The DEA Is Spying On Millions Of Cars All Over The U.S.

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I'm not saying it's time to bust out the tinfoil hats but right now might be a good time to at least start wrapping your car in it. :eek:

The system collects data about vehicle movements, including time, direction and location, from high-tech cameras placed strategically on major highways. Many devices also record visual images of drivers and passengers, which are sometimes clear enough for investigators to confirm identities.
Click to expand...
 
To think, we tried to leave England and it's abuses ............
 
Paul_Johnson said:
To think, we tried to leave England and it's abuses ............
Click to expand...

That was before we realized they were doing it for our own good and protecting us from <insert scare of the week>..... Now it's time to play catch up... because terrorist...
 
And to think if we did the same thing the government does we'll be charged with:
Edit: Never mind I have some pics that can speak for myself....
 
I've seen cameras on the highway and US routes that I've asked a few what were they and no one knew. Also they aren't the normal police or ticket cameras but no one ever seems to talk about them.

I have to say though, those police cameras are sharp and awesome! Helped me out once.
 
I want to start something on the blockchain by neighbors of elected and appointed officials that monitors the comings and goings of officials to their homes. Done voluntarily through motion activated cameras. Just a little harmless data.
 
Biznatch said:
That was before we realized they were doing it for our own good and protecting us from <insert scare of the week>..... Now it's time to play catch up... because terrorist...
Click to expand...

Don't forget the children, wont someone think of the children? :D
 
If it results in safer roads and taking care of inattentive asshole drivers who can't help but facebook behind the wheel and drop one Mansfield bar a day, go for it, spy on hundreds of millions of cars, please!
 
bigstusexy said:
I've seen cameras on the highway and US routes that I've asked a few what were they and no one knew. Also they aren't the normal police or ticket cameras but no one ever seems to talk about them.

I have to say though, those police cameras are sharp and awesome! Helped me out once.
Click to expand...

Cameras on the highway's and interstates are typically used for D.O.T.
So they can use it for data for making new exits or advising drivers via radio of accidents. Or advising cops/fire/ems/roadside assistance of delays or issues.
 
JPF_ said:
Cameras on the highway's and interstates are typically used for D.O.T.
So they can use it for data for making new exits or advising drivers via radio of accidents. Or advising cops/fire/ems/roadside assistance of delays or issues.
Click to expand...

I saw on NCIS that they can find you on a traffic camera with facial recognition software and zip you off to gitmo in a couple of hours.
 
Two points,

1) Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

LEAP Trailer, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE5i7RVHEPU

LEAP site, http://www.leap.cc/

2) When San Francisco Stopped Prosecuting Drug Users, Violent Crime Went Down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_uqQhC3XA4

An interview with San Francisco police chief Greg Suhr.

"I'm a narc. I've been a narcotics guy forever," says San Francisco police chief Greg Suhr. "But I'm just telling you, I've always felt bad for the people that were addicted to drugs."

Suhr is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, George Gascon, who is now District Attorney in the city and who began the process of de-emphasizing drug enforcement in the midst of cutbacks to the police force in the wake of the 2007 recession. Since Suhr has taken over, he's disbanded most of the force's narcotics unit, and drug arrests have plummeted by 85 percent.

Suhr is no fan of drug legalization. He views drug addiction as a serious public health problem, a debatable assertion with its own set of dubious public policy implications, and he looks upon drug dealers with scorn and says they are preying on the sick.

But regardless of the questionable nature of Suhr's underlying logic, San Franciso offers an enticing glimpse at what American cities might begin to look like if drugs were legalized or decriminalized. Suhr's department still makes arrests for drug dealing, but only on a complaint-driven basis. They don't go out of their way to set up stings or raids. And while causation does not equal correlation, Suhr believes that the drop in violent crime since the shift in policy began indicates that his department has its priorities straight.

"Not trying to just keep a stat game going on arresting people for narcotics has not hurt us in trying to achieve our goal in trying to make San Franciso safest," says Suhr.
Click to expand...

