Police Tracking Your Every Move With License Plate Readers

[Pericles]

just asking if the right is there, gotta start somewhere. What you want is irrelevant, I want it. And if it were legal I'd find money to obtain it.

Contact this guy:

The premise was not fanciful. The author had done it. In 1977, John Aristotle Phillips found worldwide fame as the Princeton junior who designed a working Nagasaki-class weapon the size of a beach ball. In fact, after calling DuPont and asking for a good detonator for imploding, ahem, a dense sphere of metal—"God, how obvious," he scoffed to himself. "Why don't you just say you want to implode Pu-239?"—he actually improved on the original model.
Phillips was no Lex Luthor. He was the mascot who ran around in the Tiger outfit at Princeton games, a duty he acquired after being fired as cowbell player in the marching band. His academic prospects were none too bright. "If I flunk another course," he admitted, "I'll be bounced out of the Big U right on my ass."
So Phillips proposed a Term Paper to End All Term Papers: "How to Build Your Own Atomic Bomb." His instructor was Freeman Dyson, famed colleague of bomb-meisters Hans Bethe and Richard Feynman. But Dyson carefully avoided giving his student extra help. Phillips gathered declassified documents at the National Technical Information Service—"Oh, you want to build a bomb too?" a librarian asked him dryly—and many sleepless nights of calculations later, he pulled it off. Phillips did this while camped out with a broken typewriter in the campus Ivy Club. For extra surrealism, the club members who observed his mysterious work included fellow student Parker Stevenson. Yes, the Hardy Boys' star Parker Stevenson.
So how good was his design?
"I remember telling him I would give him an A for it," Dyson e-mails me, "but advised him to burn it as soon as the grade was registered." Phillips was spared the trouble of procuring matches: The U.S. government kept his term paper and classified it. Soon Phillips was pursued by hack journalists and trench-coaters alike: The Pakistani embassy tried to get a copy; agents trailed him; the FBI and CIA got involved. Everything exploded.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2003-12-16/news/the-a-bomb-kid/

 

[Created4]

My belief is that humans have no rights

What is your belief based on? An observation of what you see happening?

yes

What about the things you do not see happening? Or do you believe you are omniscient? Also, using your own reasoning as I have understood it, why cannot a powerful human being grant rights to a weak human being?
---------------------------

I define rights as, that which society owes to protect, without exception.

Who or what determines this obligation of "society?" How do you define "society"?

a society is a group of people living together in close proximity, which their actions affect another.
Society determines their own obligations. In short society determines rights

I am not sure you answered the question. If the one in debt determines what the debt is held by the debtor, then how can there be a debt, or something "owed" in the first place? The meaning of the verb "owe" and "debt" as we understand it in the English language does not seem to allow your definition, or use of the terms. As for your definition of "society," you describe it as if it is a single entity, which is impossible. Your belief system does not appear to me to be based on logic, as you seem to be defining your terms arbitrarily. Society cannot even really determine rights using your own logic, because you start with the premise that humans have no rights. How can an entity grant to someone something that does not exist?

And rights do not exist unless they are practiced.

This last one about rights not existing unless they are practiced is the most intriguing. What about contracts, for example? If I have a contract with someone that affords me rights, but choose not to practice my rights, does that mean I have forfeited my rights according to this belief?

contracts are a voluntary surrender of rights. and yes, I would say in that case, you forfeited your rights, but may still exercise them as long as the contract says so.

I don't follow your logic here. If contracts are a "surrender of rights", then how can the contract "say" anything at all, or define any terms whatsoever?

I think you made some interesting comments at the beginning of this thread regarding licenses and roads as such, but you seem to define words and concepts arbitrarily to create your own belief system.

 

[Becker]

I am not sure you answered the question. If the one in debt determines what the debt is held by the debtor, then how can there be a debt, or something "owed" in the first place? The meaning of the verb "owe" and "debt" as we understand it in the English language does not seem to allow your definition, or use of the terms. As for your definition of "society," you describe it as if it is a single entity, which is impossible. Your belief system does not appear to me to be based on logic, as you seem to be defining your terms arbitrarily. Society cannot even really determine rights using your own logic, because you start with the premise that humans have no rights. How can an entity grant to someone something that does not exist?

that's precisely why. Humans have no natural or inherent rights, they have only what a society is nice enough to give.
Society is a group of people living in vicinity, where their actions affect another. I am not in the society with Europeans or Africans, only people in my county, and maybe in my state. In some extension, my country as well.

