Data-Fed Monitoring System Will Put New Yorkers Under Police Surveillance 259
Nerval's Lobster writes that New York City isn't just gathering data on citizens with cameras and other data sources for sifting through later to seek evidence in the event of violent acts; it's using some of that data in real-time in an attempt to reveal potential criminal activity. They've even picked a name for their system that echoes DARPA's Total Information Awareness, which I guess is more diplomatic than just calling it Precrime:
"The Domain Awareness System will draw data from 911 calls, previous crime reports, license-plate readers, law-enforcement databases, environmental sensors, and roughly 3,000 closed-circuit cameras. It will rely on the New York City Wireless Network (NYCWiN), a high-speed wireless broadband infrastructure that allows city agencies to rapidly transmit data, and used for everything from emergency response to reading meters. Mayor Bloomberg argued that the system isn't an example of Big Brother overstepping the line. 'What you're seeing is what the private sector has used for a long time,' he told Gothamist. 'If you walk around with a cell phone, the cell phone company knows where you are. We're not your mom and pop's police department anymore.'"
Bit Flipping... (Score:3)
How many times have we heard one thing said and the opposite done?
Re:Bit Flipping... (Score:4, Funny)
Best of all, if they catch a new mother feeding her baby formula or some guy trying to supersize his Coke at McDonalds, they can have the SWAT team their in minutes!
Re: (Score:2)
Faster if the assault vehicles are already gassed.
Re: (Score:3)
Quantum mechanics?
The problem (Score:4, Interesting)
"We're not your mom and pop's police department anymore." That's the problem Mr. Bloomberg.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please. This is microsoft setting up the system. I wouldn't be surprised if this has a Microsoft-esque marketing campaign attached.
"it's for your own benefit, and there are safeguards in place to prevent abuse" etc etc. (all while being untrue)
Re: (Score:2)
Every place you wanna go? We're already there... Gotcha!!! Microsoft
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so sorry, you're looking for the Monsanto office down the hall and on your left, and the "Exxon Mobil" office around the corner, just keep going past the "AIG" office and you'll see it on your right... its the REALLY BIG office.
Re:The problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The real problem is that there are now so many laws that everyone is a criminal, you can't even tell for certain whether what you're doing is illegal because it may be hidden in an obscure paragraph on page 10,799 of the 'Think Of The Children Act 2003' and if every law was enforced the entire economy would shut down.
Re:The problem (Score:4, Informative)
And the laws are so vague that nobody knows if you're really guilty until a judge says so. It's such problem that lawyers today usually advise against taking advantage of some new law until the law has been "tested" in court. It is not unheard of that a person can be complying with law a and compying with law b, but when doing so simultaneously without complying with law c they are guilty of some horrendous crime and must spend years in prison for what most people would perceive as routine day-to-day business.
Import business can be very scary because you can be tried and imprisoned in the US for violating the law of some other country, even when that other country sends diplomats and sworn affidavits that their laws were not violated.
You don't even have to break any known laws. A judge can simply find you in contempt and leave you to rot in prison for six years, at his sole discretion.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would this get modded Troll?
This guy is absolutely right, there are tens of thousands of Federal laws on the books and if you ask THE FEDS how many laws they have they cannot tell you because they can't keep track of them.
And it's not just importers of goods that can get wrapped up in laws from other Nations, there are several federal laws that say you are committing a felony if you violate any law in any international country, even if you were outside of the US at the time and if you were ignorant
Re: (Score:3)
the entire point of a police state isn't to enforce laws on the books, its to make everyone a criminal, and enforce them when convienant.
It gives the police discretion to arrest whomever they want, when they want, and leave it to their judgement to do so.
Well connected inviduals? more of a chance to get a pass.
Slow day, and its budget time? arrest as many people as possible?
Personal beef with the police? arrested.
Look funny? arrested?
going to give information that
Re: (Score:2)
Because he's an ex-banker, and the banks love him, so with Wall street firmly behind him, he can screw the rest of the city with impunity. Welcome to our new ruling class, and if you don't like it we have indoctrination training you're just gonna love.
