A good free EXIF removal software for Mac OS X?

[Ant]

Hello.

Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows? This is in an
updated Mac OS Xes (v10.5 and up). I am not finding any free ones from
Apple's App Store and Google searches don't seem to be showing any good
ones.

Thank you in advance. :)
--
Quote of the Week: "The general, unable to control his irritation, will
launch his men to the assault like swarming ants, with the result that
one-third of his men are slain, while the town still remains untaken.
Such are the disastrous effects of a siege." --Chapter 3 in Sun Tzu's
The Ancient Art of War (Translated by Lionel Giles)
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

[John McWilliams]

On 8/28/15 PDT 10:02 AM, Ant wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
> batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows? This is in an
> updated Mac OS Xes (v10.5 and up). I am not finding any free ones from
> Apple's App Store and Google searches don't seem to be showing any good
> ones.
>
> Thank you in advance. :)

I thought Preview or Photos could do that, but I am not checking as I
don't remove EXIF info, unless posting to the web, and even then,
seldom. LR and PS certainly can do it but are hardly free.

Why would you want to remove masses of EXIF info??

[Ant]

> > Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
> > batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows? This is in an
> > updated Mac OS Xes (v10.5 and up). I am not finding any free ones from
> > Apple's App Store and Google searches don't seem to be showing any good
> > ones.

> I thought Preview or Photos could do that, but I am not checking as I
> don't remove EXIF info, unless posting to the web, and even then,
> seldom. LR and PS certainly can do it but are hardly free.

That is what I thought since Windows 7 can without any third party
softwares. :/

> Why would you want to remove masses of EXIF info??

To remove sensitive datas like locations, serial numbers, etc.

[JF Mezei]

On 15-08-28 13:02, Ant wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
> batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows?

exiftool you can download from queens university (Kingston Ontario
Canada). It is a command line tool so it is easy to automate.

For one-off, I use Photoshop "Export to Web" which has option to strip
the exif information.

[Jolly Roger]

On Aug 28, 2015, Ant wrote
(in article<0uKdnUKKj4iRCX3I...@earthlink.com>):

> Hello.
>
> Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
> batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows? This is in an
> updated Mac OS Xes (v10.5 and up). I am not finding any free ones from
> Apple's App Store and Google searches don't seem to be showing any good
> ones.
>
> Thank you in advance. :)

I think you need to work on your research skills a bit. ; ) A web search for
"exif remove" on MacUpdate shows these results:

<http://www.macupdate.com/find/mac/exif%20remove>

There's a handful of command-line utilities to do what you want. Search
phrases like "command line exif remove" will yield more results. Here's a
simple one:

<http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Productivity-Sauce/Remove-EXIF-
Metadata-from-Photos-with-exiftool>

Looks like there's even a web-based tool to do it:

<https://www.toolsrepo.com/privacy/remove-exif-from-image-files>

There are plenty of ways to skin this cat!
--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[nospam]

In article <0uKdnUKKj4iRCX3I...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<ANT...@zimage.com> wrote:

> Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
> batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows? This is in an
> updated Mac OS Xes (v10.5 and up). I am not finding any free ones from
> Apple's App Store and Google searches don't seem to be showing any good
> ones.

there is nothing better than exiftool, which other apps (and probably
irfanview) use:
<http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/>

it's a command line, but easy to script it.

[Alan Browne]

On 2015-08-28 13:02, Ant wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
> batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows? This is in an
> updated Mac OS Xes (v10.5 and up). I am not finding any free ones from
> Apple's App Store and Google searches don't seem to be showing any good
> ones.
>
> Thank you in advance. :)
>

exiftool

[Warren Oates]

In article <55e09810$0$44133$c3e8da3$3a1a...@news.astraweb.com>,

JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> exiftool you can download from queens university (Kingston Ontario
> Canada). It is a command line tool so it is easy to automate.

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/

Very nicely documented too. I use it for all sorts of stuff. It reads
any kind of metadata, not just exif stuff.
--
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene.
-- notes for Blade Runner

[Savageduck]

On 2015-08-28 17:16:36 +0000, ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) said:

>>> Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
>>> batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows? This is in an
>>> updated Mac OS Xes (v10.5 and up). I am not finding any free ones from
>>> Apple's App Store and Google searches don't seem to be showing any good
>>> ones.
>
>> I thought Preview or Photos could do that, but I am not checking as I
>> don't remove EXIF info, unless posting to the web, and even then,
>> seldom. LR and PS certainly can do it but are hardly free.
>
> That is what I thought since Windows 7 can without any third party
> softwares. :/
>
>
>> Why would you want to remove masses of EXIF info??
>
> To remove sensitive datas like locations, serial numbers, etc.

