Nothing says lovin' like the government watching your every move

Sorry.

Degenerate matter. Some debate about the actual name but "neutronium" is the most widely accepted.

BTW, still not nearly the densest though. Sorry you missed it but thanks for proving my point. :D


:rofl4:

I got your point. I also got the fact that your premise comparing my alleged mental density was wrong. One may be dense in that they do not know their facts when they post them; or that they use fictional entities for comparison among others.

Like I said, schoolyard taunts. Its all in how you play the game.

Your move.
 
*sigh* Density as being totally oblivious jim, but really, never mind. It got boring a long ago. Thanks again.
 
Damn republicans and their online transaction monitoring.

Update: The Senate will be voting on this soon! Please call your Senator, and Chuck Grassley at 1-866-928-3035 and tell them to vote against this bill!

Hidden deep in the Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision inserted by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America's small businesses.The provision, which was added by the bill's managers without debate two weeks ago, would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.

From the Bill Summary:

Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.

The only way that we can get this stopped is by letting Chuck Grassley and the rest of the Senate know that we won't stand for this invasion of our privacy. If this legislation passes, just imagine all the different ways they could expand it.

http://freedomworks.org/petition/grassley/index.html
 
The only way that we can get this stopped is by letting Chuck Grassley and the rest of the Senate know that we won't stand for this invasion of our privacy

Call & have this legislation killed.
 
SOURCE

Lancaster, Pa., keeps a close eye on itself

A vast and growing web of security cameras monitors the city of 55,000, operated by a private group of self-appointed gatekeepers. There's been surprisingly little outcry.
By Bob Drogin
June 21, 2009

Reporting from Lancaster, Pa. -- This historic town, where America's founding fathers plotted during the Revolution and Milton Hershey later crafted his first chocolates, now boasts another distinction.

It may become the nation's most closely watched small city.

Some 165 closed-circuit TV cameras soon will provide live, round-the-clock scrutiny of nearly every street, park and other public space used by the 55,000 residents and the town's many tourists. That's more outdoor cameras than are used by many major cities, including San Francisco and Boston.

Unlike anywhere else, cash-strapped Lancaster outsourced its surveillance to a private nonprofit group that hires civilians to tilt, pan and zoom the cameras -- and to call police if they spot suspicious activity. No government agency is directly involved.

Perhaps most surprising, the near-saturation surveillance of a community that saw four murders last year has sparked little public debate about whether the benefits for law enforcement outweigh the loss of privacy.

"Years ago, there's no way we could do this," said Keith Sadler, Lancaster's police chief. "It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and '1984.' It's just funny how Americans have softened on these issues."

"No one talks about it," agreed Scott Martin, a Lancaster County commissioner who wants to expand the program. "Because people feel safer. Those who are law-abiding citizens, they don't have anything to worry about."

A few dozen people attended four community meetings held last spring to discuss what sponsors called "this exciting public safety initiative." But opposition has grown since big red bulbs, which shield the video cameras, began appearing on corner after corner.

Mary Pat Donnellon, head of Mission Research, a local software company, vowed to move if she finds one on her block. "I don't want to live like that," she said. "I'm not afraid. And I don't need to be under surveillance."

"No one has the right to know who goes in and out my front door," agreed David Mowrer, a laborer for a company that supplies quarry pits. "That's my business. That's not what America is about."

Hundreds of municipalities -- including Los Angeles and at least 36 other California cities -- have built or expanded camera networks since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In most cases, Department of Homeland Security grants helped cover the cost.

In the most ambitious project, New York City police announced plans several years ago to link 3,000 public and private security cameras across Lower Manhattan designed to help deter, track and detect terrorists. The network is not yet complete.

How they affect crime is open to debate. In the largest U.S. study, researchers at UC Berkeley evaluated 71 cameras that San Francisco put in high-crime areas starting in 2005. Their final report, released in December, found "no evidence" of a drop in violent crime but "substantial declines" in property crime near the cameras.

Only a few communities have said no. In February, the city council in Cambridge, Mass., voted not to use eight cameras already purchased with federal funds for fear police would improperly spy on residents. Officials in nearby Brookline are considering switching off a dozen cameras for the same reason.

Lancaster is different, and not just because it sits amid the rolling hills and rich farms of Pennsylvania Dutch country.

Laid out in 1730, the whole town is 4 square miles around a central square. Amish families still sell quilts in the nation's oldest public market, and the Wal-Mart provides a hitching post to park a horse and buggy. Tourists flock to art galleries and Colonial-era churches near a glitzy new convention center.

But poverty is double the state's average, and public school records list more than 900 children as homeless. Police blame most of last year's 3,638 felony crimes, chiefly thefts, on gangs that use Lancaster as a way station to move cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs along the Eastern Seaboard.

"It's not like we're making headlines as the worst crime-ridden city in the country," said Craig Stedman, the county's district attorney. "We have an average amount of crime for our size."

In 2001, a local crime commission concluded that cameras might make the city safer. Business owners, civic boosters and city officials formed the Lancaster Community Safety Coalition, and the nonprofit organization installed its first camera downtown in 2004.

Raising money from private donors and foundations, the coalition had set up 70 cameras by last year. And the crime rate rose.

[more]
 
SOURCE

Homeland Security drone patrolling NNY

Last Update: 6/18 2:14 pm

A monitor inside an operations trailer shows a close-up view of a boat skimming across the water on Lake Ontario.

The image was taken from an unmanned aircraft more than three miles away.

A Predator B Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) has been temporarily based at Fort Drum since early June in an experiment by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office.

The Department of Homeland Security is using the extensive restricted air space over Fort Drum to test whether the drone could be a good fit along this stretch of the northern border.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has five of the aircraft but so far none of them based permanently in the Northeast.

The Predator will operate out of Fort Drum for about three weeks for testing and training, and to evaluate its use to law enforcement.

John Stanton, director of CPB's Office of Air and Marine, said state, provincial and local law enforcement agencies were quick to take up the offer of added surveillance of Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.

"So while we were flying, we were asked by our partner law enforcement agencies if we would be kind enough to be on the lookout for suspicious activities," Stanton said.

The surveillance also includes the land border between the U.S. and Canada after the border peels away from the St. Lawrence River.

By flying in restricted air space at 19,000 feet, the Predator avoids lower-level air traffic, cutting the risk of collisions, Stanton said.

The aircraft is virtually identical to Predators used by the military, with the exception of lower-power engine and no weapons, he said.

Copyright 2009 Newport Television LLC All rights reserved.
 
"Years ago, there's no way we could do this," said Keith Sadler, Lancaster's police chief. "It brings to mind Big Brother, George Orwell and '1984.' It's just funny how Americans have softened on these issues."


An epitaph worthy of being carved on America's tombstone.
 
A manned police chopper flew over lower, and slow yesterday eve, with
a spot light.
That doesn't bother me much.

Now if they had just set there, I wanna know what's going on.
 
I'm curious as to why people expect privacy when they're walking down public streets. If the cameras are looking in their windows, that's a different matter.
 
Back
Top