Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Surveillance and Ubiquity

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I apologize if this is a bit off-topic, so mods lock if appropriate, but one of the topics we often discuss on this board is the growth of government surveillance. At the same time, we always talk about carrying voice recorders, and sometimes even personal video recorders. I never thought of the two subjects as related, but this blog post certainly makes you think. In particular, read the last two paragraphs carefully:

    http://perimetergrid.com/wp/2008/04/...-and-ubiquity/
    Surveillance and UbiquityPosted by Grant Bugher

    HexView has an article about tracking vehicles with RFID tire pressure monitors. The devices are found in tires and transmit tire pressure to the engine control module, which sounds innocuous enough, but to prevent modules from reading neighboring cars’ tires by accident, they also transmit a unique ID. Thus, you can follow a car around town based on its ID, turning tire pressure monitors into tracking devices.

    RFID devices are becoming more and more common, and this trend will continue — they’re too convenient for many purposes for the security risks around them to stop them. You may not want every consumer good you buy to be tagged with an ID that lets people watch your shopping from 100 yards away, but the scenario of being able to check out at the grocery store by instantaneously scanning every item in your cart simultaneously is too compelling for people to resist.

    Bruce Schneier has a post on the ineffectiveness of security cameras, but while calling them ineffective it does note that criminals moved their crimes to somewhere the cameras couldn’t see. This may be “ineffective” for a government camera system designed to deter crime, but it’s precisely what privately-owned security cameras are meant to do — make a target unappealing so criminals go elsewhere. This actually shows that cameras do deter crime… but only where they can see it.

    However, both of these technologies can have pernicious effects, too. The HexView article points out that you could use the RFID tire monitors to commit murder — set a bomb with a radio trigger that goes off when the “right” car drives over it. It would also be just as useful to private investigators spying on citizens as it is to law enforcement chasing down criminals. And speaking of law enforcement, these cameras create a dangerous imbalance in their favor — the camera evidence is all under their control, and thus can come up when needed to prove a perpetrator’s guilt yet be conveniently lost in cases of police brutality, abuse of power, corruption etc.

    This is an interesting time for surveillance — police and government surveillance ability is skyrocketing (London is practically blanketed in cameras at this point, as the British seem much less uncomfortable with them than Americans are) but it is still largely in the hands of authority figures. This is dangerous because of how fast the change is coming — our criminal laws and sentencing structures are based on the principle that most criminals get away with it. A $75 fine for speeding seems pretty reasonable, but what if that fine were levied every time a car hit 1 mph over the speed limit? Most of us would get fined a dozen times a day, every day, despite not even meaning to speed, because our behaviors are based on the idea that we probably won’t get caught and that even if we are police are unlikely to punish us for very minor transgressions. If people were caught for speeding every time, and fined every time, a $75 fine would be absurd — the fine could probably be under $1 and still bring in a few hundred dollars a month from every citizen. What is the right legal structure here? I can see two possibilities:

    • Raise the speed limits to the speeds we really think no one should exceed, and continue to fine every time. Maybe you should get charged every time you exceed, say, 85 on a highway or 55 on a city street. Set them high enough that there’s no leeway required.
    • Leave the speed limits where they are but set the fine really low, say a $0.25 per minute of speeding. This makes speeding discretionary — you can obey the law, or not, but if you choose not to you pay a penalty. This is a fundamental change in the whole idea of crime and punishment, and itself has some pernicious consequences — it means that a certain income level can render you “above the law,” which is not a good thing. Obviously some crimes (such as murder) should not be treated as discretionary, but for traffic violations it could make sense.

    It’s not just traffic laws that are like this; consider the War on Drugs. If every person who ever smoked marijuana went to prison, we would have a nation of felons — there’d be few people left who could vote, get security clearances, hold most jobs, etc. The RIAA lawsuits against file-sharers are a good example of what happens when technology that catches everyone gets used to enforce laws designed under the assumption that only the worst and most flagrant criminals will be caught — people being hit by millions of dollars in fines for using technology to do something that wouldn’t even raise an eyelash if done by old, physical means (e.g. posting a song on BitTorrent vs. handing it to a friend on a cassette tape.)

