Who is tracking me on my devices?

[Bootstrap]

I've spent plenty of breath talking about those things too. However, the level of surveillance in Australia (and that the left keeps saying we need to have in America) is a whole new tier, requiring you to identify yourself before entering any retail store or restaurant and storing this information in a government database.

I don't think I hear much about these things. And I think they are the real threat to privacy. If your real fear is a police state, then these things that the police are doing are a huge concern. Since September 11th we have allowed all kinds of things that seem shocking to me. And I think police accountability is a huge concern - including police killings that are unwarranted and police lying about what happened afterward to cover things up.

If your fear is a police state, I think it's also important that law enforcement - including the FBI - is not directly responsive to the president and can stand up to the president. But a whole lot of people seem to see that as a "deep state", thinking that at least for Republican presidents, the FBI should just do what the president says. And I think January 6th should be concerning - the ability to vote a president out of office is important.

If your fear is a police state, I think the kind of culture wars we have should be concerning - historically, that's what has justified police state powers, we have to get control of "them.

That's where I find right-wing conspiracy theories unhelpful. If these are our concerns, they usually seem to be pointing in the wrong direction. I think many Americans, across the political spectrum, would be more concerned about the things I pointed to if they were aware of them. Then again, I'm not convinced that most Americans really care enough about privacy to make that a primary issue.

The surveillance you described above is covert and passive and it is also possible to avoid it. This new model of surveillance is blatant and cannot be avoided under penalty of arrest and prison.

What's your plan to avoid facial recognition and tracking? Or license plate recognition and tracking? Both by the government and by private companies? Do you carry a cellphone around with you? What's your plan to make sure that every time you connect to a cellphone tower, it is not a Stingray tracker?

Given the way most Americans use cellphones and social media, I'd have to say they don't have a whole lot of concerns about being tracked.

If privacy and police states are central concerns, we should be talking and acting rather differently.

[Josh]

Boot,

Can you see the difference between carrying a cell phone (which is not sold to the public as a “police tracking device”) and what happens in a place like Australia?

Australia doesn’t have culture wars like America and also hasn’t had a leader like Trump. Yet the current police state in Australia and New Zealand consists of:

- Requiring citizens to check-in people who visit their private homes with the “QR code” app

- If one person has covid, everyone who had contact with them gets rounded up and sent to a detention camp (called a “quarantine facility”)

- Severe penalties for anyone caught not using this “app”

That’s what a police state looks like. And having an “independent” federal police and state police hasn’t helped at all.

I don’t think the FBI needs less accountability. They need more. A good start would be to simply dismantle them and let local police do their jobs.

[Bootstrap]

This article seems pretty informative. Interestingly, talks about how the QR Code was first used in China (why am I not surprised?) how it's used for Covid Tracking and data collection, etc.

https://lexatlas-c19.org/the-use-of-qr- ... interests/

Oh, and by the way, I think cash and even credit cards are now pretty useless in China, just about all purchases are made by scanning QR codes.

(Hope you don't mind if I copy this post to the Vax Passports a Slippery Slope thread, too.)

There is no doubt in my mind that China is a police state. But a QR code is basically just encrypted data, it doesn't track you. It's not terribly different from the cookies your browser uses. I think this article does a good job on the privacy issues - it's important to know how the information is used.

But what happens to the collected data is often unclear. Privacy advocates warn that some private companies operating check-in systems may be vacuuming up huge numbers of names, emails and phone numbers.

I agree - we need clear privacy rules on these things. If this is used only for contact tracing, which is the reason given, then this data can be anonymized. And we should not trust private companies to keep this private without a framework for oversight.

But your cellphone also tells private companies where you have been unless you have turned off GIS and mobile data. Your private information is being captured from cookies as you browse the web - targeting ads to you is only one way this information can be used, and this kind of information has been sold to unfriendly governments, including China.

[Bootstrap]

Can you see the difference between carrying a cell phone (which is not sold to the public as a “police tracking device”) and what happens in a place like Australia?

To private industry, cellphones are being sold as "consumer tracking devices". Private companies are thirsty for developers with skills in data analytics who know how to boil this information down. Elections are getting very detailed information on individual voters. You know that. And police do seem to be getting a lot of the same data through programs that most Americans do not know about.