Does that make sense? Society decides itself, what is affordable to grant as rights, and anything else, we leave to "personal responsibility". In your example, society deems it cruel and senseless to let babies be responsible for their own defense, so we make it a crime to violate babies. But society does not find it affordable or moral to give free healthcare, so we call that "your own responsibility". It IS arbitrary.

There is no reason a person has a right to live, not be killed, but not a right to healthcare, free food, freedom from starvation, and so on, the only difference is a society's arbitrary decision.

 

[Becker]

I don't follow your logic here. If contracts are a "surrender of rights", then how can the contract "say" anything at all, or define any terms whatsoever?

I think you made some interesting comments at the beginning of this thread regarding licenses and roads as such, but you seem to define words and concepts arbitrarily to create your own belief system.

a contract can say anything it wants, what you're asking me is. How can it have any effect, which is, any contract or any piece of paper only has effect by what we give it and allow it.

It's my belief system, why wouldn't I define my own terms? And you are free to define your terms, as long as I know what you are talking about.

 

[Paul Revered]

My belief is that humans have no rights

 

[Travlyr]

that's precisely why. Humans have no natural or inherent rights, they have only what a society is nice enough to give.

Rights are inherent. Privileges are granted. Maybe you don't have rights, but I have rights because I am willing to stand-up for my rights no matter what society says.

Society is a group of people living in vicinity, where their actions affect another. I am not in the society with Europeans or Africans, only people in my county, and maybe in my state. In some extension, my country as well.

Does that make sense? Society decides itself, what is affordable to grant as rights, and anything else, we leave to "personal responsibility". In your example, society deems it cruel and senseless to let babies be responsible for their own defense, so we make it a crime to violate babies. But society does not find it affordable or moral to give free healthcare, so we call that "your own responsibility". It IS arbitrary.

There is no reason a person has a right to live, not be killed, but not a right to healthcare, free food, freedom from starvation, and so on, the only difference is a society's arbitrary decision.

You have a right to give yourself healthcare and find food, but forcing someone else to give you healthcare or food might not work out so well.

 

[Becker]

Rights are inherent. Privileges are granted. Maybe you don't have rights, but I have rights because I am willing to stand-up for my rights no matter what society says.

You have a right to give yourself healthcare and find food, but forcing someone else to give you healthcare or food might not work out so well.

you don't have rights just by you saying you do.

What if it worked well? Are you going to tell me even if it works well its still immoral?

 

[guitarlifter]

Double post

 

[guitarlifter]

you don't have rights just by you saying you do.

What if it worked well? Are you going to tell me even if it works well its still immoral?

Yes, it is absolutely still immoral. You argue from a utilitarian standpoint where the ends justify the means. Most people on this website are libertarians, who derive their beliefs deontologically, meaning that the means justify the ends.

In a completely utilitarian world, anyone should do anything that brings about the greatest good. By this standpoint, let's say that everybody hates Carrot Top. Carrot Top doesn't want to die, but 7 billion people want him to die. If the satisfaction of killing the innocent Carrot Top outweighs Carrot Top's desire to live, which, by the way, is subjective, then he should be killed. In a completely utilitarian world, all poor mothers should be stripped of their children so that they can live in rich families' homes. I could go on, but the utilitarian ideology is one giant slippery slope that is grounded upon nothing other than ignoring morality altogether.

Furthermore, you misunderstand a right and a privilege. These two words are not interchangeable. Privileges are things that are malleable and differ from society to society. Rights are inherent. If you're going to argue that there are no rights, then stop using the word where you should instead use the word privilege.

It's pretty clear that your critical thinking skills are lacking between your ad hominems, irrelevant conclusions, and straw mans, etc. If you're going to argue, then you should at least know how to analyze material and present arguments without being fallacious.

 

[DamianTV]

One must consider the consequences of wishing for a society where you are entitled to the fruits of someone elses labors any time one thinks of Social Benefits, such as Socialized Health Care, or the Right to Drive.

