Flock Cameras: When Observation Becomes Surveillance

 Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) systems—commonly known by the popular brand name "Flock cameras"—are often presented as little more than high-tech security cameras. That description, however, leaves out the feature that has many Americans concerned.

Think of an ALPR camera as a security camera with a memory. Rather than simply recording video, it identifies every passing vehicle and records information such as the license plate, date, time, location, make, model, color, and often distinguishing characteristics like bumper stickers, roof racks, aftermarket accessories, or visible damage. That information is then stored in a searchable database.

Supporters argue that these systems help solve crimes by giving investigators another tool to locate stolen vehicles or identify suspects. There is no question that ALPR systems have legitimate law enforcement applications.

The constitutional concern is not about targeted investigations. It is about the routine collection and long-term storage of information on millions of innocent Americans who are suspected of no crime.

Imagine that every time you drove down a road, someone wrote down your license plate, described your vehicle, recorded where you were and when you passed, and kept those notes for months or even years. Most people would recognize that as surveillance. ALPR systems simply automate that process on a massive scale.

Some argue that because license plates are visible in public, there is no expectation of privacy. I believe that misses the larger issue. There is a significant difference between a police officer observing a vehicle on a public street at a single moment in time and the government maintaining a permanent database capable of reconstructing a person's movements over weeks, months, or years.

Where you travel can reveal a surprising amount about your life. It may disclose where you worship, which doctors you visit, whether you sought legal counsel, attended a political rally, visited family, or participated in a support group. None of those activities are criminal, yet all become part of a searchable historical record when mass surveillance systems are allowed to operate without meaningful limits.

The Fourth Amendment was adopted to protect citizens from unreasonable government intrusion. Whether ALPR databases ultimately violate that protection is a question courts continue to examine. But I believe the principle is clear: government should not be compiling detailed travel histories of innocent citizens without judicial oversight.

Technology has made mass surveillance easier than ever before. That convenience should not become an excuse to weaken the constitutional safeguards that have protected individual liberty for more than two centuries.

Crime fighting is an important responsibility of government. So is protecting the constitutional rights of the people. We should be able to do both without sacrificing one for the other.

King Obama

From The National Review;

"It’s at least the 14th unilateral change to Obamacare that’s been made without consulting Congress.

'It shows that the Obamacare insurance products aren’t selling so, at the last minute, the administration is holding a fire sale on a failed launch,' says Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute, a health-care advocacy group."

No, it shows that Obama is ruling by royal dictate.

He is, by the wave of his Imperial Hand, dismissing laws - regardless of popularity - and changing them as he sees fit in his Imperial Wisdom.

Had he been a Republican, the left would be tearing down the walls of Congress demanding that he be impeached. But, as a democrat, it's all just hunky dory.

If the Republicans in the House had the least amount of spine, they'd be filing charges of impeachment against this dictator and bringing him down.

Of course, it shows that we will accept the complete shredding of the Constitution, as long as we're not inconvenienced too much.

We are not worthy of the Founding Fathers' gift to us.

Laws, not Edicts

"...by calling on Mr. Obama to keep his promise and allow Americans to keep their insurance if they like it."
-- Washington Times, 18-Nov-2013

The United States is a nation of LAWS, not edicts from a president. Obama is not a king, he does not get to decide who gets to keep their insurance. The LAW does and this law, his "legacy," is as corrupt and flawed as he is, himself.

This article also mentions a "fix" from Obama.

Any "fix" to the LAW must come via the LEGISLATIVE process, not executive fiat. Obama is not authorized to do any "fixing" to anything, except the plumbing in the White House.

This man is a criminal and must be impeached. He is in complete violation of his oath of office and is a violator of the separation of powers. Biden is no longer sufficient insurance to prevent him from being removed from office.

IMPEACH OBAMA NOW.

Trust Government

I read this in another forum;

"You give the government information and it will be abused. It is not a matter of if it’ll be abused, it’s only a matter of when…"

Truth be told, this is not something unique to Obama. It is not even unique to the federal government.

The Founding Fathers had it right; government is a necessary evil that must be kept on a tight rein. Like a killer guard dog; it may keep trespassers off your property, but you don't let your kids play with it.