Australia doesn’t have culture wars like America and also hasn’t had a leader like Trump.

Australia has not had a leader like Trump. Australian media seems to believe they have culture wars there too. I know America and Germany better than Australia, culture wars are endemic to Europe now, I think social media tends to spread them everywhere.

Yet the current police state in Australia and New Zealand consists of:

- Requiring citizens to check-in people who visit their private homes with the “QR code” app
- If one person has covid, everyone who had contact with them gets rounded up and sent to a detention camp (called a “quarantine facility”)
- Severe penalties for anyone caught not using this “app”

That’s what a police state looks like. And having an “independent” federal police and state police hasn’t helped at all.

I simply haven't read up on this yet. If the facts are as you say, that's problematic. There are better ways to deal with the valid health concerns.

I don’t think the FBI needs less accountability. They need more. A good start would be to simply dismantle them and let local police do their jobs.

I don't want a police state, but I don't want to eliminate the police either, I want to make them more accountable. That includes the FBI. I don't think the local police do what the FBI does, and I don't see how they can.

For instance, here are some things the FBI does that require national law enforcement and intelligence:

Conduct professional investigations and authorized intelligence collection to identify and counter the threat posed by domestic and international terrorists and their supporters within the United States, and to pursue extraterritorial criminal investigations to bring the perpetrators of terrorist acts to justice. In furtherance of this function, the FBI designs, develops, and implements counterterrorism initiatives that enhance the FBI’s ability to minimize the terrorist threat.

Coordinate the efforts of U.S. Government agencies and departments in protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure by identifying and investigating criminal and terrorist group intrusions through physical and cyber-attacks.

Investigate violations of the laws of the United States and collect evidence in cases in which the United States is or may be a party in interest, except in cases in which such responsibility is by statute or otherwise specifically assigned to another investigative agency.

Conduct professional investigations to identify, disrupt, and dismantle existing and emerging criminal enterprises whose activities affect the United States. Address international criminal organizations and terrorist groups, which threaten the American people and their property, through expanded international liaison and through the conduct of extraterritorial investigations as mandated by laws and executive orders.

[ken_sylvania]

If your fear is a police state, I think it's also important that law enforcement - including the FBI - is not directly responsive to the president and can stand up to the president. But a whole lot of people seem to see that as a "deep state", thinking that at least for Republican presidents, the FBI should just do what the president says.

If you make the FBI independent, how would you ensure that the leader of the FBI is more worthy to lead the FBI that the president is? The folks who wrote the Constitution believed that the ultimate authority to execute the laws of the USA should rest on the shoulders of a man elected by the electoral college.

It seems reasonable to me that any national law enforcement agency should be directly under the control of the one person who is ultimately responsible to execute and enforce the nations laws.

I'm not exactly sure what you intended to accomplish with that snide remark about Republicans, but I guess you know.

[Josh]

I feel like it’s best to have power vested in local police chiefs in small towns and villages, very close to the elected people. Small, local government is the best kind of government and the most important.

Most of these scary “national security” threats are just made up nonsense to get people stirred up to go to war. We heard for years about big scary weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we heard about scary “terrorists” in Afghanistan and the Taliban.

Exactly how well did that turn out?

[Bootstrap]

If your fear is a police state, I think it's also important that law enforcement - including the FBI - is not directly responsive to the president and can stand up to the president. But a whole lot of people seem to see that as a "deep state", thinking that at least for Republican presidents, the FBI should just do what the president says.

I'm not exactly sure what you intended to accomplish with that snide remark about Republicans, but I guess you know.

Trump's complaint was precisely that we do not have a police state - he cannot order the FBI to investigate his political opponents, he cannot stop the FBI from continuing to investigate potential crimes that touch on his own circles. This is true for both Democratic and Republican presidents. Some Republicans seem to call this a "deep state" when the FBI doesn't bark on command for Trump, but they don't have that same problem when the FBI investigates Hillary Clinton's email servers. I don't hear Democrats make the same complaint, they don't think the FBI investigation of Clinton's email servers was a "deep state" conspiracy. I don't either. I think it's law enforcement.

