...
Interesting to actually read the ruling (here). It's not very long.
Don't think I'm all rabid anti-pot, I'm just not all for it either. |
|
|
|
10/11/2010 01:30:07 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Law enforcement will stop going after people when it stops being illegal and, one would hope, not a day sooner. I don't want my law enforcement deciding which laws are worth enforcing and which aren't. That leads to trouble. |
Like it or not... reality is that they do EXACTLY that all the time. Ever bothered to report a petty theft... Good luck with that (oh they will fill out the paperwork if pressed)...
I have no real issue with the tracking AS LONG AS they can get a court order via a judge to agree there is enough evidence BEFORE and that the ability is given for a set period of time and requires another order after x time period with a specified max timeframe. Without that they should not be allowed... either track or add a device on private property (I know it's the latter at issue here)..... besides a lot of cars already have the tracking all they have to do is call lojack or onstar or whatever... and most people carry trackable devices as well.
As to whether pot should be illegal... well nother whole pot of discussion.... but it worked so well for grog in the 30's I guess it's worth trying again :-/ I don't see how you can have far more dangerous drugs freely available and advertising while pod is a criminal offence... but hey... we all have different view of common sense. Not going to matter to me one way or another, just seems to be inconsistent to me.... |
|
|
|
10/11/2010 02:33:35 PM · #32 |
The sad truth is that unfortunately most laws have not kept pace with the new technology, and laws are unbelievably slow to change. Did the police push the envelope in this instance, that is something that is open to debate... and rest assured that the decision rendered in this instance will definitely be appealed to a higher court.
It is mind boggling that people would take the police to task for an undertaking that ... to date at least, is perfectly legal. We are focusing on the wrong end of the legal framework... the final decision rests not with the police but the courts.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/11/2010 02:55:10 PM · #33 |
basically we have yet to define what the boundaries of privacy are. But i see this as again to simply following a suspect, becuase that what they are doing. they are just doing it from farther away.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2010 05:59:22 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sometimes it seems we hold personal freedom up so high that we lose sight of reasonableness. Personal responsibility and law enforcement have their very real place and I would hate to live in a state that had neither.
The issue in front of the court, BTW, wasn't whether the guy's car could be tracked with a GPS transponder, the issue was whether they could put it on his car when it was in his driveway. |
When I park my car in my driveway, I expect it will be left alone without having to construct a private fortress.
"This strict application of precedent really means that only people who can afford to fence off their driveways have a reasonable expectation of privacy, as pointed out by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski in his dissenting opinion."
Evidently, as the ninth circuit court sees it, real privacy is just for the rich. |
How rich do you think two garbage bags of marijuana will getcha? :P Enough to buy a damn fence...
Interesting to actually read the ruling (here). It's not very long.
Don't think I'm all rabid anti-pot, I'm just not all for it either. |
Should I also have to buy a fence and post signs to keep the neighbor's dog from leaving it's mess in my yard?
Or to keep kids from using my yard as their football field?
It's not about pot and whether or not it should be legal, it's about how far the police can intrude into someone's life without seeking a warrant. The times when the tracking device was placed while the vehicle was in a parking lot or on the street is one thing. When it was parked in his driveway is another thing. |
|
|
|
10/11/2010 06:01:26 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
basically we have yet to define what the boundaries of privacy are. But i see this as again to simply following a suspect, becuase that what they are doing. they are just doing it from farther away. |
So, if they were watching you have sex with your S.O. or maybe your mistress, that would be ok because they're not actually there in person or looking through your window? They're just doing it from farther away? |
|
|
|
10/11/2010 06:21:30 PM · #36 |
technically, yes. if i am able to be seen through my window, whether from the street or a telescope its fair game. if i want privacy its up to me to secure it. close the blinds, now if someone took measures to deliberately invade my privacy, that's wrong.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2010 08:46:14 PM · #37 |
| Oh no, they aren't peeping through your windows, they installed a miniature camera in your headboard. Transmits wirelessly to the van 6 blocks away. |
|
|
|
10/11/2010 08:59:40 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Oh no, they aren't peeping through your windows, they installed a miniature camera in your headboard. Transmits wirelessly to the van 6 blocks away. |
nope that's an invasion of privacy, now if they aim it through my windows and broadcast 6 blocks away. fair game.
its the same thing that goes on with the right of photography.
to put i into perspective with the judges ruling a few posts up.
if i take a picture of your car in your driveway, that's legit, you cant do anything about it. But if i aim my camera over your fence to get a picture of your car in your yard, assuming your fence block my normal view, and i need to stand on a ladder or make an effort to get a picture that I cant normally get from a public view, that's invading your privacy.
