government should never be trusted
Jim String
over the place. Most people are only aware of the DOT cameras
they see on the local news, along with the tower cams, and the
other cams, along with the police cams and...
I think government ought to be required to post the location of
all of their cameras so that we can shoot them out if need be.
There should be extremely severe personal penalties for
nondisclosure. Public whippings would be a good start.
I imagine there will be shepherd loving sheeple who disagree with
me.
Best,
Jim
Paul Mitchum
pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
You're going WAAAAAY off in the wrong direction here, Jim. What we need
is public nudity in front of those cameras. Give the watchers something
to watch!
--
No Globalization Without Representation!
Vern Klauhammar
>In article <slrn885o8c....@molly.hh.org>,
>pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
>>It worries me that there are so many government cameras all
>>over the place. Most people are only aware of the DOT cameras
>>they see on the local news, along with the tower cams, and the
>>other cams, along with the police cams and...
>
> If you feel you are being watched too much, do something worth
>being watched for. At the very least give them the finger. :)
There are a lot of miniature cameras hidden by private individuals for
prurient reasons, too. The camera itself is tiny -- it looks like one
of those roach baits you put under a fridge. It hooks up to a little
radio that transmits at 2.4 ghz and can take a signal through several
walls to a receiver that can be hooked up to a VCR. You can get these
things pre-installed in smoke detectors, clock radios, etc. They cost
a couple hundred bucks, well within the price range of the clothing
store employee who wants to hide one in the dressing room, the H.S.
janitor who is curious about the inner workings of the girls' locker
room, the hotel night clerk who assigns all young couples to a
particular room... The output of these gadgets can be found here and
there on the web, and if you hit a.b.p.e.voyeurism on a good day you
might even find something there amid all the fakes and spam.
Also, people hook these things up for private security reasons, in a
birdhouse where it can keep an eye on a car parked in the street, for
example.
It would be worth getting a receiver and a VCR and hooking it up to a
good antenna in a car, and then driving around town to see what sort
of signals you pick up.
Maybe I'll do that for a spring research project. If Max has his
binary group going, I might have some Seattle content to post.
-- Vern
Eric da Red
Jim String <pla...@not.replyable.com> wrote:
>It worries me that there are so many government cameras all
>over the place.
After ignoring the private sector cameras in banks, elevators and lobbies,
I hadn't noticed the government cameras.
> Most people are only aware of the DOT cameras
>they see on the local news, along with the tower cams, and the
>other cams, along with the police cams and...
>
>I think government ought to be required to post the location of
>all of their cameras so that we can shoot them out if need be.
There's no problem that can't be solved by your precious little gun, is
there?
>There should be extremely severe personal penalties for
>nondisclosure. Public whippings would be a good start.
>
>I imagine there will be shepherd loving sheeple who disagree with
>me.
Not a bit. I think you should start right away to shoot out all
government cameras.
--
Quote Of The Week: "A life is sacred. Property is intended to serve life,
and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no
personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on; it is not man."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Gwen Nelson
: On 17 Jan 2000 07:24:21 GMT, pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String)
: wrote:
: <snip>
: >I imagine there will be shepherd loving sheeple who disagree with
: >me.
: Did you coin the term, "sheeple"? LOL!
Hardly. 'Sheeple' is a perjorative term commonly used by the militia volk
and 'Patriots' to refer to those of us who maintain that guns don't solve
all problems (or many problems at all.)
Max Masters!!!
Jim String wrote:
>
> It worries me that there are so many government cameras all
> over the place. Most people are only aware of the DOT cameras
> they see on the local news, along with the tower cams, and the
> other cams, along with the police cams and...
>
> I think government ought to be required to post the location of
> all of their cameras so that we can shoot them out if need be.
> There should be extremely severe personal penalties for
> nondisclosure. Public whippings would be a good start.
>
> I imagine there will be shepherd loving sheeple who disagree with
> me.
and lot's of sheeple who agree.
Max Masters!!!
Vern Klauhammar wrote:
> Maybe I'll do that for a spring research project. If Max has his
> binary group going, I might have some Seattle content to post.
dude. that would be so effing cool! get two others and
triangulate! are there 2.4 gig detectors so i could
walk around searching??
Margaret Bartley
Vern Klauhammar <ham...@sixpak.net> wrote in message
news:u5t68s023p6be75bm...@4ax.com...
