Jump to content

leahcim

Members
  • Content Count

    912
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by leahcim

  1. I really do not have a problem with the PD verifying the information I put on the form--assuming the form is legit. That being said, I think the whole process is ridiculous and probably unconstitutional. I don't fault the LPD for due dilligence--now there are far easier ways to verify where I live, but maybe Bayonne PD rolls old school. Residence verification seems like a minor inconvenience compared to fingerprinting and notarized release forms. I just received a "character" reference for a friend and they ask "what kind of person is he?" What the heck kind of question is that? I really did not know what they were looking for, so I just put "U.S. Citizen" but I have not verified that. Then they ask if he has ever committed or been convicted of a crime. How am I supposed to know that? This is the Police asking me, shouldn't they know if the guy is a criminal? I just put that I do not know for everything else.
  2. Are they merely doing the background investigation to verify that you live where you say you live--no mention of guns or anything of a personal/confidential nature. Granted there are less intrusive and less costly ways to do this, but I do not see why it would not be allowed. It is not like they are asking you for additional references, or asking you extraneous questions.
  3. If I were going to enlist today, I would definitely go with the Marines--I think they are the toughest and most badass. I think that if you want the best odds of staying alive and/or maximizing comfort: USAF or Navy (especially if you can get yourself deployed onboard a carrier). Air Force was formed 18-Sep-1947 and we have not won a war since.
  4. I wonder if he had time to think "Oh sh!t, maybe this wasn't my best move were" before the whole thought processes came to a halt. I mean I have done some really stupid stuff, and usually my last thought as I do it is "I ma pretty sure that was a bad idea" but at that point it is too late. Luckilly the consequences have never been even close to this. So I wonder if there was time for the realization that he is an idiot to reach his consiousness
  5. "The retailer says the change comes out of respect for the victims and families of last week's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary." This makes no sens to me. How does this action respect anyone? Here is an idea for Dick's--suspend sales on everything, maybe that will help. I used to like the big Dick's--like the one near Freehold mall, that one is huge. But I found them to be a bit overpriced on most items. And as I read about all the problems people have had, I start to avoid them. For outdoor equipment (not necessarilly firearms) I really like REI's flagship store in Seattle, but it is not real convenient to get there.
  6. If someone has little/no knowlege of firearms--and it just takes a very basic understanding--they seem to have this idea that SA is some war-machine/weapon -of-mass-destruction only-made-for-killing that no mere citizen should own. This is what the MSM tells everyone. I heard someone on NPR this morning describing how a SA will fire every time you pull the trigger, just as fast as you can pull the trigger, so it is practically a machine gun! So people who have little interest in arms and/or our constitutional rights (i.e. almost everyone) just buys that crap and thinks we should get these killers (the guns) out of the hands of the people--because eventually they will just be used for mayhem. Not sure how to change that, other than educating people you know and supporting groups and the few media outlets that do educate and report factually.
  7. It comes down to basic respect for the people around you. I always figure no one wants to hear me talking on the phone. So I will either take a call and try to move to a more remote area, like outside if I am in a restaurant. I hate it when people take calls in a restaurant. Or I just don't take the call. If someone is talking on the phone in a loud voice nearby I will usually just start repeating everything they say--as if I am on my own phone call. I guess that is obnoxious but maybe it helps get the message across.
  8. Americans are not saving enough because they (right or wrong) believe social security and other govt programs will take care of them. It is the very govt sponsored programs that are meant to take care of the poor which give an incentive not to worry, not to save. It is a moral hazard. If SS did not exist (or if it really were just a means-tested insurance program) people would have the needed incentive to make their own arrangements for retirement. If people know up front that the govt is not necessarilly going to pay you in old age, many more would take care of it themselves. I can see the govt providing something for those who truly have not been able to save, or have had poor investment performance, but you make that level of support low enough that people have great incentive to not rely on it. I don't see the govt seizing private property any time soon--if you think people get passionate about 2A rights, wait till you start taking their hard earned money.
  9. I will thank you now for the suggestion. I have been considering the 500 also. I do like the UTAS better than the Keltec.
  10. I am looking for a HD shotgun. I have been reading about KelTec's shotgun and the reviews I have read seem pretty good. Holds a lot of ammo and looks pretty compact. Anyone have experience with this? And is it NJ legal? http://www.keltecwea...s/shotguns/ksg/ Thank you!
  11. +1000 Based on your posts, you and I probably disagree on almost everything political/government related. That does not mean we cannot carry on a civil discourse and disagree without resorting to ad hominem attack. When someone resorts to name calling, I just assume it is because their argument is weak and they have nothing left. Plus you never know where you might find common ground.
