NYPD wants to keep arresting journalists for reporting on them

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

https://hellgatenyc.com/nypd-journalist-arrests/

I'm tired of the "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" bullshit surveillance state rhetoric. But well, since it's in, NYPD, if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?

[Riedquat]

I'm tired of the "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" bullshit surveillance state rhetoric. But well, since it's in, NYPD, if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?

A bit off topic but I get really annoyed when people give that line in general, as if that's the only reason to want privacy. Too many people simply don't understand that privacy is valuable in its own right, even without any concerns about the abuse of information. For example - I've no idea who you are (outside of being a poster here), and neither should I unless you explictly want to say.

There should be the absolute minimum possible recorded about people - and they should be free of any interference unless there's a good reason to believe they're up to no good.

[CharlesPhipps]

Surveillance becomes more justifiable due to, you know, them constantly lying.

There should be the absolute minimum possible recorded about people - and they should be free of any interference unless there's a good reason to believe they're up to no good.

I feel the right to privacy is forfeited when you are in a position of authority that can be abused.

[Riedquat]

Surveillance becomes more justifiable due to, you know, them constantly lying.

There should be the absolute minimum possible recorded about people - and they should be free of any interference unless there's a good reason to believe they're up to no good.

I feel the right to privacy is forfeited when you are in a position of authority that can be abused.

I'm not even sure about that. If nothing else you're on the track of removing legal equality there, and the concept of the same rights for everyone isn't something I'd want to tamper with - the road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that (which explains a lot about the modern world).

[CharlesPhipps]

I'm not even sure about that. If nothing else you're on the track of removing legal equality there, and the concept of the same rights for everyone isn't something I'd want to tamper with - the road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that (which explains a lot about the modern world).

And we've seen constant neverending abuses of power by the police. Until we find a way to remove their necessity, they should be watched.

[Nealithi]

I'm tired of the "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" bullshit surveillance state rhetoric. But well, since it's in, NYPD, if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?

A bit off topic but I get really annoyed when people give that line in general, as if that's the only reason to want privacy. Too many people simply don't understand that privacy is valuable in its own right, even without any concerns about the abuse of information. For example - I've no idea who you are (outside of being a poster here), and neither should I unless you explictly want to say.

There should be the absolute minimum possible recorded about people - and they should be free of any interference unless there's a good reason to believe they're up to no good.

What's the line for privacy?
People argued traffic light cameras were an invasion of privacy.

[McAvoy]

I'm tired of the "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" bullshit surveillance state rhetoric. But well, since it's in, NYPD, if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?

A bit off topic but I get really annoyed when people give that line in general, as if that's the only reason to want privacy. Too many people simply don't understand that privacy is valuable in its own right, even without any concerns about the abuse of information. For example - I've no idea who you are (outside of being a poster here), and neither should I unless you explictly want to say.

There should be the absolute minimum possible recorded about people - and they should be free of any interference unless there's a good reason to believe they're up to no good.

What's the line for privacy?
People argued traffic light cameras were an invasion of privacy.

Its complicated. Cops cannot just barge into a house. They need a warrant. Same goes for cars. Usually the only way they can bypass these two examples is certain scenerios. Such as a crime being done such as pursuits where someone enters a house. Or with the case of a car where they suspect there are narcotics either by smell or in plain site. Welfare check as innocent that could see would also allow them to enter a house without a warrant.

Same goes for cell phones or computers. Afterall, private stuff is stored on there. Though take for example, you got some naked pics of your SO on that phone. But you are not allowed physical privacy when you recieve a pat down and emptying out your pockets. If you are carrying some physical pictures of your SO naked for whatever reason, well that sucks for your SO.

Creating videos on your phone however doesn't violate any privacy laws if it's in a public place. So yes you could video some woman working out in tight gym clothes as that is a public area but you cannot just walk into a woman's locker room and video someone as that is a private area. Gyms do have rules about taking vids of people while in the gym and up to them to decide what to and how to enforce it.

Some gyms don't even allow videos to be made in their building just to skip any possible drama.

That is all I got now off of the top of my head.

[Nealithi]

I'm tired of the "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" bullshit surveillance state rhetoric. But well, since it's in, NYPD, if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?

A bit off topic but I get really annoyed when people give that line in general, as if that's the only reason to want privacy. Too many people simply don't understand that privacy is valuable in its own right, even without any concerns about the abuse of information. For example - I've no idea who you are (outside of being a poster here), and neither should I unless you explictly want to say.

There should be the absolute minimum possible recorded about people - and they should be free of any interference unless there's a good reason to believe they're up to no good.

What's the line for privacy?
People argued traffic light cameras were an invasion of privacy.

Its complicated. Cops cannot just barge into a house. They need a warrant. Same goes for cars. Usually the only way they can bypass these two examples is certain scenerios. Such as a crime being done such as pursuits where someone enters a house. Or with the case of a car where they suspect there are narcotics either by smell or in plain site. Welfare check as innocent that could see would also allow them to enter a house without a warrant.