I don't think our privacy is getting taken away, its just getting easier to invade what we incorrectly thought was privacy.
i crack up all the time i read these privacy activists railing on google street view and such. they put a camera on a van and took pictures and put it on the internet. really i could do see that same stuff driving down the street, but because i can access it from my computer its an invasion of privacy. please, spare me.
at this point we need to assume that everything is public unless we take measure to protect it. and its not the governments fault, its our own, we want this technology but not when its used against us.
Message edited by author 2010-10-11 21:01:43. |
|
|
|
10/12/2010 12:34:25 AM · #39 |
Where do you draw the line then? That's the question, isn't it? Suppose they have a warrant and install the camera in your bedroom, is that still invading your privacy? The act is no different, it's just sanctioned by the appropriate authority.
FWIW, the judges ruling was merely the majority opinion of the 9th Circuit, it doesn't resolve the question, it simply elevates it. |
|
|
|
10/12/2010 07:54:55 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Where do you draw the line then? That's the question, isn't it? Suppose they have a warrant and install the camera in your bedroom, is that still invading your privacy? The act is no different, it's just sanctioned by the appropriate authority.
FWIW, the judges ruling was merely the majority opinion of the 9th Circuit, it doesn't resolve the question, it simply elevates it. |
well a warrant is a warrant. If the authorities have a legitimate reason to suspect illegal activity they get a warrant which allows them to invade privacy. You cant just invade someones privacy becuase you want to, a judge has to allow it.
this ruling just states that a car in your open driveway is not considered in a private area, and i agree.
We are still trying to define what constitutes the boundaries or privacy. I know how i define boundaries, i stated it above, technology is allowing easier and easier tracking and surveillance.
we just have to get used to the fact that technology is making our world less private and the authorities are just trying to be able use that technology.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2010 09:42:01 AM · #41 |
The effect of this action is to destroy the individual - during the - oh so important "course of the law", Ray says its destined for the Supreme Court, (new super conservative version) - well that will takes decades. Its clearly a case of unAmerican activity by the police. Right and wrong is not determined by rule of law. Slavery was just as wrong when it was legal as when it was illegal.
Effectively the powers that have power use legal "Terror" to attempt to control the population (see: Driving While Black), so as to preserve the insane profit margins and total control of the Corporate Structure that rules every aspect of American and increasingly world life.
When a corporation gets caught, they fire the current CEO, and pay a token fine - usually less than a single bonus they pay themselves. Just the "cost of doing business" (see: The Pinto - its been going on for years!)
I love the concept of America, but being born in NJ in the 60's I've watched my beautiful land, a beacon on the hill for the world, turn into the engine of the destroyer.
Now I live in The Netherlands, I hope never to leave here. No crime, no poverty, hardly any litter, cant say I've seen racism either, they appreciate art, and people say hello to each other on the streets.
And the Photography is a million times more interesting here than anything I ever saw in NJ or Florida! Buildings are each unique - not cookie cutter repetition. Since to a corporation building the same house across the land is efficient and allows a greater profit for the executives. Every house built in the USA for decades is a clone. Ugh!
Besides, why would you want to smoke a natural plant? When you can take a pharmaceutical corporations product and be part of the ongoing testing? When they prove fatal, you can always sue (right Ray?). Sure, they're very addictive, and the effects are pretty overwhelming and disabling.... But Think of the Corporate Profits!!!!
Amsterdamman - oh yea! |
|
|
|
10/12/2010 02:19:15 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by mBastin:
Why is it such a big deal? if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Simple as that. |
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
- Pastor Martin Neimoller |
|
|
|
10/12/2010 05:39:52 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Where do you draw the line then? That's the question, isn't it? Suppose they have a warrant and install the camera in your bedroom, is that still invading your privacy? The act is no different, it's just sanctioned by the appropriate authority.
FWIW, the judges ruling was merely the majority opinion of the 9th Circuit, it doesn't resolve the question, it simply elevates it. |
well a warrant is a warrant. If the authorities have a legitimate reason to suspect illegal activity they get a warrant which allows them to invade privacy. You cant just invade someones privacy becuase you want to, a judge has to allow it.
this ruling just states that a car in your open driveway is not considered in a private area, and i agree.
We are still trying to define what constitutes the boundaries or privacy. I know how i define boundaries, i stated it above, technology is allowing easier and easier tracking and surveillance.
we just have to get used to the fact that technology is making our world less private and the authorities are just trying to be able use that technology. |
So, if I come over and let my Great Dane take a crap in your driveway, that's OK because it's not a private area?
|
|
|
|
10/12/2010 06:44:38 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
So, if I come over and let my Great Dane take a crap in your driveway, that's OK because it's not a private area? |
The court ruling specifically mentions a child getting a ball from under the car. You'd have a problem with a neighborhood kid getting a ball from under the car on your driveway because your privacy is at stake?