  12. I agree, just sayin that I could see someone bringing suit on this basis, and using the specious argument that this is a constiutional right denied--I mean look at how they tried to intimidate Joey Vento of his free speech rights at Geno's Steaks. And now--thinking through how that would play out--I think the owner is an advertising genius, and a lawsuit would probably be great for business.
  13. I think he meant mad, as in crazy. No need for ad hominem attack against W, and it is kind of a non sequitor anyway. Does anyone think there may be constitutional issues involved with this though? Is there a constitutional basis to force a retailer to do business based on the 2A rights of the customer? Businesses can practice "censorship" to some extent, but many retailers and malls are seen as a place of public accomodation where discriminatory practices are illegal, and some businesses are even prevented from banning certain demonstration/speech if it is deemed a quasi-public space, or place of public accomodation. I can sympathize with the business owner's rights, but is he also violating the 2A rights based on political ideology?
  14. Well to Bloomberg's credit, I heard that those NG were also packing some 32 Oz sodas. It really was not about the guns.
  15. No I said that. I think plate scanners, comnbined with GPS and computer databases, can be used in a ways that would present clear 4A issues--would violate our reasonable expectation--similar argument as the SCOTUS ruling in U.S. v. Jones.
  16. And let's just mount government-accessible GPS tracking devices on every car--just in case of a kidnapping or something. If we can just stop one crime and have a little extra security it would be totaly worth losing the liberty of freedom of movement. Oh and the govt would need a court order or warrant, of course.
  17. My best guess is that she was worried about getting on the return flight--since she had not checked or declared the gun on the outbound don't you think there is a good possibility there would be questions about where the gun came from--how did she obtain a gun in the NY/NJ metro area, in a matter of a few days while here on a trip? What would be the best way to handle this--to get the gun back home without raising questions from TSA/PA? Maybe mail it back home?
  18. Yes driving is a privilege--which is why I do not have a problem with point-of-use type APRs. It basically just does the same job a patrol officer could do, but much easier, quicker and efficiently and allows the officer to work on other things. My problem comes in when municipalities are retaining all of this data and pictures in a database, maybe merging it with other municipalities, creating a huge record of peoples movements and keeping it indefinitely. This is not legal in NJ, but it is legal in other states. An eternal record of where and when one has been and for how long has nothing to do with one's driving privilege. From a constitutional perspective It may be a gray area or penumbra, but I believe these types of usage may pose a 4A issue.
  19. Thanks for the information and perspective on this sir. As I said, I really do not have a problem with using them to pick up stolen vehicles, expired license/registration, etc. And it sounds like that is pretty much how they are used in NJ--at least that is NJ law, and it sounds like the policy you follow. What really got my attention in the WSJ article is the far more sinister capability to collect and aggregate such data and retain it indefinitely. Some of the people in the story, using CA FOIA statutes, were able to get detailed location records--including pictures of the car and the people--that local LE had collected and retained over a few years. That goes beyond merely policing driving privileges and that is where I run into a 4A concerns.
  20. Totally voluntary--you do not have to use those to shop. Try opting-out of displaying a license plate and see how far you get. Same thing with your credit cards, it is convenient, but the CC company has all that information on shopping habits and location. Again, it is easy to opt-out--just do not use credit cards--and it is more difficult for law enforcement to access discount club or CC information.
  21. Yeah, this does not bother me so much--and this is the usage mode I had in mind on the first plate-scanner thread. And it sounds like NJ actually has law in place to restrict use. But other states--such as CA--it is pretty wide open and the data are retained INDEFINITELY. ANd I do not think there is any law preventing a private individual or company from doing this--although I believe there are access restrictions on DMV records, so it would not be easy to correlate to the owner.