If you make the FBI independent, how would you ensure that the leader of the FBI is more worthy to lead the FBI that the president is? The folks who wrote the Constitution believed that the ultimate authority to execute the laws of the USA should rest on the shoulders of a man elected by the electoral college.

Independent? No. The FBI reports to the Attorney General.

Direct control of federal law enforcement is not one of the enumerated powers of the President. The folks who wrote the Constitution did not call the president the "Law Enforcer in Chief", and they did not foresee an FBI, but this position is usually seen as the Attorney General's job. And Watergate taught us that we need to make sure the President is NOT in control of investigations into presidential wrongdoing. For obvious reasons. The mayor of a city may not stop the police from investigating him for wrongdoing either.

It seems reasonable to me that any national law enforcement agency should be directly under the control of the one person who is ultimately responsible to execute and enforce the nations laws.

I think that violates the principle that "no man is above the law". And it could well lead to a police state. I think we see that in other countries where this is the case.

[JimFoxvog]

If you make the FBI independent, how would you ensure that the leader of the FBI is more worthy to lead the FBI that the president is? The folks who wrote the Constitution believed that the ultimate authority to execute the laws of the USA should rest on the shoulders of a man elected by the electoral college.

It seems reasonable to me that any national law enforcement agency should be directly under the control of the one person who is ultimately responsible to execute and enforce the nations laws.

I'm not exactly sure what you intended to accomplish with that snide remark about Republicans, but I guess you know.

When the president is the one committing crimes, who can investigate?

Many think Nixon and Trump have been the most lawless presidents in recent history, so that's my understanding of the bit on Republican presidents.

[ken_sylvania]

If your fear is a police state, I think it's also important that law enforcement - including the FBI - is not directly responsive to the president and can stand up to the president. But a whole lot of people seem to see that as a "deep state", thinking that at least for Republican presidents, the FBI should just do what the president says.

I'm not exactly sure what you intended to accomplish with that snide remark about Republicans, but I guess you know.

Trump's complaint was precisely that we do not have a police state - he cannot order the FBI to investigate his political opponents, he cannot stop the FBI from continuing to investigate potential crimes that touch on his own circles. This is true for both Democratic and Republican presidents. Some Republicans seem to call this a "deep state" when the FBI doesn't bark on command for Trump, but they don't have that same problem when the FBI investigates Hillary Clinton's email servers. I don't hear Democrats make the same complaint, they don't think the FBI investigation of Clinton's email servers was a "deep state" conspiracy. I don't either. I think it's law enforcement.

If you make the FBI independent, how would you ensure that the leader of the FBI is more worthy to lead the FBI that the president is? The folks who wrote the Constitution believed that the ultimate authority to execute the laws of the USA should rest on the shoulders of a man elected by the electoral college.

Independent? No. The FBI reports to the Attorney General.

Direct control of federal law enforcement is not one of the enumerated powers of the President. The folks who wrote the Constitution did not call the president the "Law Enforcer in Chief", and they did not foresee an FBI, but this position is usually seen as the Attorney General's job. And Watergate taught us that we need to make sure the President is NOT in control of investigations into presidential wrongdoing. For obvious reasons. The mayor of a city may not stop the police from investigating him for wrongdoing either.

It seems reasonable to me that any national law enforcement agency should be directly under the control of the one person who is ultimately responsible to execute and enforce the nations laws.

I think that violates the principle that "no man is above the law". And it could well lead to a police state. I think we see that in other countries where this is the case.

Where does the Attorney General get his authority to enforce the nation's laws?

[Bootstrap]

It seems reasonable to me that any national law enforcement agency should be directly under the control of the one person who is ultimately responsible to execute and enforce the nations laws.

I think that violates the principle that "no man is above the law". And it could well lead to a police state. I think we see that in other countries where this is the case.

Where does the Attorney General get his authority to enforce the nation's laws?

The word "directly" is pretty important here. There are buffers to prevent the President from directly controlling the FBI, using it to harass his political enemies and protect his political friends, preventing it from investigating any wrongdoing he does himself. The Constitution does not give him that power. For good reason.

If you don't want a police state, you don't want to mess with that.