Of course, the DEA will never understand.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” , Upton Sinclair
 
Another problem with these systems is who might have access to them. Some people have spied on ex-girl/boyfriends before. I'm not sure of this specific system - but a police department where I live had issues with their license plate system.
They had to add an access log - still doesn't prevent the problem, but does track it in case it comes up there is an audit trail.
The LPR systems are allowed because the roads are government property (at least my location). By driving on the roads, you are subject to their monitoring you. I assume the DEA is a similar situation.
 
Don't forget the DEA is just enforcing the BS law's created by the "representatives" and "leaders" we elected into office. The drug war is a complete waste of resources that continues from administration to administration.

You don't like what the DEA is doing then blame congress and the administration. The DEA agents are just doing their jobs. In the DEA's defense they aren't just busting hipsters or beatniks with a few grams. The DEA has also taken out several large and very violent organizations.

Back to the camera's, with regard to privacy I would be more worried about the technology installed in CBP and DEA aircraft. The FLIR and listening pods being utilized are equal parts mind blowing and terrifying.
 
ICPiper here, this actually not real. The media is lying to you and you are all a bunch of gullible morons. Edward Snowden is a traitor, drugs are bad, and I worked in intelligence so everything I say is fact.
 
Lith1um said:
Two points,

1) Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

LEAP Trailer, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE5i7RVHEPU

LEAP site, http://www.leap.cc/

2) When San Francisco Stopped Prosecuting Drug Users, Violent Crime Went Down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_uqQhC3XA4



Of course, the DEA will never understand.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” , Upton Sinclair
Click to expand...

Still Lith1um, people keep fucking themselves up and fucking up their lives and other peoples lives because of drug use.

I know you feel like it's a choice thing, but it's fucked up when families have to deal with fucked up kids and siblings and for fucking all the worst, parents.

So you can argue this point that backing off on enforcement lowers some statistic but you'll never get past the simple fact that if people just stopped using the outcome would be by far the best.

Just because violent crime drops when enforcement backs off it doesn't mean crime is down and it doesn't mean anyone is better off, just that their is less violence involved. And how does that work anyway? Law backs off the users, what? Spouses and GFs, etc stop bashing on each other when they get busted? Is that the benefit? There is a wide range of violent crimes, maybe better stats on which crimes drop when enforcement backs off would explain the situation clearer.
 
DarkStar02 said:
ICPiper here, this actually not real. The media is lying to you and you are all a bunch of gullible morons. Edward Snowden is a traitor, drugs are bad, and I worked in intelligence so everything I say is fact.
Click to expand...

lcpiper really here telling you I can accurately predict the future. I know with 100% certainty that you are an idiot and that I am going to get a Forum Violation for simply telling the truth :rolleyes:
 
lcpiper said:
.......
Click to expand...

You are correct, drug abuse is highly destructive to the individual and their families. Yes, society would be better off if people didn't abuse drugs - absolutely.

Where I think you get it wrong is the idea that criminalizing something will produce a positive outcome in society. The data overwhelmingly shows the opposite.

Besides that, the argument for criminalizing it is absurd: "drugs will mess up your life, so if we find you with them, we will put you in prison.... which will mess up your life".
 
Give up all your privacy, rights, and freedoms so the government can stop 2% of drugs. Doesn't really seem like a good deal.
 
lcpiper said:
Still Lith1um, people keep fucking themselves up and fucking up their lives and other peoples lives because of drug use.

I know you feel like it's a choice thing, but it's fucked up when families have to deal with fucked up kids and siblings and for fucking all the worst, parents.

So you can argue this point that backing off on enforcement lowers some statistic but you'll never get past the simple fact that if people just stopped using the outcome would be by far the best.

Just because violent crime drops when enforcement backs off it doesn't mean crime is down and it doesn't mean anyone is better off, just that their is less violence involved. And how does that work anyway? Law backs off the users, what? Spouses and GFs, etc stop bashing on each other when they get busted? Is that the benefit? There is a wide range of violent crimes, maybe better stats on which crimes drop when enforcement backs off would explain the situation clearer.
Click to expand...