So What? I have GPS so that I can tag my images, why hide that information?

What damn good is a serial number to an EXIF peeper?

In the meta data for this image I include a GPS tag along with my
Creative Commons license "CC by-nc-sa".
<https://db.tt/kZrYePSJ>

...and here is all the metadata for it you could possibly want to read.
<http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropboxusercontent.com%2Fu%2F1295663%2FShared%2520Images%2FAviation%2FDNC_4966.jpg>
or
<http://tinyurl.com/pltejar>
--


Regards,

Savageduck

[Don Bruder]

In article <mrq4l2$5mu$2...@dont-email.me>,

What the fuck IS it with people anymore???

The fact that he wants to is all the "why" needed.

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[Savageduck]

OK, so he wants a paranoia comfort tool.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Ant]

> >> Why would you want to remove masses of EXIF info??
> >
> > To remove sensitive datas like locations, serial numbers, etc.

> So What? I have GPS so that I can tag my images, why hide that information?

> What damn good is a serial number to an EXIF peeper?

Because I don't want to reveal these in public.

[Ant]

> > exiftool you can download from queens university (Kingston Ontario
> > Canada). It is a command line tool so it is easy to automate.

> http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/

> Very nicely documented too. I use it for all sorts of stuff. It reads
> any kind of metadata, not just exif stuff.

Thanks. I will see if there is a GUI front end.

[Ant]

> > Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
> > batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows? This is in an
> > updated Mac OS Xes (v10.5 and up). I am not finding any free ones from
> > Apple's App Store and Google searches don't seem to be showing any good
> > ones.

> I think you need to work on your research skills a bit. ; ) A web search for
> "exif remove" on MacUpdate shows these results:

> <http://www.macupdate.com/find/mac/exif%20remove>

But those are not free. :(

> There's a handful of command-line utilities to do what you want. Search
> phrases like "command line exif remove" will yield more results. Here's a
> simple one:

> <http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Productivity-Sauce/Remove-EXIF-
> Metadata-from-Photos-with-exiftool>

Thanks. I'll have to see if there is a GUI frontend for it.

> Looks like there's even a web-based tool to do it:
> <https://www.toolsrepo.com/privacy/remove-exif-from-image-files>

I don't want to upload the embedded images to an unknown host. I'd do
that locally first and then upload to the public.

[Ant]

In comp.sys.mac.graphics Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <0uKdnUKKj4iRCX3I...@earthlink.com>

> Ant <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote:
> > Hello.

> > Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
> > batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows? This is in an
> > updated Mac OS Xes (v10.5 and up). I am not finding any free ones from
> > Apple's App Store and Google searches don't seem to be showing any good
> > ones.

> 1) Install ImageMagick
> 2) type "mogrify -strip *.jpg" at the commandline
> 3) Every jpg file in the current directory will have it's EFIX data
> removed.

Thanks. :)

[Savageduck]

On 2015-08-28 18:49:50 +0000, ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) said:

>>>> Why would you want to remove masses of EXIF info??
>>>
>>> To remove sensitive datas like locations, serial numbers, etc.
>
>> So What? I have GPS so that I can tag my images, why hide that information?
>
>> What damn good is a serial number to an EXIF peeper?
>
> Because I don't want to reveal these in public.

Aah! So you are using stolen equipment.
I can understand your reluctance to reveal that.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Davoud]

Ant:
> > Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software...

John McWilliams:

> Why would you want to remove masses of EXIF info??

Not suggesting this applies to "Ant," but the Internet has turned many
people into raving paranoids. I'm in the phone book, and various
government entities from county on up have put information about me
on-line. Now the Chinese have stolen my federal personnel records, so I
don't worry much about so-called "privacy."

Besides, I photograph small things--arthropods and wildflowers--for the
Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) and the Maryland Biodiversity Project (MBP),
and such photos are useless without precise location data.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[JF Mezei]

On 15-08-28 14:29, Savageduck wrote:

> So What? I have GPS so that I can tag my images, why hide that information?

When you publish naked picture of yourself on a porn site, you don't
want everyone to know where you live.

> What damn good is a serial number to an EXIF peeper?

