http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118714764716998275.html?mod=blog

which US citizen are they pointed at?

More reality TV?

The only problem when people go indoors like to a mall or airport. How then does this work to find out about them? If they drove into a underground garage or any covered garage then switch cars how would it know that?

The only problem when people go indoors like to a mall or airport. How then does this work to find out about them? If they drove into a underground garage or any covered garage then switch cars how would it know that?

CCTV

which US citizen are they pointed at?
They're looking for SAM. President Bush is upset over some of her recent posts. Rove has gone underground to flush her out.

Lol.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118714764716998275.html?mod=blog

Some of you people just amuse me to no end! :D I'll pose the same question here that I posted in the CCTV thread: just what makes you feel so special that they'd have even the least bit of interest in YOU??????

An ordinary citizen walking down the street or going into a store would draw no more interest via satellite than it would from the crowd of people around you in public. As long as you're not robbing a bank, molesting a child, etc. they care NOTHING about you. Sheesh!

They're looking for SAM. President Bush is upset over some of her recent posts. Rove has gone underground to flush her out.

:p :m:

Maybe I am special. Maybe I'm the head of the Democratic Party, a presidential candidate, or a protest organizer.

Maybe I am special. Maybe I'm the head of the Democratic Party, a presidential candidate, or a protest organizer.

Or an irreverent American

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSh9EMM2_ls

Maybe I am special. Maybe I'm the head of the Democratic Party, a presidential candidate, or a protest organizer.

So what? In such cases, they already know where you are anyway. So what's the big deal?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Obviously you unaware that that doesn't apply to surveillance. Cops and other government agents - and private citizens, for that matter - are free to observe you anytime they please.

What's your problem, anyway? Afraid someone will see you going off your diet?

I have a problem with a police state where everyone is always under surveillance. Cops can observe me in public, but not in private without probable cause.

I have a problem with a police state where everyone is always under surveillance. Cops can observe me in public, but not in private without probable cause.
Satelites can't see you indoors. When you're outside, you're in public and should have no expectation of privacy.

It's not just the government, it's just modern technology. I saw a picture of some chick nude sunbathing on her roof taken via google earth!

I have a problem with a police state where everyone is always under surveillance. Cops can observe me in public, but not in private without probable cause.

Just as Madanthony said, the satellites can ONLY see you in public. They cannot see through a roof or walls. So again I ask - just exactly WHAT is it that you are so afraid of? Every argument you've presented quickly went down in flames. Are you some sort of crook??

I happen to disagree that I should have no expectation of privacy from government surveillance in a public place. Asking what private fact I am afraid of disclosing is a stupid question. I, as a reasonably law-abiding citizen should expect that my government is not watching me. I'm afraid of tyranny, Big Brother, and abuse of this power for political purposes.

I happen to disagree that I should have no expectation of privacy from government surveillance in a public place. Asking what private fact I am afraid of disclosing is a stupid question. I, as a reasonably law-abiding citizen should expect that my government is not watching me. I'm afraid of tyranny.

But the point is, that as a reasonably law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to hide and therefore nothing to worry about. Cops watching in person or through any remote means are attempting to catch the bad guys. And that's a good thing.

Well GLONASS has got it going on

I object most strongly to the reasoning that if you "have nothing to hide", you shouldn't be afraid of being surveilled. I object to it on the principle of freedom and the pursuit of happiness. If I have nothing to hide, then I shoudn't be watched.

Cops can observe me in public, but not in private without probable cause.
can you define "probable cause"?

I object most strongly to the reasoning that if you "have nothing to hide", you shouldn't be afraid of being surveilled. I object to it on the principle of freedom and the pursuit of happiness. If I have nothing to hide, then I shoudn't be watched.

Your objection is moot - totally pointless. Besides, you can be watched by anyone - cops or other people - as you walk down the street or drive along a highway. Believe me, if I were to see you doing something illegal, I'd call the cops without a moment's hesitation. And I'm an agent of no government.

without a moment's hesitation.

wow...thats like instantaneous thinking. And I thought impulses in the brain traveled at around 100 meters/second (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/DavidParizh.shtml)...but it seems like they must be traveling instantaneously. wow.

wow...thats like instantaneous thinking. And I thought impulses in the brain traveled at around 100 meters/second (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/DavidParizh.shtml)...but it seems like they must be traveling instantaneously. wow.

Silly, silly boy. :D

Satelites can't see you indoors. When you're outside, you're in public and should have no expectation of privacy.