I've read your opinions on NSA, and we've disagreed on some things.
I knew that you were involved in the past, so ultimately no matter what I say, there's still a chance you were closer to correct than I on various data points in that regard, however unlikely.

Now that I've read your opinion on the war on drugs, you have just done me the courtesy of invalidating your opinion on any format of state terrorism. Thank you for saving me some time.
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
Don't forget the children, wont someone think of the children? :D
Click to expand...

Of course they think of the children. Public schools were created to make better employees! In school we're taught to honor the politicians, obey the laws they make, and learn how to be good productive employees of big business. Follow the rules and do as you're told, no matter how idiotic, just because teacher told you to. Don't ask questions. Private, religious schools were created to spread the religions, AND make you do what they say OR GOD WILL PUNISH YOU FOREVER AND EVER!
 
"What's good for the goose, is good for the gander." :cool:

Oakland is just one of a number of cities across the country using GPS technology to improve worker accountability.”52 For example, law enforcement in Clinton Township, New Jersey, installed a GPS tracking device behind the front grilles of several patrol cars in 2001, without notifying the officers. A sergeant was then able to catch five officers loitering over meals or hanging out in parking lots, when they had indicated in their log books that they were patrolling the streets or watching for highway speeders. :D

https://epic.org/privacy/workplace/gps-traking.pdf

Hmm... you would be very surprised how many police officers during the earlier morning hours get a restful night of sleep while parked discretely in the back section of the local cemetery and the dispatcher has NO knowledge of the true location of where the patrol vehicle is parked. Heck... I've even seen a police officer use his remote control garage door opener and park the patrol vehicle inside his garage and close the door preventing the public from knowing his exact location... very discrete and no one knows he's even home. :eek:

More people are video taping police officers talking on their cell phones while the officer is erratically driving their patrol vehicle on the highway. How about video taping them while they are standing at a roadside construction site directing traffic while they are texting or talking on their cell phones... not to mention their department charges the utilities company i.e. telephone, natural gas, water companies $65 per hour protecting them from crazy drivers and that $65 dollar PER HOUR fee is reflected into your/consumer monthly bills. See, what great country we live in, even the Police should be monitored by their supervisors. You're not doing your job effectively while texting or talking for lengthy periods of time while directing traffic, or sleeping on the job, or parked hidden inside your home garage. The public should demand GPS units be placed in all patrol vehicles. ;)
 
lcpiper said:
Still Lith1um, people keep fucking themselves up and fucking up their lives and other peoples lives because of drug use.

I know you feel like it's a choice thing, but it's fucked up when families have to deal with fucked up kids and siblings and for fucking all the worst, parents.

So you can argue this point that backing off on enforcement lowers some statistic but you'll never get past the simple fact that if people just stopped using the outcome would be by far the best.

Just because violent crime drops when enforcement backs off it doesn't mean crime is down and it doesn't mean anyone is better off, just that their is less violence involved. And how does that work anyway? Law backs off the users, what? Spouses and GFs, etc stop bashing on each other when they get busted? Is that the benefit? There is a wide range of violent crimes, maybe better stats on which crimes drop when enforcement backs off would explain the situation clearer.
Click to expand...
Well, actually yes crime is down in that scenario. Not drug use crimes specifically, but all the concomitant crimes that accompany a drug arrest (resisting arrest, assault, fleeing police, obstruction of justice ect ect) simply don't happen when you stop trying to imprison people for exorbitant periods of time for their non-violent victimless actions.

Now, if they went ahead and repealed the statutes that (are no longer being enforced in this example) making non-violent victimless drug use a crime, then drug crimes proper would go way down too. But that solution is so obvious, rational and cost effective we could never actually implement it.

Reminds me of Salt Lake City solving their homeless problem by building housing, because it cost less to house the homeless than it did to constantly provide emergency services for the homeless.