Re: (Score:2)
"And why don't Newyorkers just give this Fucktard the boot." FTFY
Unsubscribe (Score:5, Insightful)
Mayor Bloomberg argued that the system isn't an example of Big Brother overstepping the line. 'What you're seeing is what the private sector has used for a long time,' he told Gothamist. 'If you walk around with a cell phone, the cell phone company knows where you are. We're not your mom and pop's police department anymore.'"
The difference here is that I am not allowed to opt-out of the government's system. I am able to choose whether I want to allow the private sector to know where I am by not buying a cell phone. Big difference there, chief.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. And the oft-misquoted saying that applies here doesn't need to be repeated but I would rather be one of a few thousand people to die due to criminal activity than have the Mayor of NYC tracking my every move because he can.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Or in this case, another city.
Re: (Score:3)
Or in this case, another city.
Tell that to Muslims in New Jersey. [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Right, how simple that is. I can just... move to another city! Well, when someone gives someone enough money to, they can.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't save a couple hundred bucks... you have bigger issues than big brother.
This is what BB is counting on, and why the system is being rigged to keep people poor.
Re: (Score:2)
And how much does it cost to break a lease, pay to get a new driver's license, replace things that break during moving, possibly have time without a job if you're moving too far from your old job, some utilities require a deposit, not to mention if you're a renter that your new place's deposit will be due before you get your other deposit back.
And that's only the short list. I don't feel like thinking up more.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, however, Antarctic winters tend to be a wee bit chilly.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe you can "opt-out" by moving to another country.
Yes, and since when did "The Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" consider that an option?
Perhaps Bloomberg needs to be better acquainted with Boston harbour?
Re: (Score:3)
The difference here is that I am not allowed to opt-out of the government's system. I am able to choose whether I want to allow the private sector to know where I am by not buying a cell phone.
Also, the private sector uses that information to serve me. The cell phone company knows where I am because they need to connect my calls.
Re: (Score:2)
They use the information to serve their stockholders. Sometimes, that also involves serving the people from whom the information is gathered, sometimes it involves using are distributing that information in ways that are against the interests of the people from whom it was gathered.
Not really all that different from government, really.
Re: (Score:2)
They use the information to serve their stockholders. Sometimes, that also involves serving the people from whom the information is gathered, sometimes it involves using are distributing that information in ways that are against the interests of the people from whom it was gathered.
It has nothing to do with shareholders.
Shareholders would be the first to demand the cell carriers stop handing over cell records to any tin-star sheriff if that were legally possible.
It ads cost, and has no possible upside. Other than that, cell carriers do not use my location for anything except tower load planning.
Re: (Score:2)
However shareholders are perfectly happy with your cell provider selling your whereabouts to the GAP or Starbucks, and make no mistake, if not giving that information to the Government, is going to hurt stock prices one little bit, you my friend are buggered six ways come Sunday.
Re: (Score:2)
They use the information to serve their stockholders.
If I buy a cheap minute phone with cash, the only thing they know is where I am. They don't even know who I am. What good is knowlege of my position to the stockholders without any other information? The "where I am" only benefits the stockholders because without it the phone would be worthless and they would have no income.
Re:Unsubscribe (Score:4, Insightful)
And, more to the point, the cell phone company can't put people in jail. They aren't going to be searching that data to "discover" crimes. (Collect enough data and statistically you can 'prove' almost anything). If anything, their incentive is to ignore it as much as possible: Not only because it limits their liability in case something happens that they missed, but also because people is jail aren't buying cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference here is that I am not allowed to opt-out of the government's system.
You can always replace the people who run it. You can actually vote for change, should you accept the challenge. Either way, private or public, the power is in our hands, and when things go wrong, especially on the chronic time scale we're looking at, we have nobody but ourselves to blame. We enable both the dictator and the industrialist who props him up.
Re:Unsubscribe (Score:4, Insightful)
You can always replace the people who run it.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Re:Unsubscribe (Score:4, Insightful)
Peoples' choice. There are no laws that restrict who you can vote for.
If voting could make a difference, it would be banned. At best, if you dedicate months of your life to doing so, you can replace one guy at the top, who then has to deal with a huge entrenched bureaucracy that wants more money and power and will do whatever it can to get rid of them.