On the Right to Drive vs Right to Travel, the term "Drive" is used when conducting business, when you travel, you are NOT conducting business. The way you describe your object of transportation is also important. A Vehicle is used to conduct business as well, thus it is subject to different sets of laws. Your Automobile is not (IIRC) used for business, thus it is Personal, and thereby protected as a Right.

Next, you either have Unlimited Rights, or No Rights at All. There are some among us that think there should only be a Priviledged Few that deserve Rights, and everyone else can piss up a rope. These are the people that live on the fruits of others labor, and feel they are entitled to it, while the person that produces the fruit to begin with has no rights at all. Society is very very close to having all of the laborers stand up to their slave owners and kicking the shit out of them. It isnt just a violation of words we put on papers and referred to them as laws, this is Natural Law. Natural Law doesnt need words on paper to describe the absurdity of having an entitled few. It simply doesnt work. Either those under the command rise up against the controller, or the species dies out. Ants are a good society. By itself, an ant would not have much chance of anything, but ants have queens. The difference in the behavior of a Queen Ant and a Parasitic Banker is that the Queen Ant can only need so much. The benefit of the single lowly ants works benefit all of its entire society, including itself, thus, it is not a self destructive species as we have become.

Im sure someone will try to point out that insect colonies that have leadership structures mirror our current model of society. I believe we are the exact opposite. In our current social food chain, those at the top are not willing to share the fruits of someone elses labor, and want to keep it all to themselves, regardless if they are able to use what they have or not. This is how we differ. Those currently at the top want 100% of the pie for themselves, for us to produce the pie, and we have nothing to survive on, not even the dead minimum. This is what will ultimately cause the uprising of our society against the Rich Parasitic Plutocrats.

In regards to the OP on License Plates and Privacy, the 4th Amendment was not written in a fashion that it restricted its own abilities. It did not say that a person is entitled to Privacy (Penumbra Right, Privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights) only within specific paramaters. Thus, a person has a Right to Privacy (again, Penumbra), or against Unlawful Intrusions by the Government IN PUBLIC. The idea that you only have Privacy while in your own home or possession large enough to hide you from other non governmental citizens is a complete and total false interpretation. The Constitution restricts everything the Government is allowed to do, and those things that the government are allowed to do are specified, everything else is prohibited. The License Plate Readers are no different, and are the most aphauling intrusion of the Invasion of Privacy I have seen yet. Oh hell, just read my sig, its the short short short short version of what I usually have to say about Privacy.

The Government has also made a very very serious mistake. They now believe they have Unlimited Power and the People have none. This is also a complete and total false interpretation. Their power comes from the ability to create Money. But what gives Money its own power is what we are willing to trade for it. What we create and what we do is what gives Money Power. And when we stop producing and stop working, money loses its power to control us. It will happen eventually that our entire money system collapses, some will be able to get their crack fix addictions fed a little longer, but when that fiat paper currency no longer even reflects a willingness to repay and we stop working, they lose all of their power over us. It is the money / crack addicts that still are hopelessly dependant on their next quick fix that gives police the willingness to abuse the people they are charged with protecting and creates the Chain of Obedience. But that chain is only as strong as its material, and the material is Money, which is nearly gone (to the banksters). In ant society, their Chain of Obedience comes from food. If the ant society stopped feeding all of its workers, they will kill and eat their Queen, and create a new Queen. In that respect, we are similar, and we are on the verge of a Monetary Revolution, the likes of which, this world has never seen, and may never see again.

 

[Immortal Technique]

im shocked lol

 

[Created4]

that's precisely why. Humans have no natural or inherent rights, they have only what a society is nice enough to give.
Society is a group of people living in vicinity, where their actions affect another. I am not in the society with Europeans or Africans, only people in my county, and maybe in my state. In some extension, my country as well.

Society decides itself, what is affordable to grant as rights, and anything else, we leave to "personal responsibility". Does that make sense?

No actually it does not. And the fact that you asked me if something "makes sense" disproves a lot of your beliefs as explained here, because it assumes that there is a "sense" or logic that stands on its own merit and is not based on people's arbitrary beliefs. Language is like that - otherwise we could not communicate if we all made up our own words and our own meanings. This is true with many things in life, such is what is food and what is not, and many other things. There are standards of truth that exist whether people believe them or not. Existentialism is nothing more than a belief system, a religion, or a replacement for religion.

