You say Police State, I say potato. Either way let's discuss surveillance and government overreach.

Yeah, my understanding of the Just In Time nature of the economy is that any significant sustained unrest would mean no food, no medicine, no society. I've never thought guns would do a person much good in that scenario.

It depends how far one is willing to go. How far will you go to ensure your family is safe and healthy during a period of extreme lawlessness?

This particular topic takes us down a significant de-rail of the thread so I'll leave my contribution with this. I have plenty of guns. Now I just need more ammo.

Part A also means, "anyone we feel like" if they never have to prove it.

Reaper81 wrote:

Yeah, my understanding of the Just In Time nature of the economy is that any significant sustained unrest would mean no food, no medicine, no society. I've never thought guns would do a person much good in that scenario.

It depends how far one is willing to go. How far will you go to ensure your family is safe and healthy during a period of extreme lawlessness?

This particular topic takes us down a significant de-rail of the thread so I'll leave my contribution with this. I have plenty of guns. Now I just need more ammo.

I think far more important than guns and ammo would be basic necessities that allow you to "bug in" or fortify in place. Things like water collection and purification, dried food, durable shelter, fire/fuel, prescription medication, first aid, communications capability, and good relations with your immediate neighbors. Guns and ammo are pretty far down that list.

If you're looking for things that will get you through a temporary breakdown in civilization, consider what you ran out of during the last big snowstorm. While you're at it, thank big government for the snowplow that finally came by and let you get to supermarket.

Here are a few big government tips on how to survive.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Part A also means, "anyone we feel like" if they never have to prove it.

Yeah. Even if you read part B as hopeful, which I don't, part A undermines that hope. The government reserves the right to essentially declare from the White House that you've ceded your citizenship by becoming a "traitor" and fighting against America. Of course, I'm not a constitutional scholar like the president.

As far as the other stuff goes, like I said earlier, I don't want to go down the survivalist path. This thread isn't that. I understand where you're coming from, 93, but that's a dead end, IMO. Mostly because it's a whole other topic. I'm talking about what practical things you do to both made your voice heard as efficiently as possible to try and roll back some of this stuff and what you do to protect yourself.

Paleocon wrote:

Here are a few big government tips on how to survive.

'cause that doesn't send conflicting signals at all.

IMAGE(http://oathkeepers.org/oath/wp-content/uploads/fb1-flyer.jpg)

The ACLU says that this law makes it perfectly legal for the military to take a US citizen away forever - the exclusionary language you cite means they don't HAVE to, but other language you didn't cite says they CAN.

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

Note that this is expanding the definition of 'terrorism' from attacks on civilians to include attacks on soldiers.

That's not terrorism, that's usually resisting an occupying force.

Malor wrote:

The ACLU says that this law makes it perfectly legal for the military to take a US citizen away forever - the exclusionary language you cite means they don't HAVE to, but other language you didn't cite says they CAN.

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

Note that this is expanding the definition of 'terrorism' from attacks on civilians to include attacks on soldiers.

That's not terrorism, that's usually resisting an occupying force.

I'd also like to point out that the UK has already classed the Occupy movement with Al Qaeda.

Looks like they're throwing "urban exploration" in there too, which quite frankly just plain pisses me off. Sure it's dangerous to go wandering through derelict structures but they aren't causing any harm. Of course a lot of them are also photographers, and that's a known terrorist act.

Edwin wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Here are a few big government tips on how to survive.

'cause that doesn't send conflicting signals at all.

IMAGE(http://oathkeepers.org/oath/wp-content/uploads/fb1-flyer.jpg)

I'm not seeing any inconsistency.

I think the problem is that following the government's guidelines to prepare for a disaster runs afoul of the government's guidelines on recognizing terrorists. Really that makes a lot of sense, though. Why would you need to prepare for a disaster, huh? You think there's about to be a disaster? Why don't you come downtown and tell us about it...

LobsterMobster wrote:

I think the problem is that following the government's guidelines to prepare for a disaster runs afoul of the government's guidelines on recognizing terrorists. Really that makes a lot of sense, though. Why would you need to prepare for a disaster, huh? You think there's about to be a disaster? Why don't you come downtown and tell us about it...

Seriously? You really want to stretch it that far?

That's some serious tin foil.

Resurrecting this thread as the other police state thread was called an echo chamber. It was supposed to be. So I guess it's time to resurrect the other echo chamber.

I forgot about this thread, that reminds me...

Seth wrote:

The syndicate frozen rom is a fantastic rom, but is pretty out of date. CleanGB rom build 18 or thunderhawk 3.2 both remove CIQ and are based on Gingerbread and work with ei22. I use CleanGB because it's the most stable one I've seen - at least as stable as SFR.