Do you really think, for example, that if Americans were given a free choice of who should be candidates for President this year they would pick... Obama and Romney? There's no better choice in the country than those two?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yet I would wager bets that if 80% of Americans could convince their co-patriots to vote for a single person not on the ballet ticket, and they did, infact, select said person who was just a common off the street joe, that it would find a way to be overturned and the 'next winner' who was either of the 2 man running horse would be selected.
Voting and free choice does no good with the ballot box is staged.
It's like this. I fill a barrel full of red apples for apple dunking. You don't like red apples, only
Re: (Score:2)
You might be right. But we'll have to wait until that magic moment to see for sure. In the meantime, let's work on the actual cause of the problem. What people are doing now really is no different than a person building another straw house after the first one got blown down by a summer breeze, and then bitches about the weather.
There are laws restricting who you can elect (Score:3)
Sure there are, at least if you want your vote to count. There are laws that restrict who can be elected to each and every elected public office in the country. Sometimes, the restrictions are things like age, citizenship, and duration of residency in a particular region, but sometimes they are more involved.
Re: (Score:2)
You can actually vote for change, should you accept the challenge.
Millions of people took that challenge in 2008, and they got yet another crook. You can vote for change, yes, but you won't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take dumb over corrupt in most cases. Unless we're talking dumb enough to be tricked by corrupt advisers.
Re: (Score:2)
You could build all three Little Pigs houses with all that straw.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>The difference here is that I am not allowed to opt-out of the government's system.
After CISPA passes (or some other annoying acronym like SOPA or FEAR), there won't be any difference. The executive branch of the state or central government will just demand the cellphone company turn-over their records of where you've been. No need for a signature from the judicial branch either. No checks/balances required.
Re: (Score:2)
Too late. Already been done [wikipedia.org].
Re:Unsubscribe (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference here is that I am not allowed to opt-out of the government's system.
Nor does AT&T have the power of arrest and detention.
Standing up and saying its not Big Brother doesn't make it so.
The sad part is New Yorkers will probably go for this in a heart beat. All you need to do is whisper World Trade Center, and all opposition voices will be drowned out. Take it from me, my sister lords it over me every time this type of issue comes up because she was 6 blocks away on 9/11.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nor does AT&T have the power of arrest and detention.
Standing up and saying its not Big Brother doesn't make it so. The sad part is New Yorkers will probably go for this in a heart beat. All you need to do is whisper World Trade Center, and all opposition voices will be drowned out. Take it from me, my sister lords it over me every time this type of issue comes up because she was 6 blocks away on 9/11.
Have you ever lived/worked in N.Y.C.? You've got some seriously dangerous animals who have no human compassion at all in them. And thanks to video, face recognition and cell tracking these heartless criminals are getting caught more and more. If having to give up some "in public" privacy means my sisters are safer when there, then HELL YES! Take my photo! Recognize my face and track my damn phone! I don't do illegal things, and don't care if I get stop & frisked for weapons. You can't be against public surveillance then complain later when you or your loved ones get mugged/raped/killed. Welcome to the modern life.
My neighbors, friends and acquaintances would all disagree with you. Unlike the crap some would like to believe, Most NYers are Americans and those who want to be Americans -- who value freedom over security. The events of 9/11/2001 were awful. Those poor folks who jumped from the burning towers were reminiscent of another horrific tragedy in NYC, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire [wikipedia.org] only much, much worse.
The rank disregard of individual rights in the US is hardly limited to NYC. The fact that Bloomberg
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
I've never had a single problem in NYC while visiting my sister, (other than winning an argument with her).
And that includes walking all over the neighborhood at night with my sister, who is fairly fearless about that sort of thing (i.e. only been robbed once).
Re:You can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got some seriously dangerous animals who have no human compassion at all in them.
Very true. Do you really want to give them the ability to track you every minute of every day?
Here we see the simplemindedness of the authoritarian. He has no way to conceive that the bad people he is so afraid of might one day control the security apparatus of the city (if they do not do so already). We've already seen how brutally the NYPD has treated a peaceful movement for economic justice, while letting trillions of dollars worth of fraud go unpunished. What reason is there to believe the NYPD has your best interests at heart?
