• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Google something totally innocent, house gets raided by the cops

#81
electracoyote said:
I never said it could be totally eliminated. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be combated.

And we routinely regulate and impose restrictions on traffic, calories, and smoking. Indeed, every time you turn around there's a new law.

Protecting ourselves is part of the deal, no matter what the threat.
Click to expand...

You're only saying this because you believe that you won't be the focus, you won't be suspected, you won't be harmed by actions and practices that violate the 4th amendment.
 
#82
Phil Smith said:
As was mentioned you're making up stuff to try to prove your point. It's not the federal government, but we do know thanks to Edward Snowden that the "government" and private security contractors are capable of doing such a thing. These folks were lucky that they were "white", had them been a person of "color", you may be reading about an entirely different thing altogether.
Click to expand...

Ok, so we've got what seems to be a poorly written and sensationalist article, anti-government stuff, people exaggerating the circumstances behind it, the "if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" crowd, the civil libertarians chiming in, an argument between aborgman and guy, and now racial undertones thrown into the thread, all in less than 4 full pages.

All we need now is for someone to throw in a few comments about gun control, George Zimmerman, and Hitler and I think we're good.
 
#83
sloasdaylight said:
Ok, so we've got what seems to be a poorly written and sensationalist article, anti-government stuff, people exaggerating the circumstances behind it, the "if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" crowd, the civil libertarians chiming in, an argument between aborgman and guy, and now racial undertones thrown into the thread, all in less than 4 full pages.

All we need now is for someone to throw in a few comments about gun control, George Zimmerman, and Hitler and I think we're good.
Click to expand...

And now we have everything. :D
 
#85
MJ5150 said:
I think those two are the same person.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Smeagol.jpg


?
 
#86
electracoyote said:
"Do nothing." It's one philosophy.
Click to expand...

No, not "do nothing".

Do only things which don't violate civil liberties and which are efficient at preventing terror, while not escalating to a point far beyond that justified by the actual risk.

electracoyote said:
I don't think it works so well for the families of those killed by religious/political terrorism.
Click to expand...

It works just as well as what we're currently doing - at a much lower cost in terms of resources and infringement on liberty.

electracoyote said:
In fact, I don't think "do nothing/accept it" works for too many people at all.
Click to expand...

Probably true - because most Americans have such a poor education in probability they actually believe the security theater is making them measurably safer.
 
#87
Balog said:
Orders of magnitude more people are killed by traffic accidents/being overweight/getting cancer from smoking etc etc every year than by terrorism. It is a miniscule risk, that cannot be totally eliminated. So yeah, accepting that bad things happen and not destroying the freedoms this country was based on in a pointless attempt to eliminate a tiny risk is a good course of action.
Click to expand...

And we, as citizens, expect our government to put laws in place to at least attempt to mitigate some of the more extreme examples above. We criminalize speeding and reckless driving, we encourage our citizens to exercise and eat right, and we place restrictions on where and when you are allowed to poison yourself with smoking. No one thinks the danger can be eliminated but most people feel that reasonable restrictions are OK.

Again, what should the police have done differently when provided the information, by a somewhat-neutral third party, about this? Should they have ignored it or checked it out?

This issue and the issue of the NSA and their monitoring of our activities are completely different and seem to have been conflated in some minds here. This is simply a case of the police being called and checking up on potentially suspicious activities.
 
#88
electracoyote said:
And we routinely regulate and impose restrictions on traffic, calories, and smoking. Indeed, every time you turn around there's a new law.
Click to expand...

Yes... and some of them are logical, statistically defensible, and generate positive results... others are illogical, based on emotion, and do nothing at all to protect anyone.

I don't buy the argument that because we want/need the former, we just have to accept the latter.
 
#89
boynamedsuse said:
Rough neighborhood. :ninja: :help:
Click to expand...

Ha, and the two who dont live in my house are beginners.
And someone got shot at the liquor store down the street. Likely someone wanted them to stop their drumming.

sloasdaylight said:
Ok, so we've got what seems to be a poorly written and sensationalist article, anti-government stuff, people exaggerating the circumstances behind it, the "if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" crowd, the civil libertarians chiming in, an argument between aborgman and guy, and now racial undertones thrown into the thread, all in less than 4 full pages.

