The American police state

It also must be remembered that Rupert Murdoch was paying off police to hack citizens phones for salacious stories.

This is a false statement, private detectives were paid to hack phones.


So do not think it would be above crooked people to also pay off the police to use their cameras for salacious stories and/or blackmail.

So you can say the footage is only looked at if a crime is committed, but
1. everything is illegal
and
2. It can also be used for political purposes. A representative sneaking around with his secretary, let's see if we can pay the police a few dollars, and see what juicy details we can get.

While it of course possible to get corrupt policemen, if you have proper procedures for accessing this information, then such practices become very difficult.

Far better and less risky to pay a private eye.
 
Romans 13:1-7 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

There is just so much paranoia in this thread. It seems like whenever some bad thing happens it is automatically meaning we are living in a "police state". Do good and you are unlikely to be punished.


Wait a minute, in this very same book you are quoting, I seem to remember a man named Jesus Christ that was ONLY "doing good" Do you recall what happened to that man in this book?

He was whipped to shreds and crucified.

And I have refrained myself from posting thousands of links of horrible things that happen to good people every day from the police in the United States. These are not just isolated incidents.

I don't understand why you quoted this passage. It is talking about the powers of God. The police are not the powers of God. They are the powers of man.

There is just so much paranoia in this thread.

Last year, 680,000 people in New York City were accosted, and stopped from their daily lives by people with guns and the authority and blessing of the state to use them, as well as the right to take money and subject these people to a court system which costs even more money. 90% These people had done nothing wrong, except look suspicious.

680,000 people in one city alone. So no, it isn't just paranoia. And if it wasn't for people like me and the ACLU, who are "paranoid", it would be left to people like you to determine whether this is an acceptable practice. So these kinds of things must be fought, and brought to the public consciousness, and it is unfortunately a never ending battle, because people with attitudes like yours simply don't care.
 
This is a false statement, private detectives were paid to hack phones.

Wrong.

Here is a frontline documentary on the subject:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/murdochs-scandal/

He was not just using private detectives, the scandal heavily involved the police departments in the UK.

While it of course possible to get corrupt policemen, if you have proper procedures for accessing this information, then such practices become very difficult.

Far better and less risky to pay a private eye.

Again, at least watch the documentary I posted.


And while I am at it, I will mention this about the police state:

People seem to think the police are for the most part, incorruptible, and only a small minority are the "bad apples"

The fact is, police lie, all the time. Especially when they are writing their police reports. It is only because people have cameras now that expose the frauds of their reports.

I know from experience. And again, I could post 1,000 links to youtube videos where police said the direct opposite of what happened in the video.

People seem to think corruption is an officer taking a manilla envelope stuffed with $100 bills. While that is rare, (as civil asset forfeiture is a more sideways and legal way of doing it), the real corruption happens when their jobs are on the line, and they have a choice: either lie on the report, or be reprimanded.
 
Wrong.

Here is a frontline documentary on the subject:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/murdochs-scandal/

He was not just using private detectives, the scandal heavily involved the police departments in the UK.


Again, at least watch the documentary I posted.

I can't watch that documentary as I do not live in the US, but I have watched a lot of news on this isuue by those critical of the NOW, I have also watched parts of the Leveson inquiry.

The criticism of the police was not that they hacked phones for the NOW as you claimed, but that while they had evidence they failed to properly investigate the practices of the NOW, because of the cosy relation between the police and press.
 
I can't watch that documentary as I do not live in the US, but I have watched a lot of news on this isuue by those critical of the NOW, I have also watched parts of the Leveson inquiry.

The criticism of the police was not that they hacked phones for the NOW as you claimed, but that while they had evidence they failed to properly investigate the practices of the NOW, because of the cosy relation between the police and press.

You can't watch PBS.org videos in the UK? Seriously?

As early as 2003, Rebekah Brooks, editor of News of the World, was paying the police for information on people. And what was particularly odious about this, was she admitted it to some investigative board in England looking into the claims, but claimed it was legal, and that was that... ...and for the next EIGHT YEARS nothing was done about it.

So, in 2003, Brooks says it was legal, nothing is done, but you are going to claim that 2003 was the last time it ever happened? I think not.
 
You can't watch PBS.org videos in the UK? Seriously?

As early as 2003, Rebekah Brooks, editor of News of the World, was paying the police for information on people. And what was particularly odious about this, was she admitted it to some investigative board in England looking into the claims, but claimed it was legal, and that was that... ...and for the next EIGHT YEARS nothing was done about it.