You can't be against public surveillance then complain later when you or your loved ones get mugged/raped/killed.
You can't be for universal surveillance and then complain later when the authorities use it to chill political dissent.
Re: (Score:2)
Michael Bloomberg is a pompous, egotistical, authoritarian windbag. He has implemented or expanded a variety of obnoxiously authoritarian measures during his tenure, not least of which is the "Stop and Frisk" [wikipedia.org] insanity.
What is more, Hizzonor contravened the will of his constituents by modifying the term limits law [wikipedia.org] (which the people of NYC directly voted for *twice*) in cahoots with the 85% of the city council who would have had to leave office because of the law.
So I for one am not surprised by the effort
Re: (Score:2)
The Difference (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference, of course, is that only government holds the special "right" to employ physical force as a business model. Private business can only hurt you with the blessing of government. Government can hurt you at will, and with no recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
Government can hurt you at will, and with no recourse.
If that was the case, US would still be part of the British empire.
Re: (Score:2)
Private business can only hurt you with the blessing of government. Government can hurt you at will, and with no recourse.
Correction: private business can hurt you either with the blessing of government, or in the absence of government. Government, in a democracy (and yes, the US is a type of democracy), can hurt you for as long as people are voted in who hurt you.
The benefit of democracy isn't representation. The benefit is the bloodless revolution and changing of the guard that is possible every X years. The benefit of private business isn't that it is an optional relationship. It's that its power is checked by everyone maki
Re: (Score:2)
The benefit of democracy isn't representation. The benefit is the bloodless revolution and changing of the guard that is possible every X years.
Too bad that the US is locked in perpetual cycle of 'meet the new boss same as the old boss' because of its 2 party system.
Re: (Score:2)
Which has all to do with voter education, and nothing with the usefulness of the second amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies - that was the scope of another post I wrote, and what I had in mind when I wrote the initial response here. The general tack is generally that the government has a monopoly on violence, and to counteract the abuse of that monopoly, we have the second amendment.
So yes, nothing to do with your argument that we're locked into near identical choices, due to the fact that we have two choices that need to appeal to very broad swathes of the US voting public.
Re: (Score:3)
You're a moron. If the US becomes a tyranny, it will be because a majority of the US voters want one. You don't need the second amendment to throw out the government in a properly working democracy. You only need it if you disagree with the results of the majority, and think that the current state of affairs entitles you to shoot those who you disagree with.
The fantasy that a democratically elected government will suddenly turn on you like a rabid animal is an utter fantasy that has zero precedent in histor
Re: (Score:2)
Because democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Just because a majority votes for it doesn't make it non-tyrannical, you shallow non-thinking twit.
I knew there was a reason why I'm not in the habit of responding to ACs. Tired memes, no substantive thinking and no capacity to read is about 90% of AC posts. Come on, give me at least ONE sentence that isn't based on some trite adage or sound bite with no legs.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait - the original poster wasn't an AC. Now there's the possibility that dear speed_rrracer is so worried about Karma and has so little faith in his beliefs that he'd rather post as an AC than continue the discussion, or.... well, just another random AC. Fun times.
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you walk around with a cell phone, the cell phone company knows where you are
And if I have a bank account, then the bank knows how much money I have or what all my transactions are. That doesn't mean police gets to use that information indiscriminately/without a warrant.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you see the mention of warrants in his proposal?
None
It's all automatic like DMCA takedowns.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Hijab (Score:2)
Re:Hijab (Score:4, Funny)
What we need is the human equivalent of license plate "protectors". I foresee a new fashion trend...
You mean like a hoodie?
Re: (Score:2)
which then causes a law to be passed that within X feet of "critical locations" it is a crime to have your hood UP.
btw in NC it is illegal to have anything covering/obscuring the plate
System Will Put New Yorkers Under Police Surveilla (Score:2)
>> System Will Put New Yorkers Under Police Surveillance
This is a great idea... in Soviet Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so bitter? (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be the response from my "friends" if I posted this on facebook. They just don't see anything wrong with this level of surveillance (or police ramming-down your door and shooting you).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they believe the society described in 1984 is a utopia, or that when someone gets into the government, they become perfect beings incapable of making mistakes or abusing their powers.