> It would be worth getting a receiver and a VCR and hooking it up to a
> good antenna in a car, and then driving around town to see what sort
> of signals you pick up.
Idle curiosity - where would one buy a receiver that could output to a VCR?
Could you buy one that is in the body of a VCR, so you could power it from
your car battery or some inverter?
Peter Hartikka
> I think government ought to be required to post the location of
> all of their cameras so that we can shoot them out if need be.
Have you checked the DOT website? It ought to be fairly easy to
extrapolate from the camera angles where all those "freeway cams" are.
Lock and load, Jimbo!
-Peter in Seattle
Shea F. Kenny
col...@slave1.aa.net (Gwen Nelson) announced:
}Hardly. 'Sheeple' is a perjorative term commonly used by the militia volk
}and 'Patriots' to refer to those of us who maintain that guns don't solve
}all problems (or many problems at all.)
Nor are they supposed to. They're only supposed to solve one problem.
To protect the sheeple from the wolves......
--
Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corp)
World elevator wrestling champion
This has been, Lunar Network News
ICQ# 31930333
Vern Klauhammar
Here is one of many sites that sells these things and explains how
they work:
www.x10.com/products/vk34a_kit_components.htm
All this equipment works from a 12vdc source -- battery pack, car
battery or dc power cube. Everything hooks together with ordinary
cables. The cameras at the site above come in a special housing --
you can get them even smaller, about the size of two quarters pressed
together.
You could easily rig up a portable signal snooper for your car -- the
trick would be figuring out the right antenna. It stands to reason,
with this equipment so cheap and widely available, that a lot of
people are using it for all kinds of reasons, and your signal snooper
would probably find something if you had the right antenna.
(NOTE: I am not in this business and this is not an ad. I have never
done business with the company above -- but check out their banner at
www.hotfiles.com for an idea of what kind of buyers they are
targeting.)
-- Vern
Paul Mitchum
pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
[...]
>One nearly sure way to cut your chances of a potential interaction
>with the State is to stay _out_ of cars. Think about it.
>
>Best,
>Jim
Jim, you ARE the state. How do you get out of interacting with yourself?
Jim String
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 17:26:24 GMT, bg...@scn.org (Jeff Foy) wrote:
>
>>pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
>>>It worries me that there are so many government cameras all
>>>over the place. Most people are only aware of the DOT cameras
>>>they see on the local news, along with the tower cams, and the
>>>other cams, along with the police cams and...
>>
>>being watched for. At the very least give them the finger. :)
>
>There are a lot of miniature cameras hidden by private individuals for
>prurient reasons, too. The camera itself is tiny -- it looks like one
>of those roach baits you put under a fridge. It hooks up to a little
>radio that transmits at 2.4 ghz and can take a signal through several
>walls to a receiver that can be hooked up to a VCR. You can get these
>things pre-installed in smoke detectors, clock radios, etc. They cost
>a couple hundred bucks, well within the price range of the clothing
>store employee who wants to hide one in the dressing room, the H.S.
>janitor who is curious about the inner workings of the girls' locker
>room, the hotel night clerk who assigns all young couples to a
>particular room... The output of these gadgets can be found here and
>there on the web, and if you hit a.b.p.e.voyeurism on a good day you
>might even find something there amid all the fakes and spam.
>
>Also, people hook these things up for private security reasons, in a
>birdhouse where it can keep an eye on a car parked in the street, for
>example.
>
>good antenna in a car, and then driving around town to see what sort
>of signals you pick up.
>
>binary group going, I might have some Seattle content to post.
The issue isn't so much being watched as _who_ is doing the watching.
Phil Zimmerman of PGP fame made a remark about identifying the
technology that is conducive to creating a police state and forbiding
government the use of it.
As it is, every new technology to come along is cheerfully put to
use by our rulers to infringe upon our rights and liberties even
more.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>Having shed several pounds of relevancy on the trollmaster,
>col...@slave1.aa.net (Gwen Nelson) announced:
>}Hardly. 'Sheeple' is a perjorative term commonly used by the militia volk
>}and 'Patriots' to refer to those of us who maintain that guns don't solve
>}all problems (or many problems at all.)
>
>
> Nor are they supposed to. They're only supposed to solve one problem.
>To protect the sheeple from the wolves......