If your images are of a dubious legal nature, you don't want an embedded
serial number to tie the picture to a camera you own.

(not suggesting OP is in that situation, just trying to find cases where
you really want the picture to be without EXIF information).

[Savageduck]

On 2015-08-28 19:31:11 +0000, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> said:

> On 15-08-28 14:29, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> So What? I have GPS so that I can tag my images, why hide that information?
>
> When you publish naked picture of yourself on a porn site, you don't
> want everyone to know where you live.

I must remember to do that next time I add an image of my irresistible
naked visage to "The Old Farts' XXX Flesh Cave".

>> What damn good is a serial number to an EXIF peeper?
>
> If your images are of a dubious legal nature, you don't want an embedded
> serial number to tie the picture to a camera you own.

Personally that has never been a concern.

There again, before I retired, I have dealt with, and managed,
thousands of crime scene and evidence photos where the Metadata was an
important part of establishing and maintaining the chain of evidence.

> (not suggesting OP is in that situation, just trying to find cases where
> you really want the picture to be without EXIF information).

Paranoia, how light life might be without it.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <2015082812450944855-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> What damn good is a serial number to an EXIF peeper?
> >
> > If your images are of a dubious legal nature, you don't want an embedded
> > serial number to tie the picture to a camera you own.
>
> Personally that has never been a concern.
>
> There again, before I retired, I have dealt with, and managed,
> thousands of crime scene and evidence photos where the Metadata was an
> important part of establishing and maintaining the chain of evidence.

that's not a usual scenario.

a common example where metadata should be removed is in posting an ad
with a photo on craigslist or similar or sending a photo in response to
an ad. often it's personal ads, but it could also be for a car or couch
or whatever.

if the photo was taken at home and has embedded gps location data. the
person has now revealed where they live.

that could be bad.

[Warren Oates]

In article <2015082811294174414-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> So What? I have GPS so that I can tag my images, why hide that information?
>
> What damn good is a serial number to an EXIF peeper?

Well, some of us have other needs than you. Those gay brothers who raise
the silk worms have been looking for me for years, so I'm a bit
paranoid. I'm not superstitious, you understand, but I'm a little bit
stitious.

[Warren Oates]

In article <280820151528109305%st...@sky.net>, Davoud <st...@sky.net>
wrote:

> Besides, I photograph small things--arthropods and wildflowers--for the
> Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) and the Maryland Biodiversity Project (MBP),
> and such photos are useless without precise location data.

I use the metadata for the images we take (and sell) and collect. I
remove the data when I post a photo to Facebook (just for one). It's my
business to do that if I feel like it.

[John McWilliams]

No. Often, understanding the why leads to more elegant solutions.

WTF yourself.

[Jolly Roger]

Last I checked the desire for privacy isn't an indication of
malfeasance.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-08-28, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> a common example where metadata should be removed is in posting an ad
> with a photo on craigslist or similar or sending a photo in response to
> an ad. often it's personal ads, but it could also be for a car or couch
> or whatever.
>
> if the photo was taken at home and has embedded gps location data. the
> person has now revealed where they live.
>
> that could be bad.

You would think that would be common sense...

[Jolly Roger]

+1

[Savageduck]

On 2015-08-28 22:05:40 +0000, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> said:

> On 2015-08-28, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-08-28 18:49:50 +0000, ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) said:
>>
>>>>>> Why would you want to remove masses of EXIF info??
>>>>>
>>>>> To remove sensitive datas like locations, serial numbers, etc.
>>>
>>>> So What? I have GPS so that I can tag my images, why hide that information?
>>>
>>>> What damn good is a serial number to an EXIF peeper?
>>>
>>> Because I don't want to reveal these in public.
>>
>> Aah! So you are using stolen equipment.
>> I can understand your reluctance to reveal that.
>
> Last I checked the desire for privacy isn't an indication of
> malfeasance.

Ant is naturally paranoid, I am naturally skeptical and suspicious, it
was part of my job description.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Don Bruder]

In article <mrqjtk$1mr$1...@dont-email.me>,

So you've been appointed the arbiter of what's elegant enough, now? Or
is it just that you think we're supposed to ask you if it's OK to do
something we want to do with our data?

Here's a clue:
Elegant or not, pretty or not, Apple-approved/supported/encouraged or
not, whether you happen to like it or not, some of us feel that what
gets done with our data is something that's to be decided by our whim,
with no regard to what you or anyone else might think of whatever it
might be. The only reason needed for doing it is "I want to".