I can't say I agree with that. Does the implied right to privacy end at a person's doorstep? I hope not, and I think not. When I leave my home (for work or for play), I expect that I should be left alone so long as I abide by the law. I expect I shouldn't be watched unless the authorities have a reasonable suspicion to watch me or I enter an area with extra security where such treatment is expected (say an airport or a football match)...

I can't say I agree with that. Does the implied right to privacy end at a person's doorstep? I hope not, and I think not. When I leave my home (for work or for play), I expect that I should be left alone so long as I abide by the law. I expect I shouldn't be watched unless the authorities have a reasonable suspicion to watch me or I enter an area with extra security where such treatment is expected (say an airport or a football match)...

Just what planet do you live on that cops don't sometimes watch you while you're driving?

Just what planet do you live on that cops don't sometimes watch you while you're driving?

David Scott (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970607.html) drove without cops watching him...on the moon.

When I leave my home (for work or for play), I expect that I should be left alone so long as I abide by the law.
has any government or federal agent ever harassed you, ever?

my primary concern about all of this is that this technology is being placed in civilian hands. civilians do not have the oversight the government has.

Privacy is a thing of the past. The late Arthur C. Clarke said it best.

"By 2010 Despite protests against "big brother," ubiquitous monitoring eliminates many forms of criminal activity"

Privacy is a thing of the past. The late Arthur C. Clarke said it best.

"By 2010 Despite protests against "big brother," ubiquitous monitoring eliminates many forms of criminal activity"

Precisely. And with emphasis on "criminal activity." The government cares not what brand of granola bar you buy or at which fast food joint you bought your burger for lunch.

But the point is, that as a reasonably law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to hide and therefore nothing to worry about. Are we still having to deal with that pathetic excuse for harassment and intimidation ?

I have a reasonable expectation of not being followed around in my back yard by spy satellites. And my own innocence is not the only factor. I depend on my local labor union officials, doctors, lawyers, accountants, bankers, teachers, etc, to not be corrupted by blackmail and other intimidations in their dealings with the public and government - and me.

Satellites, like car location recorders and long-distance conversation mics, are not accountable enough.

Are we still having to deal with that pathetic excuse for harassment and intimidation ?

I have a reasonable expectation of not being followed around in my back yard by spy satellites. And my own innocence is not the only factor. I depend on my local labor union officials, doctors, lawyers, accountants, bankers, teachers, etc, to not be corrupted by blackmail and other intimidations in their dealings with the public and government - and me.

Satellites, like car location recorders and long-distance conversation mics, are not accountable enough.

How many times have YOU been harrased or intimidated by someone in law inforcement? And they don't give a flying fig what you do in your backyard as long as is not something like making bombs!!

Satelites can't see you indoors.
Only the ones that can't.

I expect I shouldn't be watched unless the authorities have a reasonable suspicion to watch me or I enter an area with extra security where such treatment is expected (say an airport or a football match)...
Clearly the government doesn't have sufficient satellites to watch everyone all the time, or the manpower to watch the uplinks! The satellites would be used to cover certain areas or certain people, just as you suggested.

Clearly the government doesn't have sufficient satellites to watch everyone all the time, or the manpower to watch the uplinks! The satellites would be used to cover certain areas or certain people, just as you suggested.

Exactly. Such means would be used ONLY on VERY highly-rated suspects - like people already identified to have ties with a terrorist cell. It would be far too expensive to use such a limited resource for any general purposes - such as seeing who a top labor union boss might be meeting with. Unless he was under some VERY special investigation, and that probably still would be done with much more conventional practices (wiretaps, stakeouts, etc. and would be much less expensive even with dozens of agents involved).

As I said at the very beginning - some people here absolutely amuse me beyond all reason!:D

Clearly the government doesn't have sufficient satellites to watch everyone all the time, or the manpower to watch the uplinks! The satellites would be used to cover certain areas or certain people, just as you suggested.
you are forgetting the power of computers. one computer can easily keep tabs on 300+ people simultaneously.

you are forgetting the power of computers. one computer can easily keep tabs on 300+ people simultaneously.

Computers or not, Leo, what you - and especially the other fear-mongers here are overlooking is something very simple. Satellites and their photos aren't good tools at all for tracking iindividuals. Their power is in being able to watch groups and degrees of activity at specific locations. Not, as the scaredy-cats say, peeking into your backyard.