"We're not your mom and pop's police department" (Score:4, Informative)
No. You're our Big Brother's police department.
Even in public, I value my privacy (Score:2)
@Mitreya: the police can and do seize cell location data without warrant, I've seen it happen (in the referred instance it did put a man away for 18-to-life for burning down his parent's house, nearly killing his entire family. When information like that is referred to in a court of Law, warrant or not the jury can't unhear what's been said no matter how adamantly the judge insists on it. That unwarranted seizure is the ONLY thing that put the guy away).
Which is why the cellphone stays HOME. Where I go and
Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Mayor Bloomberg argued that the system isn't an example of Big Brother overstepping the line.
That shouldn't even be up for debate here. If we're taking up that debate with the Mayor, then we've already fallen for his straw-man and are missing the point completely. Of COURSE it's overstepping the line; that's obvious and doesn't need debate. The real problem here is that New Yorkers aren't fighting stuff like this for all they're worth - non-violent whenever possible, violent when necessary. And yes, that's constitutionally protected free speech.
For now, Bloomberg, you evil fiend, I hope this at least destroys whatever tourist traffic is left in the big apple. I, for one, will not ever be traveling to your city as long as this crap exists (and it's a shame, because there is much about New York that I love).
Re: (Score:2)
non-violent whenever possible, violent when necessary. And yes, that's constitutionally protected free speech.
I was unaware that violence was Constitutionally protected speech. Please explain.
Not reassuring. (Score:5, Insightful)
Becoming the Stasi [wikipedia.org] isn't an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Businesss... government... it's still big brother. (Score:4, Interesting)
Businesses shouldn't be allowed to collect data that the government can't.
Government shouldn't be allowed to collect data because "the private sector already does this."
I had the misfortune to attend a conference a few weeks ago where salesmen were being taught about "big data" by marketdroids.
These guys were drooling about wholesale intrusion into the most private aspects of our lives.
It really is the rise of big brother. The fact that it is a corporation instead of government is of little practical value; monitoring data gives those who have it power, and that power will always be abused - and will result in ruined or destroyed lives, reduced freedom, and corrupt leadership (whether government or corporate).
Data-fed? (Score:2)
What, exactly, is a non data-fed monitoring system? What exactly would it monitor if not data?
Doesn't justify (Score:2)
Just because the private sector is doing wrong things, it doesn't justify the city doing wrong things.
AT&T know where you are, we want to be like th (Score:2)
Mayor Bloomberg argued that the system isn't an example of Big Brother overstepping the line. 'What you're seeing is what the private sector has used for a long time,' he told Gothamist. 'If you walk around with a cell phone, the cell phone company knows where you are. We're not your mom and pop's police department anymore.'"
How in the hell is that statement supposed to make me feel comfortable?
Do it to the police too. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the video is not shown, then by law, the cops should not be allowed to testify about what they saw, heard, said, or did. I.e. it should be assumed that the cops destroyed the evidence to allow them to lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope I am pretty sure it is caused by cops being dicks. Last week I was pulling out from a night club, and I got pulled over. I did not have a single alcoholic drink, so I was pretty sure I was fine. The cop got me out to do the standardized test (I am pretty sure he couldn't have smelled alcohol on me or see me drive unsafely, as I never drank), And then came the Breathalyzers, which the cop made me take thrice, just to make sure the reading was correct. He let me go, only after I refused to take it the fo
Re: (Score:2)
Name (Score:2)
"Total Information Awareness" sounds pretty horrible, if *that* is the euphemism.
Re: (Score:2)
6 months? (Score:2)
Bloomburger (Score:2)
The difference Mr Bloomberg is that the private company doesn't claim the right to fine, tax and impound your whole existence for little more than breathing.
We're not your mom and pop's police department (Score:2)
No, as they used to respect the privacy of the honest citizen.
time to leave? (Score:3)
It's been gradual but i think we can say it's official that The Big Apple has become The Big Fuck You.