  22. http://professional...._LEFTTopStories When I read the first thread on this topic I did not think it was a huge constitutional issue--I assumed individual cars scanning plates and stopping cars if their were warrants, stolen car, etc. I never imagined the idea of retaining that data--ever plate-scan--and keeping it forever in a database. I find this disturbing. Sounds like there is very little legal guidance as to how the data can be used, who can access, with or without warrant, and how long the data are retained. Basically for around $50K a town can buy a few plate scanners and some software that would coordinate plate data with time and location and DMV registration records to allow anyone with access to essentially track anyone's movement--where you go, when, how long you stay, etc. They could also merge their data with adjacent towns to get a broader scope. Some states and municipalities have instituted guidelines--e.g. NH has banned the practice, Maine has a 21 day maximum retention period, NJ "requires officers to have "specific and articulable facts" of "possible criminal or terrorist activity" before looking up a car owner." But several towns have them installed in police cars that can monitor plates all the time. And two large repo firms are using them in several of their cars--esssentially building their own private vehicle tracking databases. On the one hand, there is no law against taking pictures of people or their vehicles/plates in public; and no expectation of privacy. But when inexpensive capability afforded by technological advances allows such detailed tracking and surviellance, doesn't it cross a line into our 4A expectation of privacy--by going beyond just taking pictures in public, or following someone. It seems the capability to collect on sucha a large scale and correlate in huge databases does intrude into one's expectation of privacy and the original intent of the 4A. It is around 2000 words, but worth the read. From the WSJ: For more than two years, the police in San Leandro, Calif., photographed Mike Katz-Lacabe's Toyota Tercel almost weekly. They have shots of it cruising along Estudillo Avenue near the library, parked at his friend's house and near a coffee shop he likes. In one case, they snapped a photo of him and his two daughters getting out of a car in his driveway. Mr. Katz-Lacabe isn't charged with, or suspected of, any crime. Local police are tracking his vehicle automatically, using cameras mounted on a patrol car that record every nearby vehicle—license plate, time and location. "Why are they keeping all this data?" says Mr. Katz-Lacabe, who obtained the photos of his car through a public-records request. "I've done nothing wrong." Until recently it was far too expensive for police to track the locations of innocent people such as Mr. Katz-Lacabe. But as surveillance technologies decline in cost and grow in sophistication, police are rapidly adopting them. Private companies are joining, too. At least two start-up companies, both founded by "repo men"—specialists in repossessing cars or property from deadbeats—are currently deploying camera-equipped cars nationwide to photograph people's license plates, hoping to profit from the data they collect. The rise of license-plate tracking is a case study in how storing and studying people's everyday activities, even the seemingly mundane, has become the default rather than the exception. Cellphone-location data, online searches, credit-card purchases, social-network comments and more are gathered, mixed-and-matched, and stored in vast databases. Data about a typical American is collected in more than 20 different ways during everyday activities, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. Fifteen years ago, more than half of these types of surveillance tools were unavailable or not in widespread use, says Col. Lisa Shay, a professor of electrical engineering at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point who studies tracking. "What would the 1950s Soviet Union have done with the technology we have now?" says Col. Shay. "We don't have a police state in this country, but we have the technology." Law-enforcement agents say they are using this information only to catch bad guys. During the past five years, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has distributed more than $50 million in federal grants to law-enforcement agencies—ranging from sprawling Los Angeles to little Crisp County, Ga., pop. 23,000—for automated license-plate recognition systems. A 2010 study estimates that more than a third of large U.S. police agencies use automated plate-reading systems. The information captured is considerable. Through a public-records act request, The Journal obtained two years' worth of plate information from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department in California. From Sept. 10, 2010, to Aug. 27, 2012, the sheriff's cameras captured about 6 million license-plate scans. The sheriff's 49 camera-equipped vehicles scanned about 2 million unique plates. The average plate in the database was scanned three times over the two-year period. Less than 1% of plates were tracked extensively—hundreds of times, and occasionally thousands. First Amendment Issues A report by the International Association of Chiefs of Police warns that "recording driving habits" could raise First Amendment concerns. It noted that plate readers might record "vehicles parked at addiction-counseling meetings, doctors' offices, health clinics, or even staging areas for political protests." The association urged members to consider establishing "more specific criteria for granting access" to the information and to designate it only for "official use." License-plate databases contain revealing information about people's locations. Police can generally obtain it without a judge's approval. By comparison, prosecutors typically get a court order to install GPS trackers on people's cars or to track people's location via cellphone. License-plate databases don't contain names and addresses of vehicle owners, although that information is available from separate state Department of Motor Vehicle databases. The Driver's Privacy Protection Act, passed in 1994 to thwart stalkers, limits public access to the DMV's information but nevertheless allows car owners' names and addresses to be obtained by government agencies, police, private investigators, insurers, researchers, private toll operators and, in some states, journalists. The data is still sometimes subject to abuse. In 1998, for instance, a police lieutenant in Washington, D.C., pleaded guilty to extortion after looking up the plates of vehicles near a gay bar and blackmailing the vehicle owners. 