If you don't like that, take it up with someone who acknowledges your
imaginary "authority" on the subject. You have no need for any "why"
that goes beyond "because I feel like it".

[Don Bruder]

In article <2015082816522715023-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2015-08-28 22:05:40 +0000, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>
> > On 2015-08-28, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >> On 2015-08-28 18:49:50 +0000, ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) said:
> >>
> >>>>>> Why would you want to remove masses of EXIF info??
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To remove sensitive datas like locations, serial numbers, etc.
> >>>
> >>>> So What? I have GPS so that I can tag my images, why hide that
> >>>> information?
> >>>
> >>>> What damn good is a serial number to an EXIF peeper?
> >>>
> >>> Because I don't want to reveal these in public.
> >>
> >> Aah! So you are using stolen equipment.
> >> I can understand your reluctance to reveal that.
> >
> > Last I checked the desire for privacy isn't an indication of
> > malfeasance.
>
> Ant is naturally paranoid, I am naturally skeptical and suspicious, it
> was part of my job description.

I note your use of the past tense. You have my condolences for your
former affliction, and my hopes for a rapid recovery.

[Davoud]

Davoud:

> > Besides, I photograph small things--arthropods and wildflowers--for the
> > Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) and the Maryland Biodiversity Project (MBP),
> > and such photos are useless without precise location data.

Warren Oates:

> I use the metadata for the images we take (and sell) and collect. I
> remove the data when I post a photo to Facebook (just for one). It's my
> business to do that if I feel like it.

Well, yes, of course it is your business and your privilege. It
wouldn't be worth the bother for me, because many of the same photos
that I post to FB are on Flickr with full location data.

[Savageduck]

After 25 years, in a California Law enforcement agency I retired as a
Lieutenant in February 2009. So these days I can be a tad less
suspicious. I remain an unparanoid skeptic.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[John McWilliams]

Holy shit! You've taken a simple question and answer and turned it into
a rant, and a rude one as well.

Note I am not demanding a why. And you've overlooked the reason for it
in your desperation to start a political donnybrook.

[Maurizio Loreti]

ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) writes:

>> > exiftool you can download from queens university (Kingston Ontario
>> > Canada). It is a command line tool so it is easy to automate.
>
>> http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/
>
>> Very nicely documented too. I use it for all sorts of stuff. It reads
>> any kind of metadata, not just exif stuff.
>
> Thanks. I will see if there is a GUI front end.

You don't need a GUI. Just type in a terminal window

exiftool -all= <list of files>

to remove all the metadata from the files in the list.

--
(@_ | Maurizio Loreti
//\ |
V_/_ | EMail/ROT13: Znhevmv...@tznvy.pbz

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-08-29, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2015-08-29 03:13:13 +0000, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> said:
>> In article <2015082816522715023-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-08-28 22:05:40 +0000, Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>>>> On 2015-08-28, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Aah! So you are using stolen equipment.
>>>>> I can understand your reluctance to reveal that.
>>>>
>>>> Last I checked the desire for privacy isn't an indication of
>>>> malfeasance.
>>>
>>> Ant is naturally paranoid, I am naturally skeptical and suspicious, it
>>> was part of my job description.
>>
>> I note your use of the past tense. You have my condolences for your
>> former affliction, and my hopes for a rapid recovery.
>

> After 25 years, in a California Law enforcement agency...

The fact that you worked in American law enforcement certainly explains
your willingness to accuse otherwise innocent people of wrongdoing. You
have zero evidence that Ant has stolen anything at all, yet you accuse
him of being a thief. You do this because you can get away with it, and
it wouldn't surprise me if you've done so on the job, where you had even
more power at your fingertips. Again, the desire for privacy isn't an
indication of malfeasance. There is absolutely nothing wrong with
American citizens removing their own private information from EXIF
entries in images. You are a shining example of what is wrong with the
mindset of American police forces. Personally I'm glad you are retired.
Good riddance.

[Savageduck]

Well you are entitled to your opinion, and I too am glad I am retired.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Alan Browne]

On 2015-08-28 13:11, John McWilliams wrote:
> On 8/28/15 PDT 10:02 AM, Ant wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
>> batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows? This is in an
>> updated Mac OS Xes (v10.5 and up). I am not finding any free ones from
>> Apple's App Store and Google searches don't seem to be showing any good
>> ones.
>>
>> Thank you in advance. :)
>
> I thought Preview or Photos could do that, but I am not checking as I
> don't remove EXIF info, unless posting to the web, and even then,
> seldom. LR and PS certainly can do it but are hardly free.
>
> Why would you want to remove masses of EXIF info??