    A surveillance society needs a different kind of jurisprudence — one that sets punishments that fit the crime even if applied every time. On the bright side, actually doing this would lower crime rates tremendously due to the psychology of criminals. Escalating punishments does little to deter crime because criminals are risk-seekers — they do not expect to get caught. Even a small punishment can be a strong deterrent if applied every time — if criminals are usually caught, such that all criminals have some first-hand experience with being caught and punished, it would break this idea. On the not so bright side, a surveillance society must have very liberal laws to avoid being a police state — our current legal system, applied to everyone every time, would result in tyranny. We all break 10 laws a day, it’s only sloppy enforcement that allows us to live our lives. Unfortunately, the technology for ubiquitous enforcement will come well before the legal system changes to make it livable do.

    What’s interesting to me is what will happen when surveillance becomes even more common: that is, when it is no longer monopolized by authority. This has already started with cellular phones. Almost everyone carries around a device which, while primarily for communication, contains a camera and often a voice recorder and videocamera as well. Everyone is equipped to carry out impromptu surveillance at any time. Devices like these glasses from ThinkGeek (found via BoingBoing) coupled with the rapidly falling cost of storage capacity will change this to everyone actually carrying out impromptu surveillance all the time. This will have a chilling effect on human behavior at first — would you act differently if you knew everyone around you was videotaping everything you did? Everything you say will, indeed, be able to be used against you, and not just in a court of law. However, look at what young people put on MySpace and Facebook these days — the next generation does not have the assumption of privacy. They’ve grown up in a world where they know everything goes on a permanent record, and have simply accepted it. Sure, they’ll be occasionally shocked by it (e.g. the first time their party photos on MySpace disqualify them from a job), but the knowledge of permanence has not stopped them from sharing themselves, and eventually the rest of us will adjust, too.

    Consider what the democratization of surveillance does to government power. When we’re all recording, someone is watching the watchers. Corruption, abuse of power, etc. all rely on the fact that authority figures can get away with crimes because they are more reliable witnesses in court than their victims are. When everything is on the record — and not just the official record, but everyone’s record — police and government officials become compelled to act within the law. While this may not be much of an impediment in truly totalitarian societies like China where the courts are as corrupt as everyone else, it’s a very strong bulwark of freedom in any society with an independent judiciary and a liberal tradition like the Untied States and Europe. This is the next generation of surveillance — everyone sucking in light and sound from their glasses, or lapel pens, or even contact lenses, recording every moment of their lives on multi-terabyte devices that fit in their pockets. It’s probably only 5-7 years away, and it washes away the current problems of a surveillance society and replaces them with new ones.

    I think this cycle will continue for some time. After all, once we’re past the era of democratized surveillance, computer graphics and artificial intelligence technology will improve to the point that ordinary people can modify their recordings to create perfect video of events that never happened, indistinguishable from the real thing. What happens to recordings in law courts then, when they cease to be reliable evidence and become hearsay? Tapes will become the new eyewitnesses, known to be unreliable and requiring corroboration from others. When it becomes truly easy to make forged video, perhaps we will have emerged from the surveillance society from the other side — why bother to record anything when there’s no way to tell if it’s real? Sometimes the only way out is through.
    The impact of all this stuff on our justice system and culture isn't something I had thought of with this angle.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post


  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I can say that this is stuff that we do not use or talk about using. There are a great many things available for tracking and monitoring people.

    You cannot fight technology unless you go live in a cave.... Even carrying your mobile phone around... you have voluntarily lo-jacked yourself.

    I say do not go breaking the law where the police will wantto come find youand you will be fine.



  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    ...we often discuss on this board is the growth of government surveillance.
    This month's Popular Mechanicsreports that Verizon and one other carrier have GPS chips in their phones.There ismore to the story, but of course, it has to do with making 911 calls.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    The sad thing, though, is that the sh**ple want to be tracked. They want RFID in everything, they want GPS chips embedded in their bodies, they want the government to nanny them 24/7 because they are either unable or too lazy to take care of themselves. The sh**ple are getting the surveillance society they want, good and hard, and when the day comes that we're like 1984, the sh**ple will be happy, as they do not understand freedom. :?


    ETA: I'm gonna go buy some more guns and ammo now...

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887

    Post imported post

    Nitrovic,

    It is wasteful (and unnecessary) for you to quote the entirety of a previous poster's post.