Message edited by author 2010-10-12 18:45:24. |
|
|
|
10/12/2010 07:31:01 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
So, if I come over and let my Great Dane take a crap in your driveway, that's OK because it's not a private area? |
The court ruling specifically mentions a child getting a ball from under the car. You'd have a problem with a neighborhood kid getting a ball from under the car on your driveway because your privacy is at stake? |
But a neighborhood kid isn't creeping under my car at 4am. |
|
|
|
10/12/2010 07:38:58 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
So, if I come over and let my Great Dane take a crap in your driveway, that's OK because it's not a private area? |
well now we are getting into pathogenic material, that may fall into another category. :) |
|
|
|
10/12/2010 08:05:39 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
So, if I come over and let my Great Dane take a crap in your driveway, that's OK because it's not a private area? |
The court ruling specifically mentions a child getting a ball from under the car. You'd have a problem with a neighborhood kid getting a ball from under the car on your driveway because your privacy is at stake? |
But a neighborhood kid isn't creeping under my car at 4am. |
Neither is the Great Dane... ;P But this response isn't very logical because I'm guessing your "rights" don't change from 4PM to 4AM. So the time is a red herring.
Message edited by author 2010-10-12 20:07:05. |
|
|
|
10/12/2010 08:14:18 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
So, if I come over and let my Great Dane take a crap in your driveway, that's OK because it's not a private area? |
The court ruling specifically mentions a child getting a ball from under the car. You'd have a problem with a neighborhood kid getting a ball from under the car on your driveway because your privacy is at stake? |
Let's get off this ridiculousness right now. The child getting a ball out from under your car isn't going there for the purpose of leaving something that can be used against you. He/she isn't negating your right to feel safe on your property. Now, while many of us might not have a problem with a child (or anyone else for that matter), going onto your property and thus breaching your line of privacy, in order to retrieve something that accidentally ended up there, we still have a right to tell them to get the hell OFF, if we wished. It might makes us crotchety old men (or women), but it's our right. The dog leaving the droppings is inconveniencing us, and in most areas I know, we have the right to go after the owner of the animal should we know who it is. That dog is also NOT doing anything that breaches our right to privacy.
That the court ruling used that analogy is just plain sad. It's an obvious attempt at blurring the line and the issue, and that it may have actually WORKED is sadder yet.
To equate some child running onto your driveway and going under your car to FETCH something that is theirs that ended up there unintentionally with FBI agents going under your car to LEAVE something, intentionally, with the express purpose of using it to track your movements is absolutely motherlovin' INSANE.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2010 08:25:18 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
To equate some child running onto your driveway and going under your car to FETCH something that is theirs that ended up there unintentionally with FBI agents going under your car to LEAVE something, intentionally, with the express purpose of using it to track your movements is absolutely motherlovin' INSANE. |
So do you have issue with the actual leaving of the tracking device? It would not be OK for them to do this if the car was on the street? I'm trying to see where the issue is in your mind.
It's ok for a child to get a ball on your property (unless you tell them not to with a "No Tresspassing" sign or something)
It's, presumably (and you can correct me) ok to place a tracking device on your car if it's on the street.
It's not ok to place the tracking device while the car is on your property?
I think people here probably have more of an issue with the tracker itself than the fact it was done in the dude's driveway. Just my hunch though.
Also, to at least make clear the details of the case in question. The car was parked next to the guy's trailer. My guess is it's a mobile home park or something where your "property" is probably very different than a single family home lot. I'm guessing people are cutting through each other's "yard" all the time...
Message edited by author 2010-10-12 20:27:59. |
|
|
|
10/12/2010 08:35:42 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
To equate some child running onto your driveway and going under your car to FETCH something that is theirs that ended up there unintentionally with FBI agents going under your car to LEAVE something, intentionally, with the express purpose of using it to track your movements is absolutely motherlovin' INSANE. |
So do you have issue with the actual leaving of the tracking device? It would not be OK for them to do this if the car was on the street? I'm trying to see where the issue is in your mind.
It's ok for a child to get a ball on your property (unless you tell them not to with a "No Tresspassing" sign or something)
It's, presumably (and you can correct me) ok to place a tracking device on your car if it's on the street.
It's not ok to place the tracking device while the car is on your property?
I think people here probably have more of an issue with the tracker itself than the fact it was done in the dude's driveway. Just my hunch though.
Also, to at least make clear the details of the case in question. The car was parked next to the guy's trailer. My guess is it's a mobile home park or something where your "property" is probably very different than a single family home lot. I'm guessing people are cutting through each other's "yard" all the time... |
I have a problem with using devices like that without a warrant, period, but it becomes a more involved problem when you THINK you're protected by certain laws and find out that, nuh uh, maybe not.
That's where the REAL problem happens. |
|