I took this advice and went with CleanGB. It is so much better.

LobsterMobster wrote:

There's always the standby of "move to Canada," but Canada's kind of been slipping into the US's security vacuum so I have no idea how much longer it'll make much of a difference.

I like to read the American politics P&C threads here, partly because it's interesting/aggravating, and admittedly also because there's a bit of "there but for the grace of God".

On the other hand, Stephen Harper is doing everything in his increasingly unchecked power to bring the grace of God down on Canada. I'm not sure how attractive this country is going to be as an alternative to the US over the next four or so years. But if you can emigrate and become a citizen, we could use all the help we can next election!

Gravey wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

There's always the standby of "move to Canada," but Canada's kind of been slipping into the US's security vacuum so I have no idea how much longer it'll make much of a difference.

I like to read the American politics P&C threads here, partly because it's interesting/aggravating, and admittedly also because there's a bit of "there but for the grace of God".

On the other hand, Stephen Harper is doing everything in his increasingly unchecked power to bring the grace of God down on Canada. I'm not sure how attractive this country is going to be as an alternative to the US over the next four or so years. But if you can emigrate and become a citizen, we could use all the help we can next election!

That's the tricky thing. Countries like Australia and Canada embraced the direction of the US recently. It's hard to say where else there is to go outside of going to a Central American country and taking your chances with a younger country. Costa Rica is amazing and my wife and I have talked about living their regardless of what's happening in the US. The biggest problem with a country like that is that they're very prone to being manipulated by large multinationals backed by.... drumroll... the US.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2012/01/fbi-releases-plans-to-monitor.html

This isn't a shocker, but the government is planning to monitor (only publicly they say) all social networks. The eye of the government is firmly trained on its own citizens. Not sure why I keep accounts on social networks at this point.

"The government" is already doing this, as are private companies. Why do you think all those games require you to give access to your information? The FBI is hardly the first organization to do this - heck, police anti-gang units have been getting good information from Facebook for a few years now. There are detectives whose main job is monitoring social networks.

If the technology is out there, and private companies are taking advantage of it, what in the world is wrong with the government doing the same thing?

DSGamer wrote:

This isn't a shocker, but the government is planning to monitor (only publicly they say) all social networks. The eye of the government is firmly trained on its own citizens. Not sure why I keep accounts on social networks at this point.

Um, that's exactly what any form of law enforcement does on the local, state or federal level. They monitor the citizens because it's the only way to figure out which ones are the bad ones.

So, when a cop takes on the task of community policing by asking local shop owners, football coaches, and pastors what they might have heard around the neighborhood about the string of folks stealing packages from people's front doors during the day, that's evidence of a police state? How is that terribly different from monitoring Facebook accounts to see if folks are bragging about tagging the local gas station or "jumping in" some 14 year old into their dickless gang?

Bear wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

This isn't a shocker, but the government is planning to monitor (only publicly they say) all social networks. The eye of the government is firmly trained on its own citizens. Not sure why I keep accounts on social networks at this point.

Um, that's exactly what any form of law enforcement does on the local, state or federal level. They monitor the citizens because it's the only way to figure out which ones are the bad ones.

That's...I just....I don't even...

That statement is every dystopian novel or movie in a nutshell.

Minarchist wrote:

That statement is every dystopian novel or movie in a nutshell.

Only if you live in a world where you believe law enforcement is out to get. Not all of us do.

What exactly is it that you'd expect law enforcement on any level to do then? Their job is to patrol, investigate, monitor, respond... That whole fight crime thing?

If you want a world where theres no police or law enforcement monitoring you, you might want to move to Somalia.

It has nothing to do with being paranoid of law enforcement. That idea sits squarely in the realm of thought crimes. The way our system is ostensibly set up is that nothing happens until an actual crime is committed, in which case punishment is enacted without fail. The guarantee of that punishment is sufficient deterrent for people who would be deterred by anything at all.

Paleocon wrote:

So, when a cop takes on the task of community policing by asking local shop owners, football coaches, and pastors what they might have heard around the neighborhood about the string of folks stealing packages from people's front doors during the day, that's evidence of a police state? How is that terribly different from monitoring Facebook accounts to see if folks are bragging about tagging the local gas station or "jumping in" some 14 year old into their dickless gang?

I'm with you Paleo. I fail to see how law enforcement monitoring social media, which in most cases undeniable public, any different than a NYS trooper checking speeds on the thruway or my local cop sitting in the back of my development watching for someone to pass a stopped school bus or run a stop sign.