Data miners.

With the use of GPS aided cameras or tagged images, not to mention
smartphone cameras, each image creates a pebble path of where and when
you were (to coin a phrase).

99.99% of the time that probably doesn't matter. But, it could easily
reveal where you live and work or play or perhaps unsavoury activity and
that may be stuff you prefer to keep secret or at least obscure.

An example is an experimental farm project a friend of my SO's has. He
doesn't want it publicly known where it is. I took pictures there and I
had my GPS recording. He asked what was what. I told him. He asked me
not to tag those phots with L/L. No problem.

[Alan Browne]

A bit harsh JR. Savageduck's statement was kneejerk and not though out.
But that's all. It happens in NG's from time to time. Recall the
great mindless May of 2003. Hope that never happens again.

[Warren Oates]

In article <Z62dnbxl4eHDWXzI...@giganews.com>,

Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

> An example is an experimental farm project a friend of my SO's has.

Dirty wog hemp?

[Alan Browne]

On 2015-08-28 14:32, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <mrq4l2$5mu$2...@dont-email.me>,

> John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 8/28/15 PDT 10:02 AM, Ant wrote:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
>>> batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows? This is in an
>>> updated Mac OS Xes (v10.5 and up). I am not finding any free ones from
>>> Apple's App Store and Google searches don't seem to be showing any good
>>> ones.
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance. :)
>>
>> I thought Preview or Photos could do that, but I am not checking as I
>> don't remove EXIF info, unless posting to the web, and even then,
>> seldom. LR and PS certainly can do it but are hardly free.
>>
>> Why would you want to remove masses of EXIF info??
>
>

> What the fuck IS it with people anymore???

Curiosity. Shit! That is a problem.

>
> The fact that he wants to is all the "why" needed.

Yep.

[Alan Browne]

Bad week at the salt mine?

[Davoud]

Alan Browne:

> With the use of GPS aided cameras or tagged images, not to mention
> smartphone cameras, each image creates a pebble path of where and when
> you were (to coin a phrase).
>
> 99.99% of the time that probably doesn't matter. But, it could easily
> reveal where you live

Like the phone book does? And the county government? Real estate
transactions cannot be conducted in secret in most U.S. locales. These
days counties or states often put the records on the web. My purchase
is one such public record in Maryland.

> and work

Like the company web site does?

> or play or perhaps unsavoury activity and
> that may be stuff you prefer to keep secret or at least obscure.

Suggestion: avoid tawdry activities. Avoid web sites like "Ashley
Madison."

> An example is an experimental farm project a friend of my SO's has. He
> doesn't want it publicly known where it is. I took pictures there and I
> had my GPS recording. He asked what was what. I told him. He asked me
> not to tag those phots with L/L. No problem.

The means of detecting the signature of opium poppies in overhead
photography was perfected long ago.

[Alan Browne]

On 2015-08-29 10:52, Davoud wrote:
> Alan Browne:
>> With the use of GPS aided cameras or tagged images, not to mention
>> smartphone cameras, each image creates a pebble path of where and when
>> you were (to coin a phrase).
>>
>> 99.99% of the time that probably doesn't matter. But, it could easily
>> reveal where you live
>
> Like the phone book does? And the county government? Real estate
> transactions cannot be conducted in secret in most U.S. locales. These
> days counties or states often put the records on the web. My purchase
> is one such public record in Maryland.

Posting on the internet, which is international, under some pseudonym
doesn't give anyone much. Perhaps the local based on IP, or the country
based on ISP.

Any obscurity generated that way can be blown away with a single photo
posting containing L/L.

>> and work
>
> Like the company web site does?

See above.

>
>> or play or perhaps unsavoury activity and
>> that may be stuff you prefer to keep secret or at least obscure.
>
> Suggestion: avoid tawdry activities. Avoid web sites like "Ashley
> Madison."

There are legitimate activities online that one may want to keep obscure
and private for all sorts of reasons from personal embarrassment to
professional secrecy.

Perhaps one lives in Russia and posts dissident photos on sites that the
government is not fond of.

etc.

