Friday Night Open Thread.

Hello all. While I haven't written a post in a year, I did rant about Benghazi and Bridgeghazi this morning on Daily Kos Radio. You can listen at this link. I start around the 41-42 minute mark. I rant for about 45 minutes.

Open Thread.

< Supreme Court to Decide Two Cases on Cell Phone Searches | "Incidental" Collection of Domestic Data Unaddressed By Obama Speech >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Whaddup, Tent!! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Dadler on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 07:29:49 PM EST
    Good to see you back, even if it's only in the "Bust out an Open Thread" capacity. What's your Super Bowl match-up?

    Niners'-Pats (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 07:37:06 PM EST
    Even as a Niners fan... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 08:16:49 PM EST
    ...I have trouble being optimistic. They have played so poorly in that joint in the last few years, and they seem to match up badly with the 'hawks to start with. Last I saw the line it was 3 or 3.5. On that line, tho, I could see it being a good play. Sf is way overdue for a reasonably close game up there.

    Peace out, my man.


    Niners are much better team than (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 09:51:02 AM EST
    Saints who outplayed Hawks in 2nd half.

    Plus no Percy Harvim.


    We'll see. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 02:56:00 PM EST
    Last I saw, the Saints are still sitting at home watching TV this weekend.

    For four straight games over the past two seasons, the 49ers' problem with Seattle has been their inability to cope with the Seahawks' defense. In fact, you can count on one hand the number of touchdowns they've scored in all four of those games put together.

    If the Niners can't put TDs on the board, that Percy Harvim is out of the Hawks' offensive lineup is only of consequence if the rest of the Seattle offense is having a bad day. That could happen, but even if the game does become a defensive slugfest, the fact that the game's in Seattle will probably be the difference here.

    I say it's the Seahawks, 23-10, in a game that will actually be much closer than my predicted final spread might otherwise indicate.

    Over in the AFC, BTD, if the Broncos drop this game at home, then Peyton Manning should indeed be forever proclaimed throughout the land as the NFL's "Mr. October." I'd like to think they won't, but honestly, their QB's overall post-season record really doesn't inspire much confidence, so I'm staying away from this one.



    A replay (none / 0) (#30)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 03:19:58 PM EST
    Thinking back to how this town's Broncos more than blew a 24 point lead at the half in our earlier season game with the Patriots, who knows?  IMO, Manning/Broncos are perfectly capable of winning tomorrow in expected very good weather at home here, but ....

    As my dad, an original Bronco season-ticket holder, used to grumble loudly "They think that they've won when they are a touchdown or two ahead; so they start dreaming about the glory days ahead ... and whoops" (paraphrasing, of course.)  In all those years of the Broncos, they still have a kind of erratic bent as a team ... sometimes the Broncos act as if it were a slow dance, and it is hair-pulling time.  If they come to play, I think that Manning/Broncos (with Elway/Fox on the sidelines) will win.  Oops I said it.  Go Broncos!


    Have you placed a wager re (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 01:32:38 AM EST
    Gov. Christie's political odds of becoming the GOP presidential candidate?

    Like InTrade? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 09:50:19 AM EST
    Nah, never dabbled in that.

    I would say it is very unlikely but time will tell.


    Forget the 2016 presidentail race! (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 12:30:57 AM EST
    How about offering some odds regarding whether Christie will even survive through the spring, given the still-ongoing deluge of unsavory disclosures presently inundating his administration?

    Scratch the Pats, BTD, scratch the Pats (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 05:24:01 PM EST
    And, it only goes to say: GO BRONCOS!

    Good for the Broncos (none / 0) (#55)
    by Zorba on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 06:31:21 PM EST
    I'm no fan of the Patriots.    ;-)

    Maddow is on fire (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 11:14:27 PM EST
    ...with the Christie scandal.  The big man is going down, it's a given, and the only drama is who goes with him and who sends him.

    Gosh, that's going to leave a mark on the RGA.

    No other TV person can break down complex stories like this, which take half an hour or so to fully develop.  It helps that she actually knows what she is talking about.  

    Good thing for my wife that Rachel would never have me.

    Christie will probably ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 12:29:41 PM EST
    survive this "scandal". But he'll never be nominated. No New Jersey politician, from either party, will ever be. New Jersey is just too corrupt a state. It's the Louisiana of the Northeast.