    Simply hit "Reply", or choose "Quote" and delete the extraneous text by highlighting such text and pressing the "Delete" key.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    ...we often discuss on this board is the growth of government surveillance.
    This month's Popular Mechanicsreports that Verizon and one other carrier have GPS chips in their phones.There ismore to the story, but of course, it has to do with making 911 calls.
    For the last few years, ALL new cellphones in the US have had GPS receiving capability installed. It's required by law, for 911 purposes.

    However, it really doesn't matter. Even without a GPS receiver in the phone, triangulation from cell towers can usually provide a location with surprising accuracy. GPS can generally nail your position within 10-20 feet, triangulation within 150-200 feet. GPS is an order of magnitude more accurate, but the difference rarely matters.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Hehe..... turning them off does NOT deactivate the ability to be tracked by either triangulationor GPS. Only removing the battery accomplishes that.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    Hehe..... turning them off does NOT deactivate the ability to be tracked by either triangulationor GPS. Only removing the battery accomplishes that.
    Not true of any phone that I'm familiar with and I worked in this space for a few years -- I worked on a big project for Sprint to build a tracking system that allowed companies that gave phones to delivery drivers, etc., to use them for tracking purposes.

    The only way a phone can be tracked is if it is transmitting, and any phone that is turned off should not be transmitting anything. If it is, it's depleting the battery, which is going to make users mad.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post


  11. #11
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    BobCav wrote:
    Hehe..... turning them off does NOT deactivate the ability to be tracked by either triangulationor GPS. Only removing the battery accomplishes that.
    Not true of any phone that I'm familiar with and I worked in this space for a few years -- I worked on a big project for Sprint to build a tracking system that allowed companies that gave phones to delivery drivers, etc., to use them for tracking purposes.

    The only way a phone can be tracked is if it is transmitting, and any phone that is turned off should not be transmitting anything. If it is, it's depleting the battery, which is going to make users mad.
    Just going by whatI was told a few years back. Back when GWB did a surprise visit to Iraq for Thanksgiving during his first term they made all the reporters on Air Force One remove the batteries from their phones. No one knew where they were going and no one was told until the flight was en-route.

    I was in the Washington Navy Yard at the time and knew folks that worked at WHCA (White House Communications Agency) and they said that even if the battery was in the phone it was still trackable. Maybe a good candidate for snopes?





  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    I say do not go breaking the law where the police will wantto come find youand you will be fine.

    Well that's a real convienient attitude if your the police officer, isn't it? :quirky

    Who polices the police? Who polices our FBI and Pentagon?

    With each newly passed law, more criminals are created. There are so many laws that one could be walking down the street, get some flem in their throat, spit it out and be breaking some stupid law without even knowing it. It's that ridiculous.As an example of the absurdity is the fact that the DC police are knocking door-to-door just to check and"see" if someone is breaking the laws. Who's protecting who?

    I have some betterideas as to how to solve the issues with too much technology -and just about everything else for that matter...

    How about less law, less bureaucracy, less red-tape, less "tracking" our own people, less restriction, less regulation, less taxation, less "traffic" cameras, freer and easier movement without documentation and a paper trail. Give the country back to the people and stop usurping authority from them. We should be watching them, not the other way around. They watch us and for what seems like their own survival and tell us it's in our best interests.

    Just because the technology exists to do something doesn't mean it should be done. It's called principle, something we haven't seen in government in a good many years now.. Not to mention the numerousconstitutional concerns.
    The problem there lies in the fact that the people want to be tracked. Pick up any science magazine and read them getting off to how the latest tracking technology makes their lives easier.

    I'm convinced that if tomorrow the government said, "We'll pay any person $10,000 to get a Homeland Security RFID chip implanted under their skin... to protect from the terrorists", there'd be a line out the door to do it. Soon after, everyone would be required to get chipped.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    The problem there lies in the fact that the people want to be tracked. Pick up any science magazine and read them getting off to how the latest tracking technology makes their lives easier.