>> An example is an experimental farm project a friend of my SO's has. He
>> doesn't want it publicly known where it is. I took pictures there and I
>> had my GPS recording. He asked what was what. I told him. He asked me
>> not to tag those phots with L/L. No problem.
>
> The means of detecting the signature of opium poppies in overhead
> photography was perfected long ago.

I wondered if someone would allude to something like that (here the
likely crop would be marijuana, however). The fellow in question is
about a straightshooter as one could imagine. His reasons for wanting
his little paradise to remain un petit coin perdu are not what most
would imagine.

[Alan Browne]

On 2015-08-29 10:46, Warren Oates wrote:
> In article <Z62dnbxl4eHDWXzI...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> An example is an experimental farm project a friend of my SO's has.
>
> Dirty wog hemp?

Nothing illegal. He just prefers privacy and obscurity. I understand
the why for it and certainly respect his wishes.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-08-29, Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <d4d2t9...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger

><jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>There is absolutely nothing wrong with American citizens
>>removing their own private information from EXIF
>>entries in images.
>

> Is this right limited to American citizens?

Not to my knowledge; but then I didn't say it was.

>>You are a shining example of what is wrong with the
>>mindset of American police forces.
>

> That mindset, to the extent that it exists, is made a damn sight worse
> by the fragmented way law enforcement is set up, presumably for
> historical reasons.

Agreed.

[Jolly Roger]

Hardly. Police forces across the country killing innocent American
citizens in record numbers due to the very same mind set and associated
knee jerk reactions is harsh.

[Savageduck]

Damn! Twenty five years and I never managed to kill any American
citizens, not even guilty ones.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Jolly Roger]

While I can appreciate that, I'm not praising you for it. And the phrase
I should have used it "abused" rather than "killed" since that's more
accurate and covers abuses that don't end in death. There are *plenty*
of other ways to step on the rights of citizens that don't necessarily
end up in death of a citizen.

[JF Mezei]

On 15-08-29 14:43, Lewis wrote:

> The police (everywhere, I suspect, but certainly in the US) presume
> everyone is guilty,

It should be "to serve and to protect". However, a number of police
forces tend to tell their cops that they have authority and should exert
it t maintain peace, so the minute they suspect something, they want to
assert their authority and if you don't immediatly comply, you are
guilty of something because you resist their authority.

Many years ago, Montréal had problems with riots on the main street
after hockey games. (celebrations that turned sour)

Police totally mishandled this and there was an inquiry. One of the
findings was that police had the wrong attitude towards their job and
that their behaviour made things worse by making the whole crowd mad
instead of limiting mischief to the couple o trouble makers.


This isn't just police. This summer, coming backl from USA with my bike,
after assessing the damage done by TSA to box and bike, I rode the long
hallway to the customs cehckpoint (at walking speed safely behind the
people ahead of me.

As I get to the young guy, he immediatly tells me to dismount the bike
and I comply. But while getting off the bike (and risk sliding because
of slippery bike shoes) I tell him that I had asked airport police
before and they told me it was acceptable as long as I wasn't riding
fast. I didn't have a chance to finish my sentence. The young guty
barely out of puberty stopped me and told me that if I challenged him, I
would be sent for a full search (pointing to the door behind which those
are done).

I shut up. He didn't even ask me about trip or where bike came from.

Complaining to CBSA about that attitude would simply ensure next time
around, I would be sent over to that room. The young punk thought I was
not respecting his authority and wanted to abuse his power. (even though
I immediatly started to get off the bike when he asked, but it takes
time when on a slippery floor with bike shoes).

[Jim Gibson]

In article <slrnmu3vdu....@amelia.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> The police (everywhere, I suspect, but certainly in the US) presume

> everyone is guilty, that everyone has an obligation to do, say, and
> behave exactly like the police want, and that privacy is a ploy only
> used by criminals.

It seems to depend upon the race of the person, at least in the USA,
anyway.

<https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/13/1411668/-White-man-threatens-
to-kill-police-knocks-one-out-sends-two-to-the-hospital-injures-7-office
rs>

<https://tinyurl.com/o3gukd7>

--
Jim Gibson

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-08-29, Jim Gibson <JimSG...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnmu3vdu....@amelia.local>, Lewis
><g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> The police (everywhere, I suspect, but certainly in the US) presume
>> everyone is guilty, that everyone has an obligation to do, say, and
>> behave exactly like the police want, and that privacy is a ploy only
>> used by criminals.
>
> It seems to depend upon the race of the person, at least in the USA,
> anyway.