You have obscene pricing, crooked cops, they completely ignoring everything bad going down on Wall Street (and their major cocaine habit), they are a nanny city telling you that you cant have a large soda and now they are going Big Brother on everyone (that isn't part of the government).
Corporations really dont give a damn about what people do so long as they keep getting money from them. However, governments are just itching to break out the swat team for a double parked car.
I think it's time to blow the bridges and drag it out to sea with all the vermin on it.
"We're not your mom and pop's PD anymore..." (Score:4, Insightful)
Appropriate, because it's not my mom and pop's country anymore.
What a funny argument!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
1.It is OK to do all this surveillance at municipality level, because, you see, it is already done by the private business.
2.But the fact that is is already done by the private business does not mean that it is legal.
3.But because we justified 1, based on 2, now we have 3, it is LEGAL to do all this surveillance.
Now, my friends, do you see why MATH is so important? If you, dear friend, try to prove any lemma or theorem this way, you will repeat the same year again and again and again........
Re: (Score:2)
Only idiots vote for people based on what they say and how many times they misspeak.
The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush's policies were just as stupid as the crap that spewed from his drawling mouth.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush's policies were just as stupid as the crap that spewed from his drawling mouth.
I used to think that, too. But I'm starting to think the president doesn't really have that much power anymore. I used to think that the police state started with the Patriot Act but now I think it started somewhat earlier but got a big boost with the Patriot Act. I was hopeful that the current administration would gut it and make bring us back in line with our constitution. But, with all good intentions, it's not happening. I think the power is now held by congress (which is influenced by special interest
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope you get paid for sloshing this tripe all over the intertubes. If not, well that would be a very sad story. On the bright side, I guess it's the result of the Citizens United decision creating jobs. Go SCOTUS!
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to tell you this, but those sorts of expressions are not part of the language. They tend to be local. Tell someone in America to call the bobby and he'll be completely baffled. Tell someone in Bri
Re: (Score:2)
Bush mispoke just as many times, and surprise surprise they aren't front page headlines less than a decade later let along for the next century.
Just like week I called someoe "Anna" when their name was actually "Anne" - you would have been amazed.
Re:Oh that kooky Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding, there are 6 full volumes of "Bush"isms... and not just half conscious blathering performed at the end of 4, 22 hours days. Obama is well known for brilliantly reading speeches, he's an excellent orator. Even Reagan, a man who could handle a written speech with the best (there is no better training for public speaking than being an actor.) Opened his mouth and delivered unprepared howlers.Face it, The guys that run our country are forced to deal with topics outside their expertise, and if they're hard working SOBs, then in a tired moment stupid stuff will be said. If you have 4 years of public speaking, and in that time they can only hang a couple dozen faux paus on you, while having a body of public speaking that typically excellent. No biggie,
You can't honestly compare that to a man (Dubyah) who couldn't open his mouth prepared or not, and reflexively not have something stupid fall out. That kind of nit picking is the sign of someone whose rectum is much too firmly clenched. Nobody denies that Ronny was "The Communicator", and that his comments about "catchup being a vegetable" or that "trees cause pollution" were aberrations in an otherwise pretty spectacular job of speaking to the masses.
In short, if you wanna burn on Obama for caving in to Hollywood, or gutting our rights as citizen, I got some matches right here, and I can be back with some lighter fluid in about 5 minutes. You wanna make like he's Bush #2 the talking baboon, ah, not so much, in fact your hurting your own cause, because you just look like a childish hater pulling stuff outta your posterior to trump up as an issue... that ain't him looking stupid. Its you.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the words "forty" and "fifty" are very similar, yes, I expect it was a slip of the tongue. Every president (and indeed, every other politician, executive, and other celebrity) has made just as many mistakes. They're human. It happens.
Do you expect the act of inauguration to somehow free a person from all distractions? Or does it magically provide an extra few hours a day to set aside for practicing upcoming speeches? Or is it just this particular person that's under examination, when the la [about.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. They're the government. As long as people pay attention and actually do something, they can be controlled. That's being optimistic, but it's at least possible.
So rather than having useless laws that won't stop abuse, just get rid of the systems that allow for abuse unless they're absolutely essential.
Re: (Score:2)