    But this is the standard Republican playbook.The bigwigs want to nominate someone the rank and file doesn't like. So they toss out a few of these stalking-horse candidates. They crash and burn. And eventually the big-wigs' choice slides effortlessly onto the ticket.

    My guess is the bigwigs want Jeb. So Maddow is just helping make that happen. She may be smart enough to understand this. But I doubt it.


    Actually, despite its reputation, ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 01:56:20 PM EST
    ... New Jersey was actually ranked as the least corrupt state (B+) - one of only four states that received a grade of B- or higher.

    That's ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 02:00:06 PM EST
    Based on ...? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:24:07 PM EST
    I was taking issue with the characterization of NJ as the "Louisiana of the Northeast" and the suggestion that any pol from NJ was unelectable because it is so corrupt.

    Not sure what you're basing your claim on.


    What BTD said. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    Business Insider actually has New Jersey ranked as the least corrupt state in the entire country, which I think is absolute nonsense, and leads me to believe (with tongue only half in cheek) that the magazine's editors themselves may have somehow been bought off.

    And c'mon now! New Jersey's less corrupt than Hawaii, which is further tied with Illinois -- a state where four of its previous eight governors have been sent upriver? I don't think so.

    I'll freely admit that we have our problems out here, but public corruption really isn't one of them. From my observations, I'd offer that Hawaii public officials are far more likely to go down on vice charges than outright corruption, and even that doesn't happen all that often.

    I can count on one hand the number of actual, bona fide corruption cases in the islands since I've lived here, which is 27 years now. Chris Christie's administration probably topped that number with just last week's revelations alone.

    Sorry, but the good folks over at Business Insider have their heads shoved up their butts, and are too busy admiring the view to notice.



    Not Business Insider (none / 0) (#34)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:19:04 PM EST
    As noted in the BI article, it was "the State Integrity Investigation, a collaboration of the non-profit Center for Public Integrity, Public Radio International and Global Integrity, a Washington, D.C.-based group that measures transparency and accountability in governments worldwide."

    A link to the explanation of metrics used (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 11:08:09 PM EST
    is in this article, 50 states and no winners:

    Using a combination of on-the-ground investigative reporting and original data collection and analysis, the State Integrity Index researched 330 "Integrity Indicators" across 14 categories of state government: public access to information, political financing, executive accountability, legislative accountability, judicial accountability, state budget processes, civil service management, procurement, internal auditing, lobbying disclosure, pension fund management, ethics enforcement, insurance commissions, and redistricting.

    Indicators assess what laws, if any, are on the books ("in law" indicator) and whether the laws are effective in practice ("in practice" indicators). In many states, the disconnect between scores on a state's law and scores in practice suggest a serious "enforcement gap."

    The takeaway?  New Jersey has stiff competition.


    I saw the metrics they used (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 07:06:50 AM EST
    Not sure how they relate to the "stiff competition" statement.  As noted previously, none of the states scored particularly well.

    Jeb Bush (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 02:36:46 PM EST
    would be the perfect choice for the Republicans.  But his last name is just too much of a burden.

    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#32)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 03:35:44 PM EST
    My crystal ball says ....

    While I thought the old crystal reflected Bush some weeks back, it feels as if that image is morphing now into some other face(s).  I keep seeing images of big big $$$$ and the Koch Brothers and that twosome from Wisconsin, Scott Walker and Paul Ryan.  That northern Midwestern place with its swingy voters and top Koch allies.  My goodness ... sallow-faced Ryan and baby-faced Walker don't evoke the image of the Cruz zealotry.  But, when you look at their  record/approach to labor, the environment, and the austere budget, they are both the conservatives' dream boys (even if Ryan was so bold as to "compromise" with the other side on the budget some weeks back.)  


    Won't be a Tea Partier (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 05:06:46 AM EST
    Their influence continues to wane on Capitol Hill, which means they won't have one if their darlings even be close in the Republican Party primary sweepstakes.

    Scott Walker (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 06:42:43 AM EST
    IS a tea partier.

    And yet (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 06:41:39 AM EST
    He's polling around dead last in every poll (usual caveats) regarding the Republican primary.  Around 3-4%.

    I thought you kept saying (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 08:15:20 AM EST
    polls are complete joke this far out.