So, in 2003, Brooks says it was legal, nothing is done, but you are going to claim that 2003 was the last time it ever happened? I think not.

And how does this support your claim that Murdoch's former NOW paid the police to hack someones phone?

Of course there should have been an investigation at the time, but there wasn't, because nobody picked up on this snippet in a dreary meeting into press ethics in the house of commons.

We don't know the information passed and this is now subject to a criminal investigation, in which both journalists and police officers are under investigation.

There is no reason why the NOW would pay the police to hack someones phone, when many journalists can do it themselves.
 
Of course there should have been an investigation at the time, but there wasn't, because nobody picked up on this snippet in a dreary meeting into press ethics in the house of commons.

Nobody picked up on it? Nobody picked up on it? What about the board that heard the testimony? WHY DIDN'T THEY PICK UP ON IT? Isn't that exactly what they were there for?

We don't know the information passed and this is now subject to a criminal investigation, in which both journalists and police officers are under investigation.

:confused:
"Now subject"? It was eight years ago. And what's this "we don't know the information passed"

Why should it even matter what information was passed? Why are you trying justify this? What is your angle? She admitted to paying police for information. I was not aware it was the police departments' business to sell information.


And how does this support your claim that Murdoch's former NOW paid the police to hack someones phone?

There is no reason why the NOW would pay the police to hack someones phone, when many journalists can do it themselves.

Ok, fine, I was wrong, they did not pay police to directly hack phones. They paid them for information. Information, which should not have been for sale, because the police are not information brokers.
 
Also, cameras are used to target speeders and people who run red lights. That's a traffic police state, which isn't exactly what you're making up.

I'd just like to point out that those cameras do not and can not target speeders or red light runners. There are no cameras that are used to detect and ticket speeders. And the only ones that ticket red light runners are the big box cameras attached to the ground that flash and take still pictures, which are accompanied by the required red light camera warning signs everywhere.
 
There are speed cameras (at least in the UK), these and red light cameras are different from surveillance cameras though.
 
There are speed cameras (at least in the UK), these and red light cameras are different from surveillance cameras though.

There are also "talking" cameras in the UK, which "scold offenders for anti-social behaviour"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6524495.stm

Even though there is something inherently creepy about them, the BBC passes them off as wonderful, packaging it as a way to fight littering.

But I would find it very hard to believe they have not been used to bust pot dealers, or prostitutes, or a host of other victimless crimes.

Just like all the other surveillance techniques. They are packaged as something to fight crimes or behaviors everybody can agree need to be stopped, but they are inevitably used to do anything the government sees fit to protect its own interest.
 
The Netherlands according to Fox. It's chaos. I live in fear of either the immigrants or drug-barons or prostitutes.

But- But your fascist regime euthanize like millions of you each year!
 
But I would find it very hard to believe they have not been used to bust pot dealers, or prostitutes, or a host of other victimless crimes.

Well, both of those are illegal, so I don't know what's so bad.

Also, you keep on using the "stop and frisk" activity as an example. Just because it applies to a city doesn't mean it applies to a country.
 
Wait a minute, in this very same book you are quoting, I seem to remember a man named Jesus Christ that was ONLY "doing good" Do you recall what happened to that man in this book?

He was whipped to shreds and crucified.

And I have refrained myself from posting thousands of links of horrible things that happen to good people every day from the police in the United States. These are not just isolated incidents.

I don't understand why you quoted this passage. It is talking about the powers of God. The police are not the powers of God. They are the powers of man.

The higher powers in this passage is the civil authorities. Yes Jesus was tortured, but he still allowed the civil authorities to punish him, so he knew what was going to happen. Not once did he proclaim his rights or any of that. You must remember that this was written when being a Christian was a case of death and yet we have Paul stating we should be subject to those in power. So we are due to pay our respect to the current government of the day, even if you don't agree with it.
 
Do you think that Russian Christians living under Stalin should have cooperated with the violent repression of Christian churches?
 
But I would find it very hard to believe they have not been used to bust pot dealers, or prostitutes, or a host of other victimless crimes.

Yeah because pot dealers and prostitutes are going to go about there business in front of surveillance cameras, especially talking ones.

I hope you can reply but I fear you may be locked up for criticising the police state,
 
Also, 21 years for killing 69 people doesn't sound like that good of a system IMO.
Have you even seen the prisons in Norway? Thay are rated like 2.5-3 stars hotels! The people the have evrything, so I don't even consider prisons here as a punishment.
 
Top Bottom