Computers or not, Leo, what you - and especially the other fear-mongers here are overlooking is something very simple. Satellites and their photos aren't good tools at all for tracking iindividuals.
correct. satellites,by themselves, are worthless for tracking even ONE person. but, you combine this tachnology with computers and you can indeed keep tabs on the entire population of the us. this isn't a scare tactic, it's a cold hard fact.
Their power is in being able to watch groups and degrees of activity at specific locations. Not, as the scaredy-cats say, peeking into your backyard.
i disagree. looking into your backyard is a special talent of all airborne traffic, not just satellites. i just found out that a fence around your backyard doesn't mean anything because you do not own the airspace above it.

correct. satellites,by themselves, are worthless for tracking even ONE person. but, you combine this tachnology with computers and you can indeed keep tabs on the entire population of the us. this isn't a scare tactic, it's a cold hard fact.

i disagree. looking into your backyard is a special talent of all airborne traffic, not just satellites. i just found out that a fence around your backyard doesn't mean anything because you do not own the airspace above it.

Frankly, the future will wipe out all and any walls we think exist between people, the internet has already done that for people who communicate poorly in person, who live sedentary lives, who rarely go out or who never meet a wide variety of people.

The very fact that we can sit on opposite ends of the world and talk to each other in real time is evidence of how little space exists which is purely our own. We are, literally, entering each others minds. Why fear it?

correct. satellites,by themselves, are worthless for tracking even ONE person. but, you combine this tachnology with computers and you can indeed keep tabs on the entire population of the us. this isn't a scare tactic, it's a cold hard fact.

I sincerely doubt that, Leo. That would require TREMENDOUS computing power and individuals are generally not identifiable from a satellite view/photo. (Tops of heads are usually rather ambiguous at best.) Besides - why would they even CARE??????????? That's the biggest and stupidest assumption in this whole debate. I dare say that less than 0.000001% of the general population would be interesting enough to spend all that time an money on anyway. What could possibly be the point in tracking EVERYONE??? That's pretty absurd right on the face of it.

i disagree. looking into your backyard is a special talent of all airborne traffic, not just satellites. i just found out that a fence around your backyard doesn't mean anything because you do not own the airspace above it.

So what? And you're completely mistaken. Few people today own their mineral rights but practically ALL of us own our airspace rights.

I sincerely doubt that, Leo. That would require TREMENDOUS computing power
yes, i know. ever hear of the census bureau? the IRS? and these organizations do not have access to satellite data.
and individuals are generally not identifiable from a satellite view/photo. (Tops of heads are usually rather ambiguous at best.)
correct. you must remember however that you are referring to what is available to civilians. regardless of what you've been told, the military can indeed read your license plate from orbit.
Besides - why would they even CARE???????????
you can't be serious. we are talking about handing over some of the most protected government secrets to CIVILIANS. people that do not have the oversight of the government.
And you're completely mistaken.

no, you are completely mistaken.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=do+you+own+the+airspace+above+your+property&btnG=Google+Search

Exactly. Such means would be used ONLY on VERY highly-rated suspects - like people already identified to have ties with a terrorist cell. It would be far too expensive to use such a limited resource for any general purposes - such as seeing who a top labor union boss might be meeting with. Unless he was under some VERY special investigation, and that probably still would be done with much more conventional practices (wiretaps, stakeouts, etc. and would be much less expensive even with dozens of agents involved).

As I said at the very beginning - some people here absolutely amuse me beyond all reason!:D
You wish it were only used on "highly-rated" suspects. Without oversight, we cannot know.

Clearly the government doesn't have sufficient satellites to watch everyone all the time, or the manpower to watch the uplinks! The satellites would be used to cover certain areas or certain people, just as you suggested.
That's not so clear, and it may not be the case in the future.
Only the ones that can't.
Exactly, what if they use infrared instead of visible light?
How many times have YOU been harrased or intimidated by someone in law inforcement? And they don't give a flying fig what you do in your backyard as long as is not something like making bombs!!
I guess know we won't know.
Precisely. And with emphasis on "criminal activity." The government cares not what brand of granola bar you buy or at which fast food joint you bought your burger for lunch.
Nice rationalization.
Just what planet do you live on that cops don't sometimes watch you while you're driving?
Yeah, but they can't follow you until you make a mistake.
Your objection is moot - totally pointless. Besides, you can be watched by anyone - cops or other people - as you walk down the street or drive along a highway. Believe me, if I were to see you doing something illegal, I'd call the cops without a moment's hesitation. And I'm an agent of no government.
I'm less concerned about private citizens watching me than an agent of the government.