    But if others are going to cite them, or (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:01:18 AM EST
    their awesome crystal ball powers, seems like citing polls is fair play.

    Who said (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 10:57:16 AM EST
    awesome crystal ball powers.

    Is that not a straw man?


    Ah ... the magic crystal ball (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 12:11:55 PM EST
    Crystal formations sure are pretty.  Other than that, it is amusing and a puzzle-like diversion to engage in political speculation a few years out.

    My crystal (aka instinct or educated/uneducated guess) is that the Wisconsin duo, in some form, have demonstrated connections to big $$$ and big influence players among Republicans.  To begin with, the Kochs are nothing to sneeze at in terms of Repub strategy.  So my crystal guess is that smarmy Walker, who delivered the desired Repub ends as to labor, environment, and austere budgets in Wisconsin--and became a prototype for other states' attempts (even tho Ohio and Pennsylvania Repub governors met heavy & realistically successful opposition, thankfully)--will serve to advance the previous national second-in-line in 2012, Paul Ryan.

    My crystal glass guess is based upon heretofore Repub establishment practices of advancing the previous #2.  Admittedly, Jeb Bush is a real unknown: OTOH, Bush #3 neutralizes any "dynasty" claim as to Hillary Clinton, and vice-versa; yet, the closeness in time to 2008 and W is a dicey call.

    Then, I went and obtained another crystal ball, which seems to show something that GA6thDem has been foreshadowing.  It is possible that the Repubs could risk what they appeared to do in 1964 ... implode their organization and go with the "true conservative," to go with a Repub version of heart.  Even tho I sneered at the thought of a Cruz nomination several weeks ago, today I am watching more closely his steadfast maneuverings to outmaneuver the others near the further right (e.g., Rubio stumbles, Rand Paul lurches & hesitates) as he builds a case for "going with the Repub heart."  As Christie now resides in a precarious position and Jon Huntsman tiptoes unconvincingly around the semi-moderate Repub group and as 2014 moves on ....

    Maybe I'll purchase another crystal ball?


    That's what (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    "usual caveats" means.  I know they are big words and hard to understand, but if you just apply yourself, you'll be able to muddle through.

    Polls, especially for the "front runners" are especially not helpful this far out.  But I think they are a little more instructive when looking at candidates in Scott Walker or Bobby Jindal territory - also known as "No Chance in He11, unless nuclear bombs strike the other 5 or 6 front runners at the same time" territory.


    A discussion without (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    petty insults would be nice.

    You don't want a discussion (3.00 / 2) (#65)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 11:07:09 AM EST
    You want to argue with anything I write because it doesn't comport with your narrow view of the world.

    I was very plain in my comment, and you deliberately chose to ignore it, and then attempted (but failed) to call me out on being inconsistent.

    Sorry if the turth offends you.


    The problem (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 02:04:21 PM EST
    is they're ALL tea partiers except for the one with the poisonous last name Jeb Bush.

    So, by your logic you think (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 02:51:42 PM EST
    Bobby Jindal has as mopre of a chance of winning the nomination than a more moderate candidate.  Scott Walker?  Ted Cruz??



    No (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:20:51 PM EST
    Bobby Jindal has no chance because he called the GOP the stupid party. What moderate is running besides Jeb Bush? Christie is at less than zero of his already zero chance of getting the nomination. Rand Paul? Tea Party. Ted Cruz? Tea Party. John Kasich? Tea Party. Paul Ryan? Tea Party but I'm putting his chances at zero. Mike Pence? Isn't he a tea partier? Marco Rubio? Tea Partier who now supports Obama's immigration reform. He's dead in the water.

    A little push-back, Ga6th ... about Paul Ryan (none / 0) (#71)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:33:58 PM EST
    Even with his "reach across the aisle" to Senator Patty Murray, Paul Ryan may still be accepted in a big-$$$ negotiation sense.  I really am beginning to think that the Ted Cruz strategy may be deeper than we think because the guy is no dummy --- an $&#hole, but no dummy-- and that he is building an independent rightwing power-base that could outmaneuver the Rand Paulites  for a broader electoral purpose.

    I too am quite curious about whom jbindc thinks could fill the frontrunner role now.  Any governors? Any big names?  And ... was Mama Bush talking in recent days about her hope that son Jeb would not run for a reason (pressure from the big guys?)