Homeless problem? Build homes.
Drug crime problem? Decriminalize drugs.
 
lcpiper said:
Still Lith1um, people keep fucking themselves up and fucking up their lives and other peoples lives because of drug use.

I know you feel like it's a choice thing, but it's fucked up when families have to deal with fucked up kids and siblings and for fucking all the worst, parents.

So you can argue this point that backing off on enforcement lowers some statistic but you'll never get past the simple fact that if people just stopped using the outcome would be by far the best.

Just because violent crime drops when enforcement backs off it doesn't mean crime is down and it doesn't mean anyone is better off, just that their is less violence involved. And how does that work anyway? Law backs off the users, what? Spouses and GFs, etc stop bashing on each other when they get busted? Is that the benefit? There is a wide range of violent crimes, maybe better stats on which crimes drop when enforcement backs off would explain the situation clearer.
Click to expand...


So lets work harder at something that clearly hasn't/doesn't work.... Creating more laws/enforcment does the exact opposite, and does not stop people from using. They will find alternate sources, or other stuff to use. Or just abuse alcohol, which is legal and causes more damage than the drugs you think should be banned.

How is all that addiction/abuse/crime/deaths/otherbullshit going for the crazy states that legalized weed? It's amazing how they are experiencing the exact opposite of all the bullshit people swore would happen. But that couldn't possibly happen if they did the same thing for all drugs... We have seen from other countries how that doesn't work....
 
Camera on public property, with no expectation of privacy......

And what exactly is the problem? Remotely or in person if they want to watch you... They will

I'd be more xoncerned... But I am not... Considering many stores have outside cameras and fellow citizens as well
 
but you'll never get past the simple fact that if people just stopped using the outcome would be by far the best.
Click to expand...

Honestly I do not think you will ever get past the fact that life is not that easy. Some people will fall into drug problems and thats bad, but its not the end of them. Giving them a record and introducing them to a worse set of people often does lead to the end of them though.
 
lcpiper said:
So you can argue this point that backing off on enforcement lowers some statistic but you'll never get past the simple fact that if people just stopped using the outcome would be by far the best.

Just because violent crime drops when enforcement backs off it doesn't mean crime is down and it doesn't mean anyone is better off, just that their is less violence involved. And how does that work anyway? Law backs off the users, what? Spouses and GFs, etc stop bashing on each other when they get busted? Is that the benefit? There is a wide range of violent crimes, maybe better stats on which crimes drop when enforcement backs off would explain the situation clearer.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, so it's better to have less non-violent crimes than less violent crimes? And even if you did prefer non-violent crime over violent crime (which apparently you do not), you still would not support an action that reduces violent crime because if you cannot obtain the optimal solution since since currently it is impossible, it is better to go with the temporary solution that works the least and causes the most violent crime? Ok...

lcpiper said:
Still Lith1um, people keep fucking themselves up and fucking up their lives and other peoples lives because of drug use.

I know you feel like it's a choice thing, but it's fucked up when families have to deal with fucked up kids and siblings and for fucking all the worst, parents.
Click to expand...

All people who do hard drugs are morons. Most people who do soft (harmless in moderation) drugs are morons too, because they either do not do it in moderation or the reason they are doing it is because their life sucks (often for reasons that are currently their own fault and they know it but are too lazy to fix it, so they turn to drugs to pass free time). I myself have not ever tried any kind of drug, and I never will, because I think the whole idea is stupid. But as long as people are not hurting others, I do not care what they do.

But apparently you extend the "not hurting others" further than me. So let's see where your level takes us...

I am going to use "you," but it applies to any "family members" you may wish to "protect."

Do you drink alcohol, smoke inside your own house, eat unhealthy food, sit for long periods of time, not stay in excellent physical shape, play electronic/video games, gamble, not lead a social-butterfly lifestyle, have sex, drink/eat anything with large amounts of caffeine? Because all of those things can have seriously dangerous consequences in the right situations (some of them in any situation) and the same groups that want drugs illegal want equal government intervention in those areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top