'Nationwide Vision' "I'm terrified that someone could get hurt because of this data," says Mike Griffin, a Baltimore auto repossession agent who uses his own fleet of camera-equipped cars to collect about a million plates a month. Mr. Griffin says he takes extensive security measures with the data, which he contributes to a private national database. These private databases, each containing hundreds of millions of plates, could become the largest collection of people's movements within the U.S., says Mary Ellen Callahan, former chief privacy officer for the Department of Homeland Security. "You could have a nationwide vision of where I was at a given time," says Ms. Callahan, who now runs the privacy practice at law firm Jenner & Block. Law-enforcement officers say they use the technology to track down stolen cars, collect unpaid tickets and identify the vehicles of suspected criminals. The two private plate-tracking companies identified by the Journal both say they act responsibly and are within their rights to collect the data. Scott A. Jackson, founder of MVConnect LLC, the parent company of one of the two firms, says he won't sell the data to the public or to marketers. He says the plate trackers are simply shooting video in public, something that is perfectly legal. "I take absolute exception to any government telling me that I can't go into public and take video," Mr. Jackson says. "That's taking my freedoms away." He estimates his company has snapped "hundreds of millions" of photos of plates nationwide. License-plate readers spread in the late 1960s, when film cameras were installed at some intersections to identify red-light runners. Since then, the cameras, software and computer storage have improved, and prices have fallen. This makes storing and working with large license-plate photo databases affordable and realistic. The price of one gigabyte of storage fell to $1.68 this year from $18.95 in 2005, a decline of 91%, according to market-research firm IDC. It is expected to cost just pennies in a few years. Similarly, digital cameras and the software that can "read" letters and numbers from photos are improving dramatically. Italian defense contractor Finmeccanica SpA introduced plate-recognition cameras to the U.S. in 2004 via its subsidiary, Elsag North America. The technology originally was used to sort mail by reading addresses. Today, a standard two-camera system mounted on a police car costs $15,000, down from $25,000 originally, says Mark Windover, Elsag's chief executive. Rapid Adoption Cynthia Lum, a professor at George Mason University, did a study in 2010 estimating that about 37% of large police departments were using plate readers. "It's one of the most rapidly diffusing technologies that I've ever seen," says Ms. Lum, a former police officer and deputy director of the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy. A few states have guidelines for using the scanners. New Hampshire bans them. Maine requires data to be purged after 21 days unless it is part of an investigation. New Jersey requires officers to have "specific and articulable facts" of "possible criminal or terrorist activity" before looking up a car owner. Some towns have turned down the systems. "It went beyond my sense of what we needed to do to make us safer," says Neil Fulton, the town manager of Norwich, Vt., pop. 3,414, which rejected a grant for a plate reader in April. But many departments embrace the technology. The sheriff's department in Riverside County, Calif., which is home to about 2.2 million people, has been using automated plate readers since 2007. According to Riverside County Sheriff's Department Sgt. Lisa McConnell, "The database is available to any of our officers in the furtherance of their professional duties." The department intends to keep the records indefinitely, she says. The Journal obtained the database (minus each car's location) through a public records act request. The tracking system isn't perfect. "It picks up any words on a reflective background," says Gary Schreiner, a technician at the sheriff's department. As a result, some common road signs show up in the database. "ONEWAY" appears 13,873 times. In addition, some of the most-tracked plates were other government vehicles, which are identifiable by their special tags in California. Some Riverside County residents voiced surprise that their plates are being captured. "Not knowing about it makes me feel a little uneasy," says Virginia Rose, an 86-year-old resident of Idyllwild. Her plate appears in the database four times. Still, she said she figured it was helpful for the police. "Usually I go along with whatever police enforcement needs to do to keep us safe, so I figure they must have people stealing cars and that sort of thing," she says. Officers can also tap private license-plate location databases such as the two being built by former repossession agents, Digital Recognition Network Inc. of Fort Worth, Texas, and MVTrac of Palatine, Ill., a unit of MVConnect. MVTrac's Mr. Jackson, spent more than 20 years in the repossession business, says that at first he saw plate readers simply as a way to help find cars he was trying to repossess. Then he realized the opportunity to build a national network. He began installing cameras on the vehicles of other auto-recovery agents, who pay subscription fees to use the cameras. MVTrac says hundreds of its systems are operating nationwide. The camera systems give drivers an instant alert when they scan a car wanted for repossession. The alert doesn't include the owner's identity. Agents also get a commission when a finance company buys data about a plate they scanned. 