But, government is what it is because we, the People, have let it become that way through our apathy and downright laziness. All we are interested in are the conveniences, not the consequences - as long as they fall on "someone else."

For example, a recent article told of a young man who was devastated by his insurance premiums going up thousands of dollars because of Obamacare. He stated that he was all for socialized medicine, but didn't think that he had to pay for it.

This man is emblematic of the People in general. No one thinks. Well, too few, anyway.

Further, students are not taught the greatness of the history of the United States. Since the sixties, soft subjects have been hit hard by revisionists who despise the place of the US in the world, of US exceptionalism. The result is that schools focus on the bad things in American history at the expense of the good. Students are taught that the Constitution is a "living document" that changes and morphs at the whims of society, rather than the law of the land that it is with a specific legislative process required to change it; Article V.

We have become like the Catholic church, where the path to Glory must be through priests. The Church opposed what the Gutenberg press brought, because it made the Bible available to the common man, rather than just the clerics. However, in our case, we have become a society that accepts the supreme Court, elected officials and a small elite as the "clerics" of the Constitution, the law, of Liberty and Freedom.

We are in need of a Constitutional Reformation. But, rather than a reformation to introduce new ideas, it needs to be a reformation to embrace old ideas; that individual, common citizens are quite capable to read and understand the Constitution, the law and what Liberty and Freedom mean. That we should not accept the biased whims and political follies of a small collection of old men and women, simply because they wear black robes, or because they occupy great structures of classical architecture.

These "clerics" are our SERVANTS. They are in office as our EMPLOYEES. We must hold them to their oaths and that our Constitution rules over them.

Rather than Harry Potter, we need the works of John Locke, Montesquieu, Paine, Hamilton, Madison, Jay - the works our Founding Fathers read and were guided by in the creation of this nation. Then and only then will we be knowledgeable and FREE to know if what the "clerics" do is right or wrong.

Otherwise, we will be serfs, satisfied with the Bread and Circuses of government control, silently and stupidly trudging a path defined by others who ensure that we are guided away from the oases of Freedom and Liberty, keeping us locked in control and subjection.

An Example of the Folly of the supreme Court

In US v Lopez (1995), the Court found that banning guns from around schools was unconstitutional, that it was beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause.

In the dissent, Souter wrote of the "old judicial pretension [that had been] discredited and abandoned" from which "the Court extricated itself almost 60 years ago."

What he referred to was the pre-Court Packing scandal Court that was more in line with the Constitution. It was "untenable jurisprudence."

So, in Souter's view, the pre-1937 Court had been "abandoned."

But, here comes Kennedy with his concurrence with the Court saying, "stare decisis ... counsel[s] us not to call into questionthe essential principles now in place."

So, here we have Souter saying that we have to abandon the old ways, but Kennedy holding that we are bound to the old ways.

Now, the way things have been going, this nation is actually ruled by five guys in black robes (the majority). Sure, Congress and the president are involved, but the final say has been taken by the supreme Court when they usurped a power not granted them in the Constitution; judicial review.

However, these robe-clad guys are telling diametrically opposed stories. We end up with our lives being dictated by whatever OPINION sways the Court.

Obviously, not by LAW, because the LAW is the LAW, regardless of any opinion. A speed limit sign says "30 mph" and it means "30 mph," not, "oh, I think it means 42 mph..."

The same is true for the Constitution, except there are five guys who get to decide that it does mean 42 mph, regardless of the words.

If the Court was infallible, then Souter and Kennedy would not be so different in their words. They'd both agree that either decisions from pre-37 mattered or they did not.

We Are The Government

I see all these posts about the government is out of control, the government is taking over, the government etc...

Thing is, we have EXACTLY what we voted for and it's been building since FDR.

WE are the government. The problem is, too few of us take our responsibilities seriously.

Voting is a pain, so we don't vote - or, we let it be done early, so we can make sure we get our naps in. As a result, we end up with a government that is amenable to the activists, not the People.

Jury duty is so inconvenient that we take great pains to get out of it. So, we end up with ignorant jurors who lacked the imagination to get out of serving. Also, too few realize that when they are on a jury, it is not only the defendant who's on trial; the LAW is, too.