Interesting, I sometimes agree with you.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>In article <slrn885o8c....@molly.hh.org>,
>
>>It worries me that there are so many government cameras all
>>over the place.
>
>
>I hadn't noticed the government cameras.
Private sector can be fought by boycotts. People are _very_ sensitive
when their wallets get hit. Notice most of the bitching about WTO
centered around the very minimal property damage that was done.
>> Most people are only aware of the DOT cameras
>>they see on the local news, along with the tower cams, and the
>>other cams, along with the police cams and...
>>
>>I think government ought to be required to post the location of
>>all of their cameras so that we can shoot them out if need be.
>
>
>There's no problem that can't be solved by your precious little gun, is
>there?
Don't worry, Klinton is hiring 500 more BATF agents.
>>There should be extremely severe personal penalties for
>>nondisclosure. Public whippings would be a good start.
>>
>>I imagine there will be shepherd loving sheeple who disagree with
>>me.
>
>
>Not a bit. I think you should start right away to shoot out all
>government cameras.
The issue is more correctly to deny government the usage of technology
which is useful in the creation of a police state. We could start by
taking away full autos from the police. Either that or let private
citizen have them again, doesn't matter a whit to me because full autos
aren't very useful but they are _very_ hazardous in the hands of poorly
trained lousy shot cops.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>On 17 Jan 2000 07:24:21 GMT, pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String)
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>>me.
>
No, it's a rather common expression. It is often applied to the
socially engineered television watching set. You know, the people
that think Dan Blather is telling the truth.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>Richard M. Smith (rms...@pobox.com) wrote:
>: On 17 Jan 2000 07:24:21 GMT, pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String)
>: wrote:
>
>: <snip>
>: >I imagine there will be shepherd loving sheeple who disagree with
>: >me.
>
>: Did you coin the term, "sheeple"? LOL!
>
>and 'Patriots' to refer to those of us who maintain that guns don't solve
>all problems (or many problems at all.)
You might be surprised to find your name and those of the people around
you listed in a directory of militia members. Check out your local
phone book.
The letter of the law (USC Title 10 section 311) indicates all males
between 17 and 45 (with some exceptions) capable of bearing arms as
the militia of the US, but common sense these days would indicate
that it includes females too, else you'll have to give up that equal
rights stuff.
It's fascinating how ordinary words like "militia," "patriot," and
"Constitutionalist" can be socially engineered into having negative
connotations by the Dan Blathers of the world.
I fly an American flag too. I understand even _that_ is beginning to
be viewed with suspicion.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
>Jim String wrote:
>
>> I think government ought to be required to post the location of
>> all of their cameras so that we can shoot them out if need be.
>
>extrapolate from the camera angles where all those "freeway cams" are.
>
>Lock and load, Jimbo!
I'd rather not. It would be better to prohibit government's usage
of technologies conducive to creating a police state.
I'd have no problem with the cameras as long as it is a crime for
police to use them.
Jim String
Mitchum wrote:
>In article <slrn88apd7....@molly.hh.org>,
>pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
>
>[...]
>>One nearly sure way to cut your chances of a potential interaction
>>with the State is to stay _out_ of cars. Think about it.
>>
>>Best,
>>Jim
>
>Jim, you ARE the state. How do you get out of interacting with yourself?
Well, no... this was _supposed_ to be a constitutional representative
republic but I think it hardly resembles that anymore. I see little
regard for the Constitutional part, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th
and 10th Amendments enjoy little regard, I imagine the 7th should adjusted
for inflation and I have my eye suspiciously on the 3rd. That the
"representative" part is out the window is pretty obvious and most
people stumble around thinking this is a democracy instead of a republic.
Besides, I should have said "police," whether state, county or municipal.
Best,
Jim
Eric da Red
Jim String <pla...@not.replyable.com> wrote:
>In article <s877p1...@corp.supernews.com>, Eric da Red wrote:
...
>>>It worries me that there are so many government cameras all
>>>over the place.
>>
>>After ignoring the private sector cameras in banks, elevators and lobbies,
>>I hadn't noticed the government cameras.
>Private sector can be fought by boycotts.
Terrific. Just be sure never to go to the airport, and never use a bank
or an ATM. Go ahead, do it, and let us know how effective your boycott
is.
Government cameras can be fought by moving to a shack in Montana.