    Well (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 05:45:28 PM EST
    Jeb Bush is a sure loser. The Bush name has become electoral poision and maybe his mother realizes this. So he's the only quasi moderate in the GOP.

    Yes, I see Cruz building his own power base outside of the GOP elite and it's one of the reasons I think he has a good shot at the nomination PLUS he is very popular with the rank and file tea partiers.

    Ryan is dead in the water because of his vote to cut veteran's benefits. He is going to be lambasted about that along with his support for immigration reform. I mean these people want ideologicial purity in the worst way for 2016.


    By the way Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by bmaz on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 09:30:08 PM EST
    There really isn't, at least by my eye, anything new in the El Universal report on the Sinaloans and DEA story. Heck, even the Zambada-Niebla/Loya story was not particularly surprising; DEA has been all up in the Sinaloans for a long time, with some of it going back to the mid 90s. They got very fortuitous early on with the Culiacan folks, which by my guess you probably are more than aware of from some NACDL types.

    That said, I really look forward to what you got coming on the deal; I have long had an interest in the story. Very long.

    1981 news report about the internet (none / 0) (#1)
    by Yman on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 06:46:10 PM EST
    Pretty interesting ... and amusing.

    Took about two hours to receive the entire text (no photos) of the newspaper.

    Great stuff! (none / 0) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 11:59:17 AM EST
    I fiddled around with connected computers at school around that time. But it was about seven years before I had one at home.

    I remember my first modem took about eight hours to download one megabyte. Even the early nineties I'd only progressed to about twice that. I would usually set up batch downloads which ran while I slept.


    Of course... (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 10:18:11 PM EST
    Freedom Industries, the company responsible for the chemical spill that left 300,000 West Virginians without tap water for the better part of a week, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Friday.

    Listening to your show now (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 12:26:48 AM EST
    Good show, I have always liked you and David together.  It has always been a really good mix.

    Things that came up for me thusfar, one of our friends serves now under "state department", he flies helo for the Iraq embassy.  He spends three months on and three months off.  He makes $250,000.00 a year right now doing that, very high stress, that is his monetary compensation.  So they make more than military wages and combat pay in those job slots, a lot more.

    Good podcast, gave me an idea (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 09:57:41 AM EST
    It seems clear to me that the government is going to collect and search my data regardless of laws, courts, etc. They will use the national security blanket to  make it legal.

    So how about giving me a tax deduction for my cell phone and internet bills?


    Private citizens may solve this ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 12:15:34 PM EST
    problem without government help.

    More and more people are using a range of encryption solutions, like VPNs, which will make the NSA's work harder. Probably eventually impossible without onsite access.

    And the reason people are doing this is for general security, keeping your data safe when accessing dodgy wifi hotspots, for example.  Keeping the NSA out is just a benefit.

    The intelligence services may well be coming to the end of a period when gathering big data is a relatively easy affair. I guess they will then start rolling back our protections against unlawful search and seizures in our homes. But that's gonna be a tough sell.


    Vigilantes in Mexico (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 08:17:42 AM EST
    caught my eye in the news, not a lot of deep coverage yet. I'm curious to see how it plays out. Seems like the armed citizens were able for force some of the drug cartels out of some areas, so the Mexican government came in to stop them because they might do something bad in the future.

    MD targeting out of state CCW holders via ALPR (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 08:48:21 AM EST
    FL man and his family traveling through MD. Guy has a valid FL CCW, but left his gun at home in a safe for the trip to avoid any trouble. Exit of one of the main tunnels has ALPR automated license plate recognition which did some kind of check on him, and flagged him as a CCW holder. Cop was dispatched to check him, paced his car, then pulled up alongside to verify the ID of the driver matched the image from DMV, then pulled them over to question them about having a gun. He denied it was with him, his daughter made some smart remark, and the family ended up each in a different patrol car while the vehicle was searched in depth. Nothing found they were eventually released and issued an apology.

    Link to Tampa Trib

    Details of what happened seem undependable. Why I posted is the use of the ALPR and the LEO tie from that into other databases. I think this sort of technology is going to skyrocket in use, and could be a very valuable tool, but I have plenty of concern about how the data might be used.