no, you are completely mistaken.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=do+you+own+the+airspace+above+your+property&btnG=Google+Search

No, I'm not. I wasn't talking about the ability to prevent aircraft from flying over but the simple use of the space above your property as discribed in this taken from Straightdope:

"Usque ad coelum as a principle of private ownership was formally given the boot by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Causby (1946). The court laid down a new rule: you've got air rights only insofar as they're essential to the use and enjoyment of your land. Military aircraft using a nearby airport during World War II had flown over the Causby family chicken farm at an altitude of 83 feet, scaring the chickens and rendering the property unfit for the raising thereof. The court generously ruled that the Causbys had a right to compensation. Big of them, wasn't it? Bah. Under the previous system Old Man Causby could have taken out a few bombers with his shotgun, and that would have been that."

The second sentence is the part I'm refering to. I included the rest to keep it in proper perspective.

No, I'm not.
for the purposes of this discussion yes, you are.
if a cop, by using one of these spy satillites, or an airplane for that matter, flies over your enclosed back yard and sees illegal activity, such as you growing pot, you can take it to the bank that you WILL be arrested for it.

edit
Do individuals have any rights to the airspace above the land they own? Can I, for example, declare the space above my house a no-flight zone?

In 1926 the U.S. Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, which declared that the "navigable air space" of the U.S. was a public highway, open to all citizens.

in my (leopolds) opinion, this navigable airspace extends to approx. 100 feet above the ground.

edit2
this whole discussion is moot because a cop can arrest you for illegal activity no matter where you are if he observes you from any public accessable area.
this means they can climb a tree and look into your windows, with a telescope if necessary.

for the purposes of this discussion yes, you are.
if a cop, by using one of these spy satillites, or an airplane for that matter, flies over your enclosed back yard and sees illegal activity, such as you growing pot, you can take it to the bank that you WILL be arrested for it.

So what? It's illegal - I should be arrested.

edit
Do individuals have any rights to the airspace above the land they own? Can I, for example, declare the space above my house a no-flight zone?

In 1926 the U.S. Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, which declared that the "navigable air space" of the U.S. was a public highway, open to all citizens.

in my (leopolds) opinion, this navigable airspace extends to approx. 100 feet above the ground.

edit2
this whole discussion is moot because a cop can arrest you for illegal activity no matter where you are if he observes you from any public accessable area.
this means they can climb a tree and look into your windows, with a telescope if necessary.

Now your just being frivolous. I made it quite CLEAR in the quote in my last post (and that's exactly why I included that part) that aircraft can fly over your property without any permission required.

And your "100-foot opinion" is clearly wrong also. If local codes permit, as they do in most places, you may CERTAINLY build a structure that extends more than ten stories into the air.

I take it you must me unaware that you can also sell the airspace above your property. If someone wants to build something next to my property and wants to extend a cantilevered platform across my property line - in other words, not ON my property but IN my airspace - I can sell him that right?

Wasn't the FBI keeping extensive files and conducting surveiullance on lawful groups they didn't like in the past for no reason other than to harrass them? I guess not. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/25/news/fbi.php)

Anyone who doesn't see the potential for abuse in government surveillance of civilians based solely on perceived political rivalries has a strange sense of the world in which they want to live and a very optimistic view of human nature. That's the sort of thing that makes me invoke the old "those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither" trope.

It would be one thing if you could ensure that the people doing the surveillance were doing it impartially and without bais towards anything save criminals, but that's like saying "it would be great if federal employees and political officials were angels, rather than men."

Exactly. Such means would be used ONLY on VERY highly-rated suspects - like people already identified to have ties with a terrorist cell. It would be far too expensive to use such a limited resource for any general purposes - such as seeing who a top labor union boss might be meeting with. I have no confidence in my government's system of "rating", unless it is accountable.

