RE: Things you can't take pictures of in public

["Bruce Ediger" <eballen1 () qwest net>]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Larry Seltzer wrote:

> So we shouldn't have an FBI? Obviously these things are balancing acts, and
> we've already suggested elsewhere in this thread how outside monitoring is
> possible.

Should we have a national secret police?  I would vote "no", but the
decision is already made.  I doubt the FBI has contributed much over
the course of their rather sordid history.  The abuses more than make
up for the successes.  But that constitutes my opinion.

The problems I have with universal surveillance involve my *rights*
as a US citizen, and probably as a human being:

Presumption of innocence
Due process

No lousy secret police should monitor me without a warrant.  And they
should only get a warrant if there's a decent reason to believe I'm
currently doing something wrong.  And no, being a Quaker is not a good
enough reason, contrary to CONINTELPRO's belief.

The first dang thing the secret police does when we let them off their
leash is go watch all the Quakers.  That's a huge waste of time, money
and effort.  Also, it denies the Quakers the presumption of innocence.

The second dang thing the universal surveillors do is look down
blouses and up skirts.  This is really well documented.

Universal surveillance makes everyone not in the secret police a
suspect, or an object of desire, and all without due process.

It's bad on the face of it.

--
Bruce Ediger
720-932-1954
eballen1 () qwest net
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.