Topic: I was studying biometrics and mass surveillance. There’s no ROI.
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago#137,854
As in, any terrorists or arch criminals caught have been captured through standard policing and targeted surveillance. The 9/11 attackers communicated in basic code, pretending to be couples and substituting words, that even Palantir would miss. There are no statistics that show lower crime rates. Yet people still sacrifice their freedom.
Of course. It’s the invasion of privacy and the pretense of “public safety.”
At least in the case of traffic and stoplight racket it’s just an obvious extortion racket. More so where authorities unrealistically lower the speed limits in tandem under the pretense of “safety.”
Let’s give an example. The Long Island Serial Killer was identified around 2012, full description and specific vehicle along with odd behaviors. It say in the file unnoticed for another decade until an astute FBI analyst relooked at the inept local police investigation and found this item. He wasn’t caught from geofencing warrants (cell tower traffic) or cameras.
> Move to Canada hippy, I don't have anything hide.
You’re as dismissive of your rights as you are stupid. As we’ve seen, law enforcement can change priorities, new laws can pass, special enforcement measures can be justified under various pretenses. I don’t want to live in East Germany in 1982 and neither should you.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,459,194
I don’t get why conservatives use Canada as an insult. I’ve been to Canada and if you have a problem with Canada, it’s probably your fault. It’s such a non-offensive place with such non-offensive people doing such non-offensive things. Sure they have a monarchy, but it’s not even real in the sense it’s a ceremonial thing and they have no power in practice and don’t even live in Canada.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 43 seconds later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,459,195
Tbh idk why Canada is still a monarchy, like your king isn’t even living in your country, that doesn’t make sense. But it’s not hurting anybody so whatever.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,459,197
But that’s the other thing about Canadians, they’re so nice they let him be the king just because they want to be friends with the British and that’s kinda cute actually. Even though like half of them speak French…
Anonymous C replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,459,205
@1,459,195 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc) @1,459,196 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
This is why Trump has the moral authority to annex Alberta and cut them in half. No people should be forced to serve an unelected authority.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 42 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,459,209
@previous (C)
I wouldn’t say that Canadians are required to serve the king, mostly because their king isn’t really a "king" in that he doesn’t actually do anything.
Anonymous C replied with this 3 weeks ago, 42 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,459,214
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
That's fine if he formally abdicates and calls himself a king, but anyone government that is formally a monarchy should be replaced with a republic.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc replied with this 3 weeks ago, 53 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,459,218
@previous (C)
I’m ok with elected monarchy, I’m just not a huge fan of hereditary monarchy. I think people should earn their positions regardless of whether it’s democratic.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,459,235
Like how come the commander in chief is the only person in the whole military who doesn’t have to know a damn thing about military strategy. That seems like a bad idea.
> Like how come the commander in chief is the only person in the whole military who doesn’t have to know a damn thing about military strategy. That seems like a bad idea.
They’re supposed to have advisers they listen to. The last good commander in chief was Bush I. Panama and Gulf War I, though likely unnecessary, succeeded.
Clinton, Bush II, and Trump were disasters. Obama at least listened to Petraeus and used special operators and drones to off terrorists.