"Society" cannot give something they don't have to begin with, or does not exist. Your reasoning is circular, because you define your own terms.

You have stated that your belief that humans have no rights is based on observation. That is a very dangerous way to develop beliefs, because you cannot see everything and account for ALL data to be absolutely sure your belief system is accurate. You would need to be omniscient.

And such beliefs have caused great harm. For example, a man by the name of Ancel Keyes developed a belief that cholesterol caused heart disease based on his observation of arterial plaque in people's arteries. His belief, cholesterol causes heart disease, became dogma. The pharmaceutical companies developed a billion dollar industry around drugs that lower cholesterol. The problem now is that this dogma has been dis-proven, as correlation does not prove causation. Keyes and others did not see all the data, and in fact Keyes omitted certain data that did not fit his theory. To blame cholesterol on heart disease would be akin to blaming traffic accidents on police because one observed that every time there was a traffic accident, a police person arrived on the scene.

Humans either have inherent rights or they do not, independent on whether your belief system or mine believes. Society can only recognize them or deny them - they cannot create them.

 

[Paul Revered]

you don't have rights just by you saying you do.

What if it worked well? Are you going to tell me even if it works well its still immoral?

Genocide works well for those who can't manage to feed and provide for their own health; and it provides much less of a drain on your beloved "society." Why don't you tell us how that morality correlates to your twisted Marxist views.

 

[pcosmar]

Yup,
I am wondering who keeps +reping this troll.

And Why?

 

[Becker]

Yes, it is absolutely still immoral. You argue from a utilitarian standpoint where the ends justify the means.

And you argue from an anti-utilitarian standpoint where no ends matter? Or means justify all ends? Intentions justify all ends?

Most people on this website are libertarians, who derive their beliefs deontologically, meaning that the means justify the ends.

And I think most of them are hypocrites who only talk and don't do. And wouldn't accept the ends if it were them.

In a completely utilitarian world, anyone should do anything that brings about the greatest good.

Logically, because the greatest good forces him.

By this standpoint, let's say that everybody hates Carrot Top. Carrot Top doesn't want to die, but 7 billion people want him to die. If the satisfaction of killing the innocent Carrot Top outweighs Carrot Top's desire to live, which, by the way, is subjective, then he should be killed.

That is correct, and a law that says he has a right to live won't do jack.

In a completely utilitarian world, all poor mothers should be stripped of their children so that they can live in rich families' homes.

or sterilized.

I could go on, but the utilitarian ideology is one giant slippery slope that is grounded upon nothing other than ignoring morality altogether.

What good is morality if you don't care about consequences?

Furthermore, you misunderstand a right and a privilege. These two words are not interchangeable.

I didn't say they were, which is why I said I don't believe in inherent rights, and I only believe in privileges, and I don't belive either matter at all unless practiced.

Privileges are things that are malleable and differ from society to society. Rights are inherent. If you're going to argue that there are no rights, then stop using the word where you should instead use the word privilege.

I try to.

It's pretty clear that your critical thinking skills are lacking between your ad hominems, irrelevant conclusions, and straw mans, etc. If you're going to argue, then you should at least know how to analyze material and present arguments without being fallacious.

who did I call a name?

 

[Becker]

Genocide works well for those who can't manage to feed and provide for their own health; and it provides much less of a drain on your beloved "society." Why don't you tell us how that morality correlates to your twisted Marxist views.

Twisted Marxist views? No, Marxists believe in feeding losers, I do not.

 

[Becker]

No actually it does not. And the fact that you asked me if something "makes sense" disproves a lot of your beliefs as explained here, because it assumes that there is a "sense" or logic that stands on its own merit and is not based on people's arbitrary beliefs.

Oh no, the fact I was patient enough to ask you if it makes sense to you is proof that I care to help you understand what I mean, knowing that your beliefs are and can be just as arbitrary.

Language is like that - otherwise we could not communicate if we all made up our own words and our own meanings. This is true with many things in life, such is what is food and what is not, and many other things. There are standards of truth that exist whether people believe them or not. Existentialism is nothing more than a belief system, a religion, or a replacement for religion.