    I'm convinced that if tomorrow the government said, "We'll pay any person $10,000 to get a Homeland Security RFID chip implanted under their skin... to protect from the terrorists", there'd be a line out the door to do it. Soon after, everyone would be required to get chipped.
    I believe you, except I don't think it would take anywhere near $10,000. I have met too many parentsthat would implant a chip in their children in two seconds if the opportunity arose.Reminds me of the Bourne Identity and Total recall.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Imperialism, you have 1776 posts now. That's a good number!!
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,761

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I can say that this is stuff that we do not use or talk about using. There are a great many things available for tracking and monitoring people.

    You cannot fight technology unless you go live in a cave.... Even carrying your mobile phone around... you have voluntarily lo-jacked yourself.

    I say do not go breaking the law where the police will wantto come find youand you will be fine.


    I don't think it's necissarily LEO's that everyone has to be worried about here 229. I think it's everyone that everyone has to be worried about to be honest with you. The article's last two paragraphs are a very sobering reminder of what is likely to happen before it reverses itself. I go out for a walk with my dog, and just for kicks I turn on my super secret spidey glasses to record my world - hey, I could be the next iReporter on cnn....you never know what your going to see. This type of thing I can see being really addicting.

    Then it gets to the point where the computing technology and software become as good at creating things as real life - wasn't there a movie made about that recently with Al Pacino (S1m0ne)....so what happens when you want to get even with someone, create an event that never happened, use CGI to make it real....think about it. Hollywood does alot of things these days, it takes talent, time, software, creativity, and some serious CPU horse power. What happens when those things are made easy enough for the soccer mom to do?


    As for the RFID issue in the tires, yeah that's a problem. However there are ways around this if you know anything about RF. I'm not saying there is a simple sexy solution, I'm saying it can be done similar to a cell phone jammer used in certain resturants/movie theaters. That would prevent others from reading your tires.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    I say do not go breaking the law where the police will wantto come find youand you will be fine.
    Well that's a real convienient attitude if your the police officer, isn't it? :quirky

    Who polices the police? Who polices our FBI and Pentagon?

    With each newly passed law, more criminals are created. There are so many laws that one could be walking down the street, get some flem in their throat, spit it out and be breaking some stupid law without even knowing it. It's that ridiculous.As an example of the absurdity is the fact that the DC police are knocking door-to-door just to check and"see" if someone is breaking the laws. Who's protecting who?

    I have some betterideas as to how to solve the issues with too much technology -and just about everything else for that matter...

    How about less law, less bureaucracy, less red-tape, less "tracking" our own people, less restriction, less regulation, less taxation, less "traffic" cameras, freer and easier movement without documentation and a paper trail. Give the country back to the people and stop usurping authority from them. We should be watching them, not the other way around. They watch us and for what seems like their own survival and tell us it's in our best interests.

    Just because the technology exists to do something doesn't mean it should be done. It's called principle, something we haven't seen in government in a good many years now.. Not to mention the numerousconstitutional concerns.
    What in the world is your major malfunction?

    Don't go ranting to me like I can make all those changes in government for you. Go do it yourself.

    I simply said.. those that are not "wanted" will not be actively tracked. Either get over it or learn reading comprehension.

    Geez!

  18. #18
    Regular Member ODA 226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Etzenricht, Germany
    Posts
    1,598

    Post imported post

    I've worked in the Counter-Intell community for years. You can still be "monitored" and "located" even if the phone is turned off. The only way to ensure that you can't is to remove ALL power sources. Let's not even get into the subject of "Hot-on-Hook" telephones...
    Bitka Sve Reava!
    B-2-10 SFG(A)/ A-2-11 SFG(A) 1977-1994

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    ODA 226 wrote:
    I've worked in the Counter-Intell community for years. You can still be "monitored" and "located" even if the phone is turned off. The only way to ensure that you can't is to remove ALL power sources. Let's not even get into the subject of "Hot-on-Hook" telephones...
    Yep!That's 20 year old tech too....the earpiece or receiver or microphone on a speaker phone can be made to be ON without you even knowing it for complete monitoring! Nothign a simple switch and soldering iron can't fix, but there it is! Let's not even get into computer microphones!

    oops.... is that a knock at my door?

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    There is so much technology we know nothing about that does exist.

    Best policy is stay out of trouble and there "should" be no reason to track you.

