http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75Q0PY20110627

On 6/27/2011 2:04 PM EDT, PeterM wrote:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75Q0PY20110627

It doesn't seem obvious to me as to the reason a warrant should be
necessary--as it's just another form of surveillance IMO. How is it
different from tracking a suspect via 24-hr tailing with LEO/PI
vehicles/personnel? or tracking with traffic/surveillance camera
networks? or using a pair of binoculars from a helicopter/aircraft? or
use of UAVs? or even satellite surveillance?

The criminals are exploiting and taking full advantage of the latest
technologies for their ill gains and illicit activities. Why limit and
restrict our law enforcement's ability to use current technology to
enhance their surveillance capabilities? Technology tools are also
cost-effective answers to staffing and budget cutbacks facing every city
and town leaders now. They're already out-gunned and under-paid... as
if that's not challenging enough already to be a 21st century crime
fighter nowadays.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:07:58 -0400, NA wrote:

> On 6/27/2011 2:04 PM EDT, PeterM wrote:
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75Q0PY20110627
>
> It doesn't seem obvious to me as to the reason a warrant should be
> necessary--as it's just another form of surveillance IMO. How is it
> different from tracking a suspect via 24-hr tailing with LEO/PI
> vehicles/personnel? or tracking with traffic/surveillance camera
> networks? or using a pair of binoculars from a helicopter/aircraft? or
> use of UAVs? or even satellite surveillance?
>
> The criminals are exploiting and taking full advantage of the latest
> technologies for their ill gains and illicit activities. Why limit and
> restrict our law enforcement's ability to use current technology to
> enhance their surveillance capabilities? Technology tools are also
> cost-effective answers to staffing and budget cutbacks facing every city
> and town leaders now. They're already out-gunned and under-paid... as
> if that's not challenging enough already to be a 21st century crime
> fighter nowadays.

This is one of the reasons why...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/27/foi_gerrard/

"Merseyside Police officers were caught illegally accessing the Police
National Computer over 200 times in the last three years."

--
You cannot simply assume someone is honest
just because they are not an MP.

On 6/28/2011 2:52 AM EDT, Dave wrote:
>
> This is one of the reasons why...
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/27/foi_gerrard/
>
> "Merseyside Police officers were caught illegally accessing the Police
> National Computer over 200 times in the last three years."
>

Valid point taken. Bent on the dark side, a requirement for warrants is
not going to stop law breakers but merely hinder the honest
majority--just like the strict U.S. gun laws. There will always be
rogue elements bent on abuse of power, misuse of resources and
circumventing the rules... I understand the judicial needs for
regulations to provide checks and balances, but to what extent and at
what consequences?