Bear wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

So, when a cop takes on the task of community policing by asking local shop owners, football coaches, and pastors what they might have heard around the neighborhood about the string of folks stealing packages from people's front doors during the day, that's evidence of a police state? How is that terribly different from monitoring Facebook accounts to see if folks are bragging about tagging the local gas station or "jumping in" some 14 year old into their dickless gang?

I'm with you Paleo. I fail to see how law enforcement monitoring social media, which in most cases undeniable public, any different than a NYS trooper checking speeds on the thruway or my local cop sitting in the back of my development watching for someone to pass a stopped school bus or run a stop sign.

Social networks are not public spaces. They are private spaces wholly owned by private corporations. I have no problem with cops acting on things the hear in actual public spaces like public parks or on sidewalks. If cops took to hanging around in the foyer of most office blocks hoping to overhear what customers and staff were saying you'd expect most businesses to object.

Minarchist wrote:

It has nothing to do with being paranoid of law enforcement. That idea sits squarely in the realm of thought crimes. The way our system is ostensibly set up is that nothing happens until an actual crime is committed, in which case punishment is enacted without fail. The guarantee of that punishment is sufficient deterrent for people who would be deterred by anything at all.

You're correct, our system of law enforcement is largely reactionary with a emphasis on prevention. A cop "walking a beat" is largely viewed as a deterrent but the reality is very different. Endless studies show that the threat of punishment doesn't deter crime because the criminals don't believe that they'll be caught. It's largely the same reason that capital punishment is ineffective.

That still don't believe that has anything to do with "thought" police. If a teenager posts that he's "going to blow up his school" or tweets that he's going to "kill a classmate" on his Facebook page I sort of think that's the kind of thing the police should be looking for.

Hard to argue you have a right to privacy to your tweets.

Minarchist wrote:

It has nothing to do with being paranoid of law enforcement. That idea sits squarely in the realm of thought crimes. The way our system is ostensibly set up is that nothing happens until an actual crime is committed, in which case punishment is enacted without fail. The guarantee of that punishment is sufficient deterrent for people who would be deterred by anything at all.

The reason I brought up the case of the dickless gangbangers tagging a gas station is because it is a pretty personal anecdote. That was my gas station. And the BPD caught the perpetrators largely because they were monitoring the Facebook accounts of the usual suspects.

As far as I'm concerned, this isn't evidence of a "police state". It's just good police work. And I, for one, would like to see this utilized a whole lot more.

DanB wrote:

Social networks are not public spaces. They are private spaces wholly owned by private corporations. I have no problem with cops acting on things the hear in actual public spaces like public parks or on sidewalks.

How is a cop hearing something in a public park or sidewalk any different from a cop seeing a post made in a very public manner on a social media site? Things people place on social media sites are almost the definition of public. I thought that was a lesson we all learned a very long time ago when first interacting with these kinds of sites.

Paleocon wrote:

So, when a cop takes on the task of community policing by asking local shop owners, football coaches, and pastors what they might have heard around the neighborhood about the string of folks stealing packages from people's front doors during the day, that's evidence of a police state? How is that terribly different from monitoring Facebook accounts to see if folks are bragging about tagging the local gas station or "jumping in" some 14 year old into their dickless gang?

A couple of recognised cops going door to door in their patrol neighbourhood isn't even remotely analagous to the FBI hoovering up every "public" facebook status and scanning it against a blacklist of phrases. Would you be happy if the FBI opened every piece of mail and did the same?

So, when you post something to Facebook, Dan, you have an expectation that that will be held private? Really?

I can stand on privately owned land in any city and if I spoke, and a policeman listened to it, would that be a violation of my privacy?

DanB wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

So, when a cop takes on the task of community policing by asking local shop owners, football coaches, and pastors what they might have heard around the neighborhood about the string of folks stealing packages from people's front doors during the day, that's evidence of a police state? How is that terribly different from monitoring Facebook accounts to see if folks are bragging about tagging the local gas station or "jumping in" some 14 year old into their dickless gang?

A couple of recognised cops going door to door in their patrol neighbourhood isn't even remotely analagous to the FBI hoovering up every "public" facebook status and scanning it against a blacklist of phrases. Would you be happy if the FBI opened every piece of mail and did the same?

Anyone who honestly thinks that posting something on Facebook gives them an expectation of privacy is either the Most Naive Person in the World(tm) or has been hitting the restricted pharmaceuticals a bit too hard. Heck, the freaking EULA for Facebook gives them the right to sell your mined information to marketers for gods' sakes -- and that includes your GPS position. Show me how that is analogous to the FBI opening your mail. I dare you.