How do I know that my government - already known to have spent millions of dollars spying on Martin Luther King's sex life, and tens of millions on Bill Clinton's - will bother with terrorist cells, when union leaders who can influence DOD contracts, Quaker organizers who can swing local elections, environmental groups that trouble the timber and mining industry, are obviously more important to it?
How many times have YOU been harrased or intimidated by someone in law inforcement? And they don't give a flying fig what you do in your backyard as long as is not something like making bombs!! And I plan to do whatever is necessary to see that things stay that way. The government needs a warrant, or probable cause of a crime, to spy on me in my own yard and home, to follow me around in my travels, to keep track and file of my doings, and if its satellites can do that then its satellites will have to be accountable - that means warrants, etc.
The very fact that we can sit on opposite ends of the world and talk to each other in real time is evidence of how little space exists which is purely our own. We are, literally, entering each others minds. Why fear it? You are not a government. And this computer has an off switch - employment of which renders my litle space here completely beyond your powers of influence. Thus, I call it purely my own, in that respect.

so if my son mows "KILL BUSH" on our lawn, a satellite will see it, and we will have the secret service at our house???

so if my son mows "KILL BUSH" on our lawn, a satellite will see it, and we will have the secret service at our house???

do you have such intentions?

Precisely. And with emphasis on "criminal activity." The government cares not what brand of granola bar you buy or at which fast food joint you bought your burger for lunch.B.S. Montgomery County, MD, has already outlawed the use of trans-fatty acids in restaurant kitchens. How long until they outlaw private use? This is The People's Republic Of Maryland. We're the government, we know what's good for you. You don't. Drop the Twinkie and come out with your hands up.

All of the federal laws regulating what citizens can put into their own bodies are invalid because this time they didn't bother getting a Constitutional amendment to authorize it like they did for alcohol. Yet they'll still bust you for using recreational drugs in your own home.How many times have YOU been harrased or intimidated by someone in law inforcement? And they don't give a flying fig what you do in your backyard as long as is not something like making bombs!!Let me guess: you're white, middle aged and middle class. You simply would not say such a thing with a straight face otherwise. Governments never repeal old laws just because they're stupid. Each of us on the average breaks something like one law per hour. They selectively enforce those old laws on a whim, because you're of an unpopular demographic group or because they're positive you did something naughty but they just can't find any evidence.Frankly, the future will wipe out all and any walls we think exist between people, the internet has already done that for people who communicate poorly in person, who live sedentary lives, who rarely go out or who never meet a wide variety of people. The very fact that we can sit on opposite ends of the world and talk to each other in real time is evidence of how little space exists which is purely our own. We are, literally, entering each others minds. Why fear it?Indeed. The genie of communication and surveillance technology is out of the bottle. Leering civil "servants" look right through your clothes in some airport security lines. They can spot an indoor garden with infrared detectors. In some jurisdictions they can track your car trip from start to finish on streaming video. They can match your DNA from the residue of a sneeze.

We already live in the 24/7 "candid camera" society.so if my son mows "KILL BUSH" on our lawn, a satellite will see it, and we will have the secret service at our house???They're probably already on their way to your house because you typed that in capital letters. :)

The house in which George Orwell wrote 1984 is now under constant surveillance by something like 35 cameras close enough to observe in detail, and about 200 more from a little farther away. One stationary camera is focused on his rear window, another on his garden. If you think it's bad in America, stay away from England.

....We already live in the 24/7 "candid camera" society.They're probably already on their way to your house because you typed that in capital letters. :)....

Hmmmm, then I guess he better mow the neighbors yard....the drunk ones I don't like. :mufc:

... If you think it's bad in America, stay away from England.

But the cameras are in public. They aren't hidden cameras. People know they are there. How is that any different than a neighborhood watch program?

Cripes if you think cameras are bad, live in a small town. Everybody knows your business...and they all tell Mom.

can you define "probable cause"?

Under the federal standard, which most states generally apply, probable cause is a standard of reasonableness under the circumstances and experience of the then acting law enforcement personnel in observing actions and intentions of persons similarly situated. More simply, do my observations + experience in the field and training make this person reasonably suspect for X (certain criminal) behavior.

for the purposes of this discussion yes, you are.
if a cop, by using one of these spy satillites, or an airplane for that matter, flies over your enclosed back yard and sees illegal activity, such as you growing pot, you can take it to the bank that you WILL be arrested for it.


Do individuals have any rights to the airspace above the land they own? Can I, for example, declare the space above my house a no-flight zone?

In 1926 the U.S. Congress passed the Air Commerce Act, which declared that the "navigable air space" of the U.S. was a public highway, open to all citizens.

in my (leopolds) opinion, this navigable airspace extends to approx. 100 feet above the ground.

this whole discussion is moot because a cop can arrest you for illegal activity no matter where you are if he observes you from any public accessable area.
this means they can climb a tree and look into your windows, with a telescope if necessary.


