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

[Larry/Spamhaus <lr () spamhaus org>]

At 09:34 PM 2/20/06 -0500, Larry Seltzer wrote:
> >>So tell me Larry - which statutes, exactly, said it was legal and not
> abusive when the FBI hassled Martin Luther King Jr, and tapped his phones,
> and all that other stuff they did?
>
> So we shouldn't have an FBI? Obviously these things are balancing acts, and
> we've already suggested elsewhere in this thread how outside monitoring is
> possible.
>
> >>You see, Larry, neither a wiretap nor a camera has any moral sense of its
> own. They can't tell if they're being used for illegal purposes.
>
> Wow, that's like really deep dude. And I guess guns don't know who they're
> shooting so police shouldn't have guns. And jails can hold innocent people
> so we shouldn't hold criminals in them either.
>
> This is what your argument sounds like to me.

You may have to listen to the sounds a bit more and deeper if you wish to 
get the argument being made.  Your parallels fall apart below the 
surface... "deeper" one could say.  Police guns do not target, injure or 
kill 99.9999999% innocent people.  Jails do not hold 99.9999999% innocent 
people.  Cameras set up to surveil the public do target and hold this %.

Deep dude.


Cheers,

Larry @ Spamhaus

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.