Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
Hi,
You seem to be missing the point here. It's not the fact that I am on Tape, it's that I am on a Gov't. Tape as a potential Bad Guy and without my prior knowledge or consent. There doesn't have to be any more material damage than that.
I went to buy some food, a normal, legal, everyday activity. I have the right to expect that my Gov't. isn't watching my day-to-day activities. .
The Right to Privacy was not given to me. As confirmed by the Founding Fathers, this Right is inalienable and is mine simply because I exist here as a Citizen. It cannot be Granted, I own this Right. It cannot be taken away, unless I (or a majority of my fellow citizens) agree to relinquish it. In the case of the EDRs, I choose not to relinquish it! At least without voicing my opposition and doing all I can to oppose it.
. But, I feel the detriments outweigh the benefits by a long shot...
|
Jim,
I understand your concern, but the Government was not watching you. The Government was watching the establishment, which was the front for a drug operation. You ended up on the tape by happenstance, and because you didn't buy drugs, you were not harmed in any way. The Government did not use the tape against you, or publish the tape of you. The Officers were prohibited from erasing any portion of that tape, so I understand that you are on there for the ages, but, beyond taking drug dealers off the street, who were likely selling dope to our children, what harm did the tape do?
I like the comment about being on a Government tape as a potential bad guy without your prior knowledge or consent. So, you're saying that Law Enforcement Officers should have approached the operators of the Taco Stand and say " Hey, is it O.K. if we set up across the street and record you guys selling dope? Oh, and here's a stack of consent forms. If it's not too much trouble, can you hand them out to the people who come to buy dope? Thanks a bunch. We'll be in that blue van right over there if you need us" I mean, they are entitled to the same protections as you, right? I suspect that surveillances would be highly successful under that set of rules.
If the Government had to guarantee that no "good" person would ever inadvetently cross their camera lens, how could they possibly watch the drug dealers, child molesters, gang members and terrorists who prey upon us. And if the Government couldn't watch the drug dealers, child molesters, gang members and terrorists, how could they ever be expected to stop them?