True. But if your blinds are closed, or must enter upon private property to do so, he cannot, as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a warrant issued on probable cause would be required. If you are in any outdoor area, including your own fenced in property, and are observed completing an illegal act, you are in jeopardy of facing criminal charges. However, one of the areas that had, and to some degree still is, hotly being contested is the use of infared and other penetrating gadgetry into areas where persons do generally have an expectation of privacy. Back in the 80s, drug sniffing dogs were often used and were often the subject of much constitutional due process litigation; the Supreme Court permitted such searches, without a warrant, thus opening the slippery slope of pandora's box when it comes to other alternative means to capture criminal activity.

I happen to disagree that I should have no expectation of privacy from government surveillance in a public place. Asking what private fact I am afraid of disclosing is a stupid question. I, as a reasonably law-abiding citizen should expect that my government is not watching me. I'm afraid of tyranny, Big Brother, and abuse of this power for political purposes.

My concerns as well. Big Brother is no saint itself, and its use of satellite cams or cams on telephone poles is, in my personal opinion, intrusive into the privacy of one's own sense of individual privacy in a public place. Sure, we may go to parks, beaches, and even golf courses, but our expectation is that wherever we may picnic, lay down our beach towels, or search for our lost balls we are privately separated from others doing the same task. For the nation to watch whether I cheated and didn't take a penalty stroke on hole #5 goes beyond most of our concepts of individual privacy. They should C-SPAN the Pentagon and White House as a prid pro quo so we can find out why that toilet seat cost $100.00.

And your "100-foot opinion" is clearly wrong also.
i have never seen aircraft fly lower than about 100 feet in urban areas.


Wasn't the FBI keeping extensive files and conducting surveiullance on lawful groups they didn't like in the past for no reason other than to harrass them? I guess not. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/25/news/fbi.php)
just because an organization is lawful is no sign they don't do illegal stuff.
Anyone who doesn't see the potential for abuse in government surveillance of civilians based solely on perceived political rivalries has a strange sense of the world in which they want to live and a very optimistic view of human nature.
we aren't talking about the government, we are talking about spy satellite technology being placed in the hands of civilian agencies.
Under the federal standard, which most states generally apply, probable cause is a standard of reasonableness under the circumstances and experience of the then acting law enforcement personnel in observing actions and intentions of persons similarly situated. More simply, do my observations + experience in the field and training make this person reasonably suspect for X (certain criminal) behavior.
probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two different things.
example:
if a cop drove past your house and smelled a rotting meat type of smell then he has a reasonable suspicion to investigate further. if his investigation turns up a dead body in your house then he has probable cause to arrest you.

Some of you people just amuse me to no end! :D I'll pose the same question here that I posted in the CCTV thread: just what makes you feel so special that they'd have even the least bit of interest in YOU??????

I don't think they are looking at me, but I don't think they should be allowed to randomly canvas the US in the hopes of finding bad guys, either. Such invasions of privacy are specifically why the Charters of both the NSA and the CIA prevent domestic operations.

An ordinary citizen walking down the street or going into a store would draw no more interest via satellite than it would from the crowd of people around you in public. As long as you're not robbing a bank, molesting a child, etc. they care NOTHING about you. Sheesh!

So you think a population should allow itself to be randomly searched at all times by the powers that be? Isn't that mildly authoritarian?

Obviously you unaware that that doesn't apply to surveillance. Cops and other government agents - and private citizens, for that matter - are free to observe you anytime they please.

You're confusing surveillance and observance. People can observe you any time, but surveillance is a little more tricky. Cops, for example, need to have probably cause and such, or they can be sued for harassment.

Clearly the government doesn't have sufficient satellites to watch everyone all the time, or the manpower to watch the uplinks! The satellites would be used to cover certain areas or certain people, just as you suggested.

I agree, but the organization was not set up to "spy" on Americans, regardless of what they are doing...

thus opening the slippery slope of pandora's box when it comes to other alternative means to capture criminal activity.Man, that is one messed up metaphore!

so we can find out why that toilet seat cost $100.00.That was explained, and correctly I think, in the movie Independence day. Remember when they were walking into the huge complex at area 51 and the president asked, "How do you get funding for this?" So Jeff Goldblum's dad says, "You really think they spend $300 for a toilet seat? or $500 for a hammer?". The implication being that all the stuff not included in the official budget greatly inflates the percieved cost of the items listed.