    Gotta laugh. You've just shown how the tech (none / 0) (#11)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    will be used.  His stop will spawn a database entry, making him more suspect, so they'll stop him every time he passes an automated plate reader.

    Oughta be great for the state's tourism industry.  Tourists just love the welcoming feeling of being stopped and searched.


    Actually he made up how the tech would be used (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 11:05:37 AM EST
    none of that is in the opinion piece he links.


    What?!? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 02:13:16 PM EST
    Your link - from an opinion piece which only presents one side of the story - doesn't even mention half of the significant "facts" that you include in your narrative.  There's absolutely nothing about ALPR technology or the police officer being "dispatched" to check him out or verify his ID from the DMV database.

    More silly fantasies ...


    I gave you the most neutral link I could find (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 10:39:07 PM EST
    I kinda doubt you will be visiting CTH for more information, and doubt even more any main stream media will touch the story.

    As I also said, not a lot of good information is out there and I agree the Tampa Trib article is pretty biased. Discussions are going on in a few cop forums, but the consensus I see is that more digging needs to be done. I'm happy to wait, but no reason not to discuss the ALPR and data mining that is going on.


    "No reason" not to ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 07:03:13 AM EST
    ... "discuss" the ALPR?  By "discuss", you mean make up facts with absolutely no evidence in an attempt to make a story relevant to the original post?

    Can't you talk about anything (none / 0) (#47)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 08:24:59 AM EST
    instead of being so adversarial?

    ALPR is more intrusive than NSA phone meta data.


    Can't you talk about anything ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    ... without making up "facts"?  The story you tried to squeeze into this story has nothing to do with ALPR.  The only reason you conservatives care about this story is because the guy was carrying a gun.

    That is a pretty hilarious... (3.00 / 2) (#51)
    by bmaz on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 02:50:01 PM EST
    ...thing for YOU to ask.

    I make up nothing ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 02:56:08 PM EST
    ... and provide links to back up my claims.

    But coming from the judicial, body-(mis)reading expert, that is hilarious.


    He wasn't carrying a gun. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:21:33 AM EST
    The story maybe looks differently to you. To me its just another government agency collecting information on people who are breaking no laws, and doing so with no real oversight.

    Not the point (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 07:57:20 AM EST
    You conservatives are only upset because the NRA crowd sees this as a 2A issue (whether or not he had the gun on him).

    My point is that it would be nice if you formulated an argument based on facts (with links) for a change - as oppose to some fantasy written on CTH.


    If so (none / 0) (#73)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 02:55:44 PM EST
    its fair to say many on the left only dismiss the importance because its gun related with a anti gun bias. One of those whose ox is being gored situations.

    No one is "dismissing" anything (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 03:21:14 PM EST
    ... except your attempt to make up facts from thin air.

    Name a qualified research stufy (none / 0) (#75)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 10:53:49 AM EST
    that supports your claim.

    A research study (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 05:12:36 PM EST
    ... about people not dismissing this incident?  To make it clear, I meant no one here was dismissing the incident, a you are claiming.

    But demands for a "qualified research study" about this incident (which just happened) from a guy who makes up imaginary "facts" is pretty amusing.


    What does ALPR have to do (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 03:38:05 PM EST
    with the story?

    ALPR (none / 0) (#76)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:05:09 AM EST
    It was news to me. ALPR has been bubbling along, kind of like voice recognition, where it really sort of works, but not 100%, and it "seems" like that has recently changed.

    I use a transponder for tollroad access, and just got a notice saying they are now supporting a system the works via ALPR and will stop accepting cash, only payments vis credit card linked to license plates.

    So that is one point, ALPR is now mature and growth in use is going to be high.

    Second point is overall collection of information by government or third parties. ALPR is passive and public so is it OK for anybody that wants to to collect and store license, location, time, and or whatever else they can observe like maybe image of the car and occupants?

    Third point is data mining, churning though the aggregate data looking for patterns and connections. While it may be OK to allow access to various databases of information, there should be restrictions on how those databases can be combined to ferret out information that should have controlled access.


    Being hassled by the Police? (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 08:45:31 AM EST
    Are you also concerned about Stop and Frisk in NYC?

    A more important story is that the cops got away with killing yet another unarmed man in custody in Orange County.  Not too much concern there.  But a gun owner gets a little of what African Americans face routinely, and the world has come to an end.