All we need now is for someone to throw in a few comments about gun control, George Zimmerman, and Hitler and I think we're good.
Click to expand...

Hitler baby disapproves
8612563.jpg
 
#91
Balog said:
Invalid Link Removed

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/nati...knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/

Mom looks up pressure cookers, Dad looks up backpacks, Son reads stories on Boston Marathon bombing. Men with guns show up to harrass family. Imagine what would have happened if the dad had been one of those annoying civil libertarians that wants a warrant before allowing anonymous thugs to rifle through his house? "Better call out the SWAT team boys, this one's read the Constitution and you know only domestic terrorists do that!" Absolutely disgusting. And frightening.

Moral of the story is: you have no privacy, ever. The NSA is tracking your location through your phone, knows who you email, who you call, who you text, what websites you read, what searches you do... Orwell couldn't have dreamed of this level of monitoring.
Click to expand...

Typical example of the lengths our news entertainment industry will go these days to stir those with a desire to be stirred.

Turns out the guy's boss ratted him out as a kook, right after he was fired for being a kook on the job.

That the story was fronted as an example of the NSA's "power" to look up our poop chutes at will, it's just another example of over reaction by those who fall for all the fear mongering being practiced by our politicians these days, and endlessly hawked by our news entertainment industry.

Keep the sheeple stirred up and government can do whatever it wants as we endlessly bleat (and focus on) Strawman of the week Oh my! evil drones and innocents OH my! Terrorists and fracking OH MY!
 
#92
So... Not reading the entire thread. Sue me! ;)

One spouse leaves their employment for whatever reason. Employer IT department notices the ex-employee's work computer was used to search on pressure cookers and backpacks. Employer notifies authorities, who investigate. Turns out to be a false alarm.

Was the employer wrong to notify authorities? Should authorities have ignored the report?

Trying to understand the outrage. This was not a case of NSA data harvesting.
 
#93
I blame this on winning the Cold War. To the victor goes the spoils they say; what they don't tell you is to the victor goes the PIA.

If you had just let the Soviets win the Cold War they would be the ones that are getting attacked. ;)

Let this be a lesson. Even when you're right (democratic) you're wrong. At least to the criminals of the world.

I used to think the Michigan militias were all whacks; not sure of that anymore.
 
#96
according to the first hand account written by the woman it seems it was because of their google searches at home and "involved also things my husband looked up at his old job", but that is what they found out later. it seems, however, that their own personal web usage at home was noted and referenced as well.
 
#97
eyeballkid said:
according to the first hand account written by the woman it seems it was because of their google searches at home and "involved also things my husband looked up at his old job", but that is what they found out later. it seems, however, that their own personal web usage at home was noted and referenced as well.
Click to expand...

It was not a first-hand account.

I posted this earlier but apparently it is worth posting again. This is from Catalano's blog entry:

That’s how I imagine it played out, anyhow.

...

I was at work when it happened.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed
 
#98
Febs said:
It was not a first-hand account.

I posted this earlier but apparently it is worth posting again. This is from Catalano's blog entry:



Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

there are two links... the first is written by the woman who's house it was. yes, they spoke to her husband, but it's by the people who it happened to.


she says they we're led to believe it was solely from searches on their home computer, but later found it also involved searches at his former job.
 
#99
sevenorchids said:
And we, as citizens, expect our government to put laws in place to at least attempt to mitigate some of the more extreme examples above. We criminalize speeding and reckless driving, we encourage our citizens to exercise and eat right, and we place restrictions on where and when you are allowed to poison yourself with smoking. No one thinks the danger can be eliminated but most people feel that reasonable restrictions are OK.
Click to expand...

I would disagree that these are reasonable restrictions. How many people do you know that follow the speed limit? When I am out on the road I observe 90% of people driving in excess of the speed limit.
Reckless driving? Thats kind of subjective isnt it? Pretty much means a cop can pull me over and cite me for aggressive driving just because he feels like it.
Health laws? why cant business owners decide for themselves whether they want people smoking in their facility? When I play shows in bars my mature girl friend cant come watch me play because she is under 21. She would never get intoxicated to the point she couldnt drive and she doesnt smoke but because of stupid smoking laws she cant watch me play shows. Meanwhile there are people way over the legal driving limit who leave the bar and immediately drive on busy roads.

How do any of those laws make sense?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back