Same goes for cell phones or computers. Afterall, private stuff is stored on there. Though take for example, you got some naked pics of your SO on that phone. But you are not allowed physical privacy when you recieve a pat down and emptying out your pockets. If you are carrying some physical pictures of your SO naked for whatever reason, well that sucks for your SO.

Creating videos on your phone however doesn't violate any privacy laws if it's in a public place. So yes you could video some woman working out in tight gym clothes as that is a public area but you cannot just walk into a woman's locker room and video someone as that is a private area. Gyms do have rules about taking vids of people while in the gym and up to them to decide what to and how to enforce it.

Some gyms don't even allow videos to be made in their building just to skip any possible drama.

That is all I got now off of the top of my head.

"It's complicated" Seems to be the central point.

My reason for asking is as stated people called traffic light cams a privacy invasion. But you can't be naked or have sex in your car due to public indecency. And then the law one that irks me. If someone got into my yard and climbed a tree to look into my back window. That is a peeping tom and invasion of privacy. But if they flew a drone with a video camera right to the window. Oh That is a different story.

My cynicism thinks the law makes it different so law enforcement can do it to you.

[McAvoy]

I'm tired of the "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" bullshit surveillance state rhetoric. But well, since it's in, NYPD, if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?

A bit off topic but I get really annoyed when people give that line in general, as if that's the only reason to want privacy. Too many people simply don't understand that privacy is valuable in its own right, even without any concerns about the abuse of information. For example - I've no idea who you are (outside of being a poster here), and neither should I unless you explictly want to say.

There should be the absolute minimum possible recorded about people - and they should be free of any interference unless there's a good reason to believe they're up to no good.

What's the line for privacy?
People argued traffic light cameras were an invasion of privacy.

Its complicated. Cops cannot just barge into a house. They need a warrant. Same goes for cars. Usually the only way they can bypass these two examples is certain scenerios. Such as a crime being done such as pursuits where someone enters a house. Or with the case of a car where they suspect there are narcotics either by smell or in plain site. Welfare check as innocent that could see would also allow them to enter a house without a warrant.

Same goes for cell phones or computers. Afterall, private stuff is stored on there. Though take for example, you got some naked pics of your SO on that phone. But you are not allowed physical privacy when you recieve a pat down and emptying out your pockets. If you are carrying some physical pictures of your SO naked for whatever reason, well that sucks for your SO.

Creating videos on your phone however doesn't violate any privacy laws if it's in a public place. So yes you could video some woman working out in tight gym clothes as that is a public area but you cannot just walk into a woman's locker room and video someone as that is a private area. Gyms do have rules about taking vids of people while in the gym and up to them to decide what to and how to enforce it.

Some gyms don't even allow videos to be made in their building just to skip any possible drama.

That is all I got now off of the top of my head.

"It's complicated" Seems to be the central point.

My reason for asking is as stated people called traffic light cams a privacy invasion. But you can't be naked or have sex in your car due to public indecency. And then the law one that irks me. If someone got into my yard and climbed a tree to look into my back window. That is a peeping tom and invasion of privacy. But if they flew a drone with a video camera right to the window. Oh That is a different story.

My cynicism thinks the law makes it different so law enforcement can do it to you.

Actually if for example you are doing naked yoga in your backyard and someone views you from their bedroom window, that is technically not a violation of privacy. Afterall, no one is going to monitor anyone closing their blinds from their own house if they see you doing the Double Frog Flip Curve in your naked Yoga. That would be your responsibility.

However, John Doe is now on a tree videoing you doing that Double Frog Flip Curve than that is a invasion of privacy.

Cars are different from houses and obviously treated as such. You can wack it off to your delight's content in your house. Even with the curtains open. Everyone in the neighborhood seeing you jack off to My Little Pony with a Carebear riding you. Best cops can do is give you citation about closing your blinds.

Now you do the same in a Walmart parking lot? Different sorry. Your car may be private but the space your cars isn't.

Cars in public space is fair game. Cars in your property isn't.

Which is why top less sunbathing in a backyard is fully legal and doing it on your car in a Home Depot parking lot is not.

[McAvoy]

Now with those lights with cameras. Philly has them. I just got one $100 for basically running a red light for a left hand turn. They got me in the act. I was probably rushing to make the light and didn't make it.

Now compare that to another situation where I did the same thing. I accelerated to make the yellow light before it turned redvand didn't make it. There was a cop who saw me do it. With that cop, I got out of it due to my honesty. He let me go. Before Fuzzy or someone else say I was let go because I was white, I will say this: Nope my skin color had nothing to do with it. It is how it is in my area.

The cameras eliminate that interaction but also allows that police district to gain more money from fees. Fees you really cannot argue against. It's cold and calculated.