    ALPR (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 01:37:19 AM EST
    is new, so how it gets fully used isn't clear. I am actually not against ALPR, yet, but I want it watched.

    I'm against stop and frisk as it exists now, on the issue of lack of probable cause.

    The Fullerton homeless guy who resisted arrest I only have limited media filtered news about. I've seen the video, but without sound. For now I will accept the jury verdict, and prefer not to speculate beyond it.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 251 (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    Do not, under any circumstances, tell her to "turn that frown upside down." (link)

    v. 250
    v. 249
    v. 248
    v. 247

    Have a great Saturday, y'all. If it's not a long weekend for you, have an even greater one. Peace.

    Some would call this censorship (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 12:40:34 PM EST
    The Democrats and Socialists, as if there was a difference, are demanding that TV news report what the Democrats want.

    "Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Tuesday the first action by a new Senate task force on climate change will be to push Sunday news programs on global warming coverage.

    "Sen. [Brian] Schatz (D-Hawaii) and I are working on a letter" to send to networks, Sanders said during Tuesday's press conference announcing the new Senate Climate Action Task Force."


    "Some would call ..." (none / 0) (#24)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 02:27:53 PM EST
    ... the earth flat.

    They're also funny.

    BTW - No one is "demanding" that the networks report "what the Socialists want" - let alone reporting on the issue of climate change.  The Senators are sending a letter to the networks urging them to devote more attention to an issue they (and actual experts) agree is a very serious issue.

    But "some" would call that "censorship".



    Hmmmm, I run a network (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    that depends on favorable government regulation....

    So I will just ignore what the government wants??

    Yman, once again you prove that the Left isn't a liberal group. You are as bad as the far Right Repubs..

    lol at your silly attempt to refute my point.



    Hmmmm, I run a network (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    that depends on favorable government regulation....

    So I will just ignore what the government wants??

    Yman, once again you prove that the Left isn't a liberal group. You are as bad as the far Right Repubs..

    lol at your silly attempt to refute my point.



    Because Bernie Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 04:01:49 PM EST
    has done nothing but bully the networks into presenting his point of view his entire career..

    Really Jim, that thesis is too dumb even for you; this must be something you heard on talk radio and are reflexively repeating.


    LOL at your attempt ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 02:53:13 PM EST
    ... to call your silly conspiracy theory a "point".

    Everyone works in industries regulated by the government, and they ignore requests by the government all the time.  Calling a request "censorship" simply shows either: 1) ignorance as to the meaning of the word, or 2) an intentional misuse of the word.

    Your choice.


    Russian teen created malware (none / 0) (#33)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 03:52:58 PM EST
    to hack Target database.

    More of the Target credit card heist (none / 0) (#35)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 04:20:34 PM EST

    "The scope of the Christmastime Target credit card heist keeps growing as digital detectives track one of the most audacious tech age heists in history to a Russian teenager who tweaked a piece of standard malware, and then sold the malicious code to dozens of Eastern European cyber-criminals"


    I participate at times in a Christian forum with moderators and fairly strict rules, supposedly, about misconduct in the forum, including posters not insulting other posters.

    Today, among many other comments exchanged among the many people, one woman aggressively challenged me with the words,

    "So you deny the Trinity, right?"

    However, I don't "deny the trinity," and the post was made without evidence, cause or quoting me to any effect.  

    I don't have the legal training that you folks have.  Does the fact that this is put as a question mean that it is not slanderous?  Would legal people tend to call it merely a demanding question with a negative implication?

    The reason I ask is that, some comments of mine that quoted or very closely paraphrased the statements of another person were deleted on the grounds that they were insulting (to that other person) and this one, though insulting or slanderous, remains.

    Anyway, how do you legal eagles react to this type of demanding question, slanderous by implication?


    Hmmmm (none / 0) (#40)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Jan 18, 2014 at 10:46:48 PM EST
    Some responses;

    Like Hell, I do.

    Did you pray before typing that?

    My faith is secure, why do you ask?

    I refuse to answer without consulting some lawyers.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 252 (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 19, 2014 at 10:07:10 AM EST
    The NSA has a new secret hand sign. (link)

    v. 251
    v. 250
    v. 249

    Happy Sunday, and get to the church of the poisoned minds already, my fellow heathens.

    Go Niners!

    Peace out.