'Night Spotters' One of MVTrac's biggest customers is Mr. Griffin in Baltimore, whose company, Final Notice & Recovery LLC, has plate-recognition systems on 10 vehicles. Mr. Griffin employs drivers working two shifts, day and night, driving each car 300 to 400 miles a day, scanning plates in the Baltimore and Washington, D.C., areas. A retired Baltimore police officer, Patrick Wilson, leads Final Notice's team of "night spotters," who drive after dark, scanning plates. Their black vehicles have tinted windows and hood-mounted cameras. They canvas alleys, parking lots and apartment complexes to scan as many vehicles as possible. When the night spotters find a car wanted for repossession, they call in a tow truck. They can now repossess about 15 cars a night, Mr. Wilson says, up from about six per night before using the technology. Missing Persons Final Notice has amassed a database of 19 million historical locations of vehicles in and around Maryland and Washington. Mr. Griffin provides police free access to location information about vehicles in stolen-car or missing-person cases, among others, he says. Soon he hopes to start selling access to his plate data to bail bondsmen, process servers, private investigators and insurers. "In the next five years, I hope my primary business will be data gathering," he says. The plates scanned by people such as Mr. Griffin are contributed to Mr. Jackson's central MVTrac database. Mr. Jackson declined to be specific about the total number of scans in the database, but says, "We have [photographs of] a large majority" of registered vehicles in the U.S. Until recently, rival company Vigilant Solutions, a subsidiary of Digital Recognition Network, provided a counter on its website tallying its plate-scanning database. The latest read: about 700 million scans. DRN says on its website that it can "combine automotive data such as where millions of people drive their cars…with household income and other valuable information" so companies can "pinpoint consumers more effectively." DRN declined to comment. Mr. Jackson says he hasn't decided what to do with his database but will be guided by the 1994 federal law governing access to drivers' personal data. "We're not going to allow somebody to access the data to track a girlfriend, track a wife," he says. Instead, he says he is more likely to use it to help officers track down fugitives, execute warrants and collect parking tickets. He says he is in no rush to sell the data. "Every day it just gets more valuable because we collect more information." Battle Over a Bill This year California State Sen. Joe Simitian introduced legislation to limit retention of automatic plate-recognition records by private contractors to 60 days and require officers to have a warrant to access the data. Sen. Simitian argued the police should have probable cause to get information about the location of people's cars. "Should a cop who thinks you're cute have access to your daily movements for the past 10 years without your knowledge or consent?" he says. "I think the answer to that question should be 'no.'" Private companies and law-enforcement agencies vehemently opposed the bill, saying it would create an "overwhelming burden" on police departments and would cut into revenue from unpaid parking tickets. Mr. Simitian eventually abandoned his legislation. The tracking of innocent people's license plates bothers people like Mr. Katz-Lacabe, a computer security consultant in San Leandro. He heard about the technology at a city council meeting there. In 2010, Mr. Katz-Lacabe filed a California Public Records Act request for his data from the local police. He received a report containing 112 images of his vehicles dating to 2008. The file contained 107 photos of his Tercel and five of his Toyota Prius, which he says is driven less frequently. "I was surprised there were some pictures where I could actually identify people," Mr. Katz-Lacabe says, looking at the images. "Here's one where I'm driving. Here's me in my Cal shirt." San Leandro, with a population of about 85,000, had one Federal Signal license-plate reader installed on a police car in 2008 and installed a newer, better one this year, says Police Chief Sandra Spagnoli. She says the technology has helped locate hundreds of stolen cars and solve other crimes. Recently, she says, a homicide suspect from Las Vegas drove through town—and the scanner spotted his plate. "He took us on a pursuit, and we caught him," she says. "We would not have been able to do that without that system." Her department plans to retain the data indefinitely, Ms. Spagnoli says. "It's irresponsible if you have something that could solve a crime in the future, and you've dumped it."
  23. If people are causing problems due to their ignorance, perhaps someone should take them aside and politely explain some range ettiquete and respect. I personally believe that the more mainstream support from all demographic groups, the more normal firearms will seem and ultimately make it easier to change things for the better.
  24. How about: No matter what type of firearm, DO NOT put your finger near the trigger? Several times I have accidentally had prohibited items that I forgot about and were detected by security. Usually just water, one time potato salad (but it was in a tactical-looking container) and one time a leatherman. Never was cited for it--they gave me the option of throwing it out or exiting the line to either consume it (not the leatherman), check it with the airline, or buy stamps and drop it in a mailbox. Seems as long as the prohibited item is otherwise legal, there should not be any issue.
  25. F-14 was a great platform--too bad escalating maintenance costs killed it.
×
×
  • Create New...