You are correct, we cannot communicate if we don't agree on words. Which is why I am trying to do that, and if you have your own definitions, let me know and we can adjust for conversation's sake.

"Society" cannot give something they don't have to begin with, or does not exist. Your reasoning is circular, because you define your own terms.

And I can say society CAN give what it has to begin with. This is perhaps our "wrong foot" to start, the axiom.

You have stated that your belief that humans have no rights is based on observation. That is a very dangerous way to develop beliefs, because you cannot see everything and account for ALL data to be absolutely sure your belief system is accurate. You would need to be omniscient.

Therefore you propose I have beliefs NOT based on observations, because that's SAFER, right?

And such beliefs have caused great harm.

Just in this thread, somebody told me that utilitarianism is unacceptable, you're telling me my beliefs cause harm, you can't both be right.

For example, a man by the name of Ancel Keyes developed a belief that cholesterol caused heart disease based on his observation of arterial plaque in people's arteries. His belief, cholesterol causes heart disease, became dogma. The pharmaceutical companies developed a billion dollar industry around drugs that lower cholesterol.

I suppose you are suggesting, it would've been better if people made an industry BOOSTING cholesterol, either with the intent of killing people or to test it out thoroughly. The fact people make mistakes means we should never rely on observations?

NAME ME ONE THING YOU DO, ON A DAILY BASIS THAT IS NOT based on observation.

The problem now is that this dogma has been dis-proven, as correlation does not prove causation.

Based on observation, yes???

Keyes and others did not see all the data, and in fact Keyes omitted certain data that did not fit his theory. To blame cholesterol on heart disease would be akin to blaming traffic accidents on police because one observed that every time there was a traffic accident, a police person arrived on the scene.

So your proposal is MORE observation, not LESS.

Humans either have inherent rights or they do not, independent on whether your belief system or mine believes.

So either you are superman or you are not, regardless of what anybody believes....

Society can only recognize them or deny them - they cannot create them.

I would argue the mere recognition, denial and exercising makes it in practice, CREATION.
Society didn't create your legs, but it can allow you to use them.
Society can't do your swimming for you, but they can teach you how to use your body to develop such skills.

 

[Becker]

.

In regards to the OP on License Plates and Privacy, the 4th Amendment was not written in a fashion that it restricted its own abilities. It did not say that a person is entitled to Privacy (Penumbra Right, Privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights) only within specific paramaters. Thus, a person has a Right to Privacy (again, Penumbra), or against Unlawful Intrusions by the Government IN PUBLIC. The idea that you only have Privacy while in your own home or possession large enough to hide you from other non governmental citizens is a complete and total false interpretation.

LOL, it doesn't say you're entitled to privacy, but you interpret it as saying you have a right to privacy in public.

 

[teacherone]

Twisted Marxist views? No, Marxists believe in feeding losers, I do not.

Lol. You're a great troll. +rep

I've actually met people like you, and among those who actually THINK, I'd say you're in the majority.

Rights ARE impossible to prove, no "axiom" or "-ology" can do it.

We who believe in rights are willing to die by them. So all I can say is...

bring it on.

 

[Created4]

Therefore you propose I have beliefs NOT based on observations, because that's SAFER, right?

Not at all! I am not anti-observation, I just recognize its limits. The more observation the better, and the closer one comes to the truth that is defined by knowing ALL of the data.

NAME ME ONE THING YOU DO, ON A DAILY BASIS THAT IS NOT based on observation.

There are actually many things. I depend on reliable communication far more than I do on observation. I do not observe the process that goes into making my food, but rely on the testimony of those who are producing it make about it. When I learned how to drive a car, I depended on someone's reliable communication to explain to me how the car operates and how to maintain and drive it. I did not study and observe myself how an internal combustion engine works - I didn't have time for that and I had reliable information instead I could depend upon. Most things I do on a daily basis are not a result of observation, but credible communication. But that does not mean I am anti-observation. I just recognize its limits.

So your proposal is MORE observation, not LESS.

In relation to the cholesterol theory of heart disease, yes. We are in agreement on this.

Society didn't create your legs, but it can allow you to use them.

Ok, we both agree that Society didn't create my legs. So who did?