When asked what the Constitutional Convention gave to the nation, Ben Franklin is said to have replied, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Well, maybe we can't. Maybe no one can. As Rome did, the US keeps its citizens in line with Bread and Circuses. Rome fell, we are probably falling. We could stop the fall, but that takes effort and - well, there's American Idol to watch or something neat is on YouTube.

In school, kids are taught that the Constitution is malleable, a "living" document, changing at the whim of society. I know; I was a teacher. They are not taught that it is the LAW.

But, even if they were, so what?

We have too many laws and far too many of what we have address piddling issues. As a result, we go ahead and justify breaking those little laws. By doing so, we train ourselves that the law is something to be broken and we find it far easier to ignore the bigger laws - like the Constitution.

Does anyone think that the laws we have in place today would have passed even a cursory review by the Founding Fathers? I don't think so. I think they would be offended and distressed by what we have done to their gift to us. Although, they had a far different attitude back then. People were, in general, nobler, I believe. The Founding Fathers had no idea what dregs their prodigy would be.

Democracy lasts until the People discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasuries. Then the slide to failure becomes almost unstoppable.

Bread and Circuses. The bane of societies.

Obamacare is Unconstitutional

Obamacare is unconstitutional, plain and simple.


But, the left doesn't care about the Constitution, they've been wiping their feet on it since FDR. To them, it is something to get around, to be avoided, to be spat upon, a source of words that they arrange in any order they like to get what they want.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is nothing more than ink on a page. It has no intrinsic means to provide for its own defense. Without good men to support it, to defend it, it will fail to protect us from the overreaching dictates of those intent upon its destruction - like Obama and his supporters.

Students in schools are taught the falsehood that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document; that it magically morphs upon the whims of society. Those who support this concept ignore that the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land, not a collection of suggestions, to alter and twist as the majority deems.

The LAW of the Constitution in no way supports Obamacare. It is a wretched and criminal misinterpretation to say that it does. This nation moved closer to death when Roberts cast his vote; he hammered home another nail into the coffin built by FDR and carried by the socialist liberals and progressives of this once-great nation, to sink within the grave dug by an apathetic electorate and a complicit Congress.

Obama must be removed in the coming election. Those in Congress who voted for this sucking chest wound of a law must be voted out as soon as they come up for reelection. We must return to the dream of America, the path the Founding Fathers laid before us, that we left almost a century ago and have refused to tread ever since.

When asked what the Constitution gave us, Ben Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Well, our possession of it hangs by a thread, a thread that may well be severed utterly, if Obama and his ilk retain office. A thread that, if broken, may remove our Republic from us irretrievably.

Just What The Founding Fathers Ordered

Obama administration to order lenders to cut mortgage payments for
jobless

By Renae Merle and dina elboghdady
Thursday, March 25, 2010; 7:14 PM

The Obama administration plans to overhaul how it's tackling the foreclosure crisis, in part by requiring lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed, senior officials said Thursday.

Nah, the feds aren't taking over the financial market.

This is just what the Founders had in mind; the federal government dictating to private business.

Hmm.

Dictating.

Wonder what that makes Obama?

Speaking as someone who is jobless and pays a mortgage, I oppose this act by the criminal socialist Obama administration.

I signed a contract with my lender. I have to live up to the terms of that contract. I have the right to renegotiate my contract due to my current status, but my lender is not required to agree. And, unless he does, my contract remains as is.

If the feds are allowed to step in and make contracts null and void, what reliance can be placed upon contracts?

Absolutely none.

Miller vs. Heller

No, not the latest UFC heavyweight bout.

But, an exploration of an interesting twist in the law...

In January 1939, the US District Court for the Western District of Arkansas heard argument in US vs. Miller concerning a sawed-off shotgun found in the defendant's truck when a raid for a still failed to find anything. Defense argued that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act violated the Second Amendment. U.S. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon agreed.

The USAG appealed to the supreme Court and in March 1939 the Court heard the case. They reversed the lower court's decision saying that there was no evidence presented that a sawed-off shotgun had any value as a militia weapon and so did not fall under the protections of the Second Amendment. Essentially saying only military-style weapons are protected.