"How do you get funding for this?" So Jeff Goldblum's dad says, "You really think they spend $300 for a toilet seat? or $500 for a hammer?". The implication being that all the stuff not included in the official budget greatly inflates the percieved cost of the items listed.
that's the glossed over movie version for all the kiddies.
the actual source is a tad more sinister:
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/webb.html

probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two different things.
example:
if a cop drove past your house and smelled a rotting meat type of smell then he has a reasonable suspicion to investigate further. if his investigation turns up a dead body in your house then he has probable cause to arrest you.

Not quite. Smelling rotting meat, without more, does not give rise to probable cause, or a search warrant based on one. All warrants (search & arrest) generally require probable cause, which is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under standard law enforcement techniques and experience. Without turning this post into a treatise, a law enforcement officer may arrest when: (1) the act is committed in front of the officer, (2) the officer has reasonable suspicion that a CRIME has been committed, or (3) [the safest from a technical standpoint] when a probable cause hearing has been held and the judge executes an arrest/search warrant.

As far as "investigations" go, it is true that not all reasonably suspicious activity constitute a CRIME. In a nutshell, the officer must have reasonable suspicion on all requirements under statute for a crime to have probable cause for an arrest and/or search. For example, if a dead body showed up on 123 Elm Street, that does not give probable cause to arrest the person living at 321 Elm Street. It would, however, permit a search of 123 Elm Street and at least the right to detain (i.e. not hold on charges) the owner for questioning.

Man, that is one messed up metaphore!



Yah. Scary, ain't it?

Fraggle, banning trans-fats are no different than banning the use of sawdust as a filler in food products. They are only added to enhance shelf life. I think it's a positive step in the name of food safety.

probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two different things.
example:
if a cop drove past your house and smelled a rotting meat type of smell then he has a reasonable suspicion to investigate further. if his investigation turns up a dead body in your house then he has probable cause to arrest you.

Not quite.
yes, quite.
reasonable suspicion gives a cop a REASON to investigate further.
probable CAUSE gives a CAUSE to arrest you.
if you read my post you will notice i said essentially the same thing in it.

if you do not believe my post then:
reasonable suspicion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
probable cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

i shouldn't be too upset with you, i should have provided the links in my other post.

yes, quite.
reasonable suspicion gives a cop a REASON to investigate further.
probable CAUSE gives a CAUSE to arrest you.
if you read my post you will notice i said essentially the same thing in it.

if you do not believe my post then:
reasonable suspicion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
probable cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

i shouldn't be too upset with you, i should have provided the links in my other post.

Well, Wikipedia, for all of it's ordinary helpfulness, is not exact enough to be convincing to me. Probable cause is a "more likely than not" evidentiary standard, which includes all reasonably suspect evidence (breathalizers, blood analysis, DNA hair sampling, witness reports, direct or circumstantial evidence of motive (where scienter is necessary for the crime). If you're driving and cross the line of center, may a traffic cop arrest you for a DUI? No. But he does have reasonable suspicion, as you said, to investigate further. This is known as a Terry stop. If, after questioning you, smelling you, requesting a BAC, implementing field sobriety tests, he still reasonably believes or suspects further that you have committed the crime of DUI, he may lawfully arrest. Such arrest is not a formal charge of DUI until the prosecutor decides to prosecute. Point is, it's a preponderance standard, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge, at a probable cause hearing, is only interested in the preponderance of evidence, which takes into account all of the suspicion and beliefs of the arresting officer/witnesses, etc.

Does a reasonable suspicion based on the smell of alcohol = probable cause for DUI arrest? No (unless, perhaps, the smell is truly profound). But even then, officers are instructed to conduct sobriety tests to ensure probable cause for an arrest. But then again, the breathalizers may have been miscalibrated, which the officer knows is a possibility. Thus, the officer must balance all factors in making an arrest, based upon a reasonable suspicion (or if you prefer, belief) that a DUI has been committed by a preponderance of the evidence.

That was the point I was trying to make with your example of the smell of rotting meat. If a person was missing, if that person frequented the neighborhood, if that person was last seen at the residence, if that person scratched out "owner did it," then there would be probable cause for an arrest of the owner. But just a smell -- no. A Terry stop (if possible) would be more prudent than facing possible false arrest claims, and he could not enter upon the property without a search warrant, which in the absence of probable cause that a dead body was there, he would not receive.