> People are _very_ sensitive
>when their wallets get hit. Notice most of the bitching about WTO
>centered around the very minimal property damage that was done.
So, a bank will have the choice of:
(a) keeping the security cameras to appease the customers who like the
sense of scurity, and to appease LEO's.
(b) removing the security cameras to appease a bunch of cranky small
account holders.
And the answer is ...
...
>>>There should be extremely severe personal penalties for
>>>nondisclosure. Public whippings would be a good start.
>>>
>>>I imagine there will be shepherd loving sheeple who disagree with
>>>me.
>>
>>Not a bit. I think you should start right away to shoot out all
>>government cameras.
>The issue is more correctly to deny government the usage of technology
>which is useful in the creation of a police state.
Ok. Get rid of printing presses. You might want to expunge all knowledge
of smelting, too, because police states have been around since the Bronze
Age.
Paul Mitchum
pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
I don't think the 'representative' part is out the window. I think the
problem is that the vast majority of folks being represented are those
who already have power.
Running off to the hills in disgust with your guns is exactly the way to
lose what power you still have, and is just dandy from the perspective
of those you despise.
Buggle
Jim String <pla...@not.replyable.com> wrote in message
news:slrn88aobs....@molly.hh.org...> >In article <slrn885o8c....@molly.hh.org>,
> >Jim String <pla...@not.replyable.com> wrote:
> >
[snip]
> >>
> >>I imagine there will be shepherd loving sheeple who disagree with
> >>me.
> >
> >
> >Not a bit. I think you should start right away to shoot out all
> >government cameras.
>
> The issue is more correctly to deny government the usage of technology
> which is useful in the creation of a police state.
The latest issue of Scientific American has a short article about how the
Dept of Defense is contracting for development of face recognition systems
which will allow a surveillance camera to feed an image of a public place
(e.g. a market square) into a computing system which will detect and scan
the faces of the crowd, and record them for later comparison. It will then
be used to "recognize" recurring faces (i.e. someone "casing the joint") as
well as recognize faces of "known terrorists", for investigative purposes.
It also discusses how "gait recognition" is being pursued - i.e. every
person's walk has certain idiosyncrasies that can be used to "recognize"
that person, simply by observing them in motion.
One should keep in mind the difference between "evidence admissible in
court" and "investigatory leads". For instance, on an "ideal" day, the FBI
must obtain a warrant to tap someone's phone. But this nuisance is called
for only if the investigators need to use what they hear as evidence. One
could just as well tap any phone they like and listen for clues as to where
else to look for "admissible evidence," etc.
No warrant is required to videotape your movements in public, and with smart
video processing computers, the unbelievably overwhelming amount of
"information" can be distilled to "recognized faces and gaits" for
archiving.
>We could start by
> taking away full autos from the police. Either that or let private
> citizen have them again, doesn't matter a whit to me because full autos
> aren't very useful but they are _very_ hazardous in the hands of poorly
> trained lousy shot cops.
>
> Best,
> Jim
Jim is right. Be afraid.
The trend is unswervingly toward more power, more knowledge, and more
control - by "our" government *over* "us." And anytime we get angry enough
to demand straight answers to obvious questions, "our" government spends
months (if we complain constantly) or years (if we complain infrequently)
poring over what evidence they possess, in the name of "national security,"
as is happening right now over the Waco documentation demanded by the Texas
Rangers.
Regards,
Bill
Buggle
Paul Mitchum <mil...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:mile23-4B3CD8....@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
[snip]
> Running off to the hills in disgust with your guns is exactly the way to
> lose what power you still have, and is just dandy from the perspective
> of those you despise.
Jim isn't running off to the hills in disgust -- he is consistently and
regularly using this forum to draw people's attention to the
"non-representative" state of affairs of state, so to speak...
Douglas Tooley
Gwen Nelson wrote in message <3883c632$1...@huge.aa.net>...
>
>: Did you coin the term, "sheeple"? LOL!
>
>Hardly. 'Sheeple' is a perjorative term commonly used by the militia volk
>and 'Patriots' to refer to those of us who maintain that guns don't solve
>all problems (or many problems at all.)
I bet you were sitting in the front row of the UW class where you learned
this important fact about life - eh? Further I'd bet your teacher was a
confirmed commie sexist pig, quick on the draw with the status dildo of her
UW professorship, eh?
-Doug