Now, fast forward almost 65 years to Feb of 2003.

A lawsuit is brought against the District of Columbia contesting the District's draconian gun laws. The District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit.

The case was appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals and they reversed the decision saying the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

Petition was made to advance the case to the supreme Court and they agreed in November of '07 (looks like things went a lot faster seven decades ago).

In June of '08, the Court decided and reversed the Circuit Court's finding. That the "District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."

The supreme Court also decided, "The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."

So, to give the Cliff's Notes version, Miller says the Second Amendment protects military-style weapons and, so, a sawed-off shotgun is not a protected firearm.

But, now we have Heller that has decided that the Second Amendment protects only non-military use firearms (actually, a silly decision - what non-military firearm is of any use to a militia?).

Heller has reversed the prohibition in Miller and given Second Amendment protections to the sawed-off shotgun.

I wonder how long before this sinks in...

Big Brother Will Be Watching

Even though the Texas legislature is nearly unanimous in opposing this new technology, TxDOT is still going ahead with it;

=============================
Texas DOT to Install
Federally Funded Highway Speed Cameras

Despite the opposition of the state legislature, the Texas Department of transportation proposes a federally funded speed camera test.

Despite the near-unanimous opposition in the state legislature to the use of speed cameras, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is moving forward on a proposal to deploy photo radar on state highways using federal gas tax funds. Legislation awaiting Governor Rick Perry's signature prohibited only municipalities -- like Marble Falls and Rhome -- from installing automated speeding ticket systems. It was silent on the possibility of a state-run system.
=============================

So much for Government of the People, by the People, for the People. The People, via their duly elected representatives, have spoken that they do NOT want this system. Yet, the executive is going ahead with it anyway. I have come to regret having voted for Rick Perry and have written to him expressing that regret.

Not that it will do any good. He is ignoring the voices of millions of Texans by ignoring the will of the Legislature. Why should he care about a letter from an individual?

That aside, is the goal of this system to make the roads safer?Is it to ensure compliance with the law?

Of course not.

This is the goal;

=============================
In its request for proposals, TxDOT cited success of speed cameras in the UK and Washington, DC. The UK government generated 120 million pounds (US $240 million) in revenue in 2003 while the Washington, DC red light and speed camera program has issued $217 million in tickets since 1999.
=============================

Revenue.

Money.

That is the goal - to generate funds for the State. This is a tax, not a law enforcement effort. It is a tool to generate revenue.

Another interesting tidbit is this;

=============================
TxDOT's vendor will send notices -- warnings at first -- to motorists driving just 5 MPH over the limit with an accuracy level of +/- 2 MPH[.]
=============================

It's not even being monitored or enforced by duly appointed law enforcment officers of the State. It is being monitored and enforced by the vendor, a private entity.

Then, there's the Sixth Amendment. The one that says "[T]he accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him[.]"

How can a camera be a witness? A camera is not a living being.

Get me on a Jury and I don't care if the camera caught you doing 110 in a school zone - I'll acquit. I will not support this system in any way or for any reason.

Another Reason To Oppose McCain

Seems McCain never met a Constitution he didn't like to walk on.

Got a blog?

Know the law enough to identify an "illegal image?"

If your answers are "Yes" and "No," you might get hit for $300,000 if someone posts an "illegal image" to your blog.

And, we all know that it's reasonable to assume that everyone using the Internet is able to readily and reliably identify an "illegal image," right? That's why no one ever falls for those Nigerian scams and no one's computer is hijacked by hackers - because everyone is a consumate computer expert.

First, McCain tramples on the Constitution with his Campaign Finance Reform law that restricts First Amendment guaranteed rights to free speech. Now, he wants to make one criminally liable for the acts of others.

Not really a new idea in theory, though. The DEA has been using this process in the "war on drugs" for years - decades. Got a nice boat, car or home? Better make sure that no one who visits does any drugs without your knowledge and leaves a bit of it behind. DEA will seize your property, because someone else did something that you were totally unaware of.

With the democrats coming in, this sort of government intrusion will only get worse.