There is already a SCOTUS ruling on this issue: Kyllo v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States)

In this case, the police used FLIR (Forward Looking Infra Red) cameras equipped on a police helicopter to look at the heat signatures through the walls of a house.

The courts ruled (5-4) that doing such is a defacto search of the property and a clear 4th amendment violation.

The point of the ruling, is not the intrusiveness or the technical means by which the police overcome the privacy and property rights, but the fact that doing so is a search of the property.

Justice Scalia, who wrote the presiding opinion, further went on to protect against all future attempts at bypassing the barriers of privacy and conduct searches of property without a warrant by the way he wrote his opinion. Again, it is not the technological means by which one overcomes the property's barriers to privacy, regardless how non-intrusive or passive such measures are, but the fact hat doing such is conducting a search of the property.

But that's just it, first responders don't have to worry about every person potentially having a gun.

Because, (CLUE-TRAIN!), every person doesn't have a gun.

Welcome to left-wing sensationalistic bullshit.

Police also have qualified immunity. Which is the most important part that separates regular citizens and police from effecting arrests.

Even the LAPD needs a license.

As per the FAA website:

Busting Myths about the FAA and Unmanned Aircraft
http://www.faa.gov/news/update...

How about instead of a 3rd set of rules for the road, cyclists just pick one and fucking stick to it?

Either follow the rules for vehicles or the rules for pedestrians.

If they want to ride on sidewalks and not have to wait in a line of cars, then they can be a pedestrian. If they want to take up a lane of traffic then they can fucking follow the rules for vehicles. Whichever they choose just fucking stick to it.

All of the problems I've had with cyclists comes from them following the rules for one and switching to the other when it's most convenient to them.

Because what we really need is another set of traffic rules to really confuse the shit out of people with.

But what makes the state more money?

Finding your stolen phone and arresting the perp, or writing 6 tickets in the span of an hour?

Modern policing has NOTHING to do with protecting society. It is all about revenue generation and enforcing the status quo so the populace doesn't get out of line.

Of course "on paper" they actually did police work.

But what do you think gave them "the hunch" that so-and-so was the badguy and just so happened to have exactly the incriminating evidence they needed to bust him in folder XYZ in his "My Documents" folder?

"Police Work" is often just another term for collecting the evidence and creating the link from A to Z, after the fact, to justify the police's actions.

I remember how it took me nearly two weeks to get to level 12 in FFXI.

Why would I ever want to subject myself to the same kind of leveling game mechanic a second time?

The only requirement is if one of the occupants consents to the search. It doesn't have to be someone that lives there or owns the property. Any random person whom is inside the property can give consent, including a 2 year old or a dog.

And you don't see this getting abused?

That is fucking absurd.

Or how about we fix the problem by cutting out all the bloat in our education costs?

http://articles.latimes.com/20...
http://online.wsj.com/news/art...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pa...

My best advice for anyone in this situation is to document everything .

I spent a few years working customer service handling orders for manufacturing company. One particularly customers was a consistent problem. This company believed one of their personnel shat gold bricks, but I realized right off that they were incompetent and used lies & intimidation to cover this up.

This person would routinely fax their orders at the end of the day (right before they would leave) without confirming that they actually sent me the files necessary to start their order, and that their orders were almost always "rush" orders with very very short turn around times. Another thing this person would do, would be to call me up, tell me they had an order and ask me what the latest day they would need to receive the order by a specific date and time. I would tell them, then they would wait well past this final submittable date, submit their order and then claim that I had promised to turn around the product by that time. Over the years, the turn around time necessary to complete their orders shrunk to impossible expectations and their customer began getting upset as my customer started blaming me personally for the delays.

The irritating part, is that whenever I some how failed to live up to this person's errors (i.e., I was unable to cover for them), they would call up my boss and complain about me. My boss only believed half their bullshit, but it was still enough to impact my career.

Unfortunately for them, one of their customers wasn't an idiot, and had remembered me when he came along to our plant for a facility inspection prior to us beginning production of their product. This customer set up a meeting between our companies and asked me point blank when I received the purchase order, when I received the files and when I delivered the product. Thankfully, I had records of the time and date of every purchase order that company had ever sent, along with records of the time and date of receipt of every file to begin production, as well as the delivery date of the product to their warehouse.

It turned out that the end customer was sending the purchase orders to our problem person up to three weeks before the problem person would send me the PO and files. The problem person would sit on the file for weeks before submitting it to their production and farming out our part to us. The problem person ended up losing their company around $2million in sales yearly when they lost their client.

We ended up being directly contracted by the end customer to continue manufacturing our part of their product.

Given how shady cops are with their actions while they conduct themselves, the cameras are much much more of a detriment to an officer's behavior/actions than the citizenry's.

Many of the article's I've read on the subject talk about how many less complaints the department received. One article even mentioned that the when only half the police department wore the cameras (the other half refused to wear said cameras...), the Excessive Use of Force complaints went down by over 70%.

So the question becomes, is this because the citizenry aren't making complaints? Or is it because police were moderating their behavior and not using excessive force or heavy handed tactics as their first response to every situation?

Either way is a win/win for us taxpayers. And the latter is a HUGE win for us citizenry as far as police tyranny is concerned.

Having been on the receiving end of such a shady cop violating the law, departmental "procedure" and having the dash-cam video go "missing" during discovery, I am all for more accountability for cops.

No fly list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

Yay ignorant populace!

I love how making something illegal, no mater how innocuous and innocent that something is, immediately polarizes the populace against them. After all, that person is now a scumbag felon.

Who cares if they were railroaded. Who cares if the prosecutions abused the law. Who cares if the prosecutors used smear campaigns and black mail to destroy a persons life just so they can cut a notch on their belt during their next their re-election. None of this matters because the ignorant public (in case you didn't catch it, I'm referring to you, spire3661) see only the "label" of what they are accused of and instantly write off that person as a human being and are perfectly acceptable in watching that person's rights be violated.

I just fucking love how history keeps repeating itself.

I agree.

The only discretion available in a completely voluntary relationship where you are dissatisfied with the other participant, is to not participate. (I.E. boycott EA).

On the flipside, some of the things done by these companies can be considered fraudulent or criminal (particularly in the case of installing rootkits).