    With computers and micro technology today... You cannot hide.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post


    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    Evidently, I am not the one who has trouble comprehending asyou have misinterpreted my entire post. Your arrogance astounds me.Never did I say that I expect you to make changes. All I expect you to do as a LEO is follow your sworn oath the protect the constitution. I do attempt to "make those changes myself" by voting, writing, donating,getting invloved, etc..

    You seem to have a problem with people challenging the current laws and the current systemas it stands. I was suggesting that the legislatures promote criminal activity by inundating us with petty laws that require enforcement. I am suggesting that fewer restrictions and fewer laws develop a deepersense of liberty amongst the populace and thechallenges and even the bickering that we do would not be required as often because we as citizens are not as concerned with unconstitutional behavior by the government.

    I commented to you because you appeared to take a stance that it wasok totrack citizensif they are "wanted". Well that leaves a whole lot more questions than provides answers in my opinion and I was calling you out on it. If I have misinterpreted your post, it was not intended.
    You may have.. I do not agree with tracking anyone in their normal daily lives. Most of your rant had nothing to do with me and was more for the government to hear about.

    I am all for the tracking of those that are wanted by the law. And we do this every day. The US Marshals are even more into it and this is how they catch bad guys on the run.

    Now, if you are against the tracking of criminals on the runlike the Marine that is alleged to have killed the pregnant Marine and burned her in his back yardand fled to Mexico... I would enjoy hearing why.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Flintlock wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    There is so much technology we know nothing about that does exist.

    Best policy is stay out of trouble and there "should" be no reason to track you.

    With computers and micro technology today... You cannot hide.
    That is my whole point... Define trouble? Felons? terrosists? Or what about gun owners or other "people of interest?"

    What of the people that are not in trouble but are being monitored? Who is tracking the trackers? Who is keeping them in check?

    We shouldn't have to hide. I am not a criminal and I doubt you are as well. But how do you know you are not being monitored and if you are, would it be ok with you just because you may not have anything to hide? Well, it's not ok with me..
    You have the wrong idea... and you may want to think about your response again.

    I said "Trouble" and your list contains people that had been in trouble or are not even in trouble.

    Trouble would include a known terrorist operating in the US and a person wanted for committing a crime.

    I love it.. "Who is tracking the trackers" This is the throw down phraseof the century.

    Let me ask.... who is watching the watchers of the watchers? Where does it end?

    Maybe we need a circle system where the watcher of the watchers are actually watched by those being watched in the first place. Then they can all watch each other.

    If I am doing surveillance on a suspect.. do I need someone to be watching me too to make sure I am watching the suspect and not the girl next door?

  25. #25
    Regular Member Flintlock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska, USA
    Posts
    1,224

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Flintlock wrote:
    Evidently, I am not the one who has trouble comprehending asyou have misinterpreted my entire post. Your arrogance astounds me.Never did I say that I expect you to make changes. All I expect you to do as a LEO is follow your sworn oath the protect the constitution. I do attempt to "make those changes myself" by voting, writing, donating,getting invloved, etc..

    You seem to have a problem with people challenging the current laws and the current systemas it stands. I was suggesting that the legislatures promote criminal activity by inundating us with petty laws that require enforcement. I am suggesting that fewer restrictions and fewer laws develop a deepersense of liberty amongst the populace and thechallenges and even the bickering that we do would not be required as often because we as citizens are not as concerned with unconstitutional behavior by the government.

    I commented to you because you appeared to take a stance that it wasok totrack citizensif they are "wanted". Well that leaves a whole lot more questions than provides answers in my opinion and I was calling you out on it. If I have misinterpreted your post, it was not intended.
    You may have.. I do not agree with tracking anyone in their normal daily lives. Most of your rant had nothing to do with me and was more for the government to hear about.

    I am all for the tracking of those that are wanted by the law. And we do this every day. The US Marshals are even more into it and this is how they catch bad guys on the run.

    Now, if you are against the tracking of criminals on the runlike the Marine that is alleged to have killed the pregnant Marine and burned her in his back yardand fled to Mexico... I would enjoy hearing why.
    No, I am not against tracking criminals at all. Of course not. However,I do think that tracking peopleshould be clearly defined. I am suggesting that we don't know who is being monitored and why. It may not just be criminals. I am glad to read that you don't think we should be tracked in our daily lives.
    Peace through superior firepower

    Luke 11:21
    "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •