Does Mandating license plates violate " Our right to Privacy"?

[countryclubjoe]

Driving is a privileged, not a right.

Walk, ride a bike, ride public transportation and your identity is safe.

And some prefer " slavery' over "liberty"..

Your choice is well noted..

 

[countryclubjoe]

Oh, oh, OH! I know!! That's the one where if a hooker asks a prospective john if he's a cop and what his badge number is, he has to tell her, right?



So, um... I got's to ask. What 'personal info' is available to 'any wacko'?
Can he get the name and address of the car's registered owner?
If Officer Friendly is undercover, will that blow his cover identity?
Will Fred finally kiss Daphne?

Are you that naive, this is the 21st century..

 

[countryclubjoe]

They do in private, and the courts have so ruled. Only when in public do they have no expectation of privacy.

Cite where they are required to give their name, and badge number?

Stop with the straw man, you cite where government actors when required to show ID are not required to comply,,

Do you still live in your cave, it is the 21st century..

 

[WalkingWolf]

Stop with the straw man, you cite where government actors when required to show ID are not required to comply,,

Do you still live in your cave, it is the 21st century..

Do you live in a fantasy world? It seems so. YOU made the claim, YOU back it up with a citation.

 

[Citizen]

Thank you for your reply.. As a LEO how would you feel if a private citizen wanted to take pictures or video of your personal automobile?

Thank you for servicing and protecting, I look forward to your honest reply.

Regards
CCJ

Before I respond to the post I've quoted, permit to say something else: I'm just telling y'all that privacy is a bogus angle; its a bogus premise.

Its a little like checkpoints. Once upon a time they were called roadblocks. Somewhere along the way, police and courts started calling roadblocks checkpoints. That is much nicer sounding word, full of innocence and looking out for the public. But, just try driving through a "checkpoint" without stopping and see what happens. Just because government decides to start calling roadblocks by the softer term checkpoint doesn't mean I have to along with the manipulation.

Just because government decides to focus on privacy does not mean we have to go along with the shift in premise. Whaddya bet are the odds that government, in shifting the focus to privacy, was stacking the deck in their own favor? C'mon. Like I asked earlier, can anybody name a single case where the supreme court analyzed in terms of security (the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects).

If we think in terms of privacy, analyze in terms of privacy, argue in terms of privacy--we've already handed government the most powerful concession of all: the power to determine the boundaries of the discussion before the discussion ever starts.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How would you feel? Great question!!

Instead of privacy, permit me to analyze in terms of security. Let's say I'm a cop. (Anybody who knows my forum history will know that is a massive shift in viewpoint on my part.) But, let's say I'm a cop. The question becomes, "what are the potential security implications of a private citizen photographing my personal vehicle."

Turning back to government-vs-citizen, "What are the implications to the security of myself, family, and friends by the government acquisition of information about me?"

Meaning, what can the government do to unfairly harm me with the information it acquires about me? The question is not so narrow as, "How can the government harm me with information---in this case evidence--it acquires by an unreasonable search. The big question isn't the search. The big question is, "How can government use the information to harm me?"

Its about security.

On a much broader scale, lets look at India recently. Apparently, in India, there is a big culture of avoiding being a tax victim. Lots and lots of cash transactions. Heh, heh, heh. Lots and lots of cash transactions where neither the buyer nor seller reports the transaction, nor the taxes demanded on the transaction. So, just a few weeks ago, the Indian government, unable to obtain information from its tax victims in order to coerce tax payments, hit upon another "solution". The government cancelled all 500 and 1000 rupee bank notes. They gave a deadline. Turn in your large notes for smaller notes by such-and-such date. After that date, the notes are valueless. The angle? Lots of savings in large bills built up from unreported income. A large percentage of those savings were being held "under the mattress" in large rupee notes. Of course, anybody turning in "too many" large rupee notes gets reported to the government.

This was not last year. It is not planned for next year. It is happening right now as you read this post. So many people (remember that India is the second most populous country on earth)...so many people have been lining up to cash in their large notes that the banks cannot keep up. The economic disruptions are becoming big. Economic disruptions mean you do with out. And, if you were already on the verge--in a country with massive poverty--this can push you over the edge into personal economic collapse.

What's your point, Citizen? What has that got to do with security and information? Just this. Harm. Economic harm. Look to Venezuela with their current runaway inflation. Massive economic harm to their citizens. This example requires just one more step to become clear. Government demand for economic information. The US fedgov struck a deal years ago with Swiss banks to report assets of American citizens. Information. Security.

Every stitch of information the government has on you can be used to harm you. Not perhaps any one piece of information by itself, but the information builds a picture. For example, where can you hide when they have facial-recognition of you from when they took your driver's license photo? Or, (and this is totally true in VA) what if you are late with the property tax on your car because of personal economic distress? Lost you job? Had a big divorce settlement and too much car? VA counties report your failure to pay your car property tax to DMV. DMV refuses to issue those little stickers for your license plate that prove your registration is up to date. Without those stickers, you are subject in VA to a cop pulling you over (seizure), and your car being impounded (seized). If that isn't economic distress for some people, I don't know what is.

Its not privacy; it is security. What can government do to harm you with the information it obtains, whether by search, observation, or demand?

 

[Jim675]

...Walk, ride a bike, ride public transportation and your identity is safe.

Anonymity is dead. The gov has a massive facial recognition capability and spends our hard-earned dollars on improving it at an alarming rate.

Sidewalks and bike paths as well as public transport are well-covered. Not to mention those who buy the bus pass and just hand over the complete itineraries.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Anytime anyone steps out into the public view their identity is open. Again that is why it is called public, not private.

The bigger issue, IMO, is that personal property that is kept private is required to be registered in some states. Such as firearms.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Do you live in a fantasy world? It seems so. YOU made the claim, YOU back it up with a citation.

Because it is the holiday season, I shall throw you a small gift, however it will require you to do some due diligence, simply go to youtube and search cop block or enter filming federal buildings... The knowledge you seek is there.

If I were to give you a cite as requested, I would in theory be giving you legal advise.. My fee for legal advise is $350.00 an hour an you Sir don't deserve that big a Xmas gift, you were a naughty boy this year..

 

[countryclubjoe]

Anytime anyone steps out into the public view their identity is open. Again that is why it is called public, not private.

The bigger issue, IMO, is that personal property that is kept private is required to be registered in some states. Such as firearms.

Now you are starting to come around.. The difference between a firearm and a vehicle is obvious, the vehicle tag is on display to everyone..

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Are you that naive, this is the 21st century..

Then it should be easy for you to answer the question, yet I cannot help but notice you have dodged it multiple times. Hmmm, why is that?

I'll ask yet again, What 'personal info' is available to 'any wacko'?
Can he get the name and address of the car's registered owner?
If Officer Friendly is undercover, will that blow his cover identity?

You sound better educated than the average wacko, so tell me...
I drive a blue 2004 Subaru Legacy tag AKK 5966.

Where do I live? What street? Can you at least name the county if not the city?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Now you are starting to come around.. The difference between a firearm and a vehicle is obvious, the vehicle tag is on display to everyone..

Cite where 'everyone' can obtain vehicle information from government data banks? Who are the everyone you are talking about?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Because it is the holiday season, I shall throw you a small gift, however it will require you to do some due diligence, simply go to youtube and search cop block or enter filming federal buildings... The knowledge you seek is there.

If I were to give you a cite as requested, I would in theory be giving you legal advise.. My fee for legal advise is $350.00 an hour an you Sir don't deserve that big a Xmas gift, you were a naughty boy this year..

Please provide an actual and credible citation? Otherwise I will assume you made it up, and are not being honest.

So far you are spewing dogma.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Please provide an actual and credible citation? Otherwise I will assume you made it up, and are not being honest.

So far you are spewing dogma.

Clearly you are intelligent enough to realize that different departments and agency's have different policy's, however you are naive if you don't think leo's and government actors are not obligated to ID themselves ( name and badge number) when interacting with a citizen.

naive officer WW-- approaching a law abiding citizen open carrying,
naive officer WW--- hi there, I see you are opening carrying, let me see some ID
Law abiding smart citizen-- Officer why are you asking me for ID, do you suspect me of committing a crime or about to commit a crime?
naive officer WW--- I am a government agent and you must provide me with ID.
Law abiding smart citizen-- Not laughing, officer clearly you have no clue about OC laws, please provide me with your name and badge number or employee number..
naive officer WW- now getting mad, I don't need to give you my name or or badge number or employee number, I am a government agent and you must comply..
smart law abiding citizen now knows he is dealing with an idiot tyrant, so officer you don't wish to ID yourself, therefore please call your SCO(shift commanding officer)..I no longer want to speak with you, I'm plead the 5th until your supervisor arrives..

Crazy mad Dumb officer WW--- Pulls his weapon and shots law abiding citizen..

Other government agents arrive on scene, what happen, why did you shot him? that criminal wanted me to ID myself..
Other government agents---- seems like a good killing, how dare a citizen ask us for any ID..

So, do you see how ridicules you sound now, espousing that government actors don't have to ID themselves..

Please wake up, this is the 21st century!

 

[countryclubjoe]

He gave that hint long ago with his mind set of insincere valediction, "Regards" and "my 0.02."

The quintessence Curmudgeon espousing more conjecture concerning my sincerity..

 

[WalkingWolf]

You said required, not department policy which does not equate to legally being required. You should have listed departments with that policy, not make a lazy untrue claim.

The fact is that police can lie on duty, even about their name. The only time they are required to give their name is on arrest documentation. When you get a traffic ticket you get the officer's name, when you are booked their will be a booking card with the officer's name, when the report is filed with the prosecutor it will include the officer's name. The officer does legally not have to tell you jack, especially if general you are being a Richard.

IOW as usual you do not know what the heck you are talking about. But some of us are used to that.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

So far you are spewing dogma.

Clearly you are intelligent enough to realize that different departments and agency's have different policy's, however you are naive if you don't think leo's and government actors are not obligated to ID themselves ( name and badge number) when interacting with a citizen.

naive officer WW-- approaching a law abiding citizen open carrying,
naive officer WW--- hi there, I see you are opening carrying, let me see some ID
(remaining lines omitted for brevity)

Dogma there, straw man argument here. Give it time and we'll have the whole pantheon of logical fallacies.

CCJ are these LEO's also obligated to identify themselves as police officers when they are acting undercover and busting drug suppliers or prostitutes, etc.?
What about uniformed officers on a SWAT team wearing balaclavas and serving a no-knock warrant, are they required to stop whatever they are doing and immediately inform whomever they are interacting with what their badge number is?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Dogma there, straw man argument here. Give it time and we'll have the whole pantheon of logical fallacies.

CCJ are these LEO's also obligated to identify themselves as police officers when they are acting undercover and busting drug suppliers or prostitutes, etc.?
What about uniformed officers on a SWAT team wearing balaclavas and serving a no-knock warrant, are they required to stop whatever they are doing and immediately inform whomever they are interacting with what their badge number is?

I ignored that part of his post as it was truly idiotic.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Informal logical fallacies contrast with formal fallacies.

Finally some logic from the curmudgeon one..

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

And, yet again, I cannot help but point out that you seem reluctant to provide an honest answer to a question, but feel you must use deflection instead. If this keeps up, everyone might start suspecting that you don't seem to have any honest answers to provide.

najhlbšie pozdravy
*edited to remove reference that was not directed at me, sorry everboddy.*

 

[JoeSparky]

CCJ - your postings would be easier to read IF they were grammatically correct.

The word is "shoot", not "shots". {Pulls his weapon and shots law abiding citizen} {why did you shot him?}

Or was it simply "body shots"?