No, it's happening across the board. Racial inequality is a separate
issue.

[Warren Oates]

In article <201508291035417987-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

My two favourite words in the English language: Officer Down.

officer down
officer down
lookit its guts spilt out on the ground
lookit its brain matter spattert around
rejoice
rejoice
there's an officer down


and fuck you.

[Don Bruder]

In article <55e246af$0$46880$c3e8da3$aae7...@news.astraweb.com>,

Interesting how such a comparatively small sample of the general
population - A sample I assume (without any way to verify) assembled
from all across the nation, not to mention possibly the world, and
presumably of decent education - has such similar (and strong! - Good
grief, Warren, that's a nasty hate you've got on for 'em - not that I
can blame you much, but... WOW!) views of the cops.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

I've been using my real name and email address online for a little over
a decade and a half (it took me a few years to get over initial privacy
concerns), and have often mentioned the country and city I live in, as
well as a few other details that can further narrow it down. Anyone able
to perform a decent internet search could locate enough info to easily
track me down in real life.

I have yet to be or feel threatened by this. Mind you, I lead an
extremely uninteresting life. I expect if I ever became rich or -
despite my best efforts - famous (urgh) I might attempt a little more
anonymity in a new location. But otherwise I have no such concerns. I am
only private and security conscious about data that could be used to
defame and defraud me. The rest - well I could give a shit who knows
where I travelled, or what I bought while I was there.

I respect the desire of others to keep the detail of their lives a
little closer to their chest, but it simply hasn't troubled me.

If I do indulge in an activity I'd prefer remain private, I'll use the
Tor Browser, VISA gift cards, and the like. Oh and GraphicConverter's
'Save for Web' to strip photo's EXIF data :-)

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:

> Suggestion: avoid tawdry activities. Avoid web sites like "Ashley
> Madison."

I feel little sympathy for the cheaters exposed by the Ashley Madison
hack, as they entrusted personal details of their dodgy behaviour to a
third party, when they could so easily have used the Tor browser, a gift
credit card, a fake name, an anonymous free email account for that
single purpose, etc.

If people want to do stuff like cheat they should start thinking again
with their brains - at least long enough to hide their true identity ;-)

[dorayme]

In article <55e246af$0$46880$c3e8da3$aae7...@news.astraweb.com>,
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My two favourite words in the English language: Officer Down.

So, you would have watched the cop being lured into a house and beaten
and killed by a group of fine upstanding citizens in "Good Cop"... in
glee?

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00szy7c>

Most other earthlings would have their sympathies with his partner who
went about systematically killing these 'heroes'.

Strange beings you earthlings!

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article <mrtil3$pfd$1...@dont-email.me>,

Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:

> Good
> grief, Warren, that's a nasty hate you've got on for 'em - not that I
> can blame you much, but... WOW!) views of the cops.

"not that I can blame you much"! Any other weasel words, Don?

--
dorayme

[Jolly Roger]

If it happens to just one of us, it happens to *all* of us. If citizens
sit idly by allowing this to happen, they don't deserve the freedom they
have. Those who would subvert and destroy the freedoms of American
citizens MUST be squelched, or this great experiment is a failure. And
rest assured, it *will* be squelched before it's over.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-08-30, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> In article <55e246af$0$46880$c3e8da3$aae7...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My two favourite words in the English language: Officer Down.
>

> So, you would have... blah blah blah

Spare us the pathetic and lousy thinly-veiled anti-patriotic sentiment,
DOYYY. All too often today, when bad officers wrongly kill innocent
American citizens, not only do police unions, police departments, and
even prosecutors stand fully behind them, they do everything they can to
influence grand juries to avoid trial, even when the officer is guilty.
It's blatantly obvious, and everyone who supports it deserves the same
scrutiny from the American public, whom they are sworn to serve and
protect.

> Strange beings you earthlings!

Go back to your own stupid planet, fucktard alien. These are Earth
matters.

[Your Name]

In article <55e09810$0$44133$c3e8da3$3a1a...@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 15-08-28 13:02, Ant wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in
> > batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows?
>

> exiftool you can download from queens university (Kingston Ontario
> Canada). It is a command line tool so it is easy to automate.
>
> For one-off, I use Photoshop "Export to Web" which has option to strip
> the exif information.

GraphicConverter has a similar "web ready" option When saving to JPEG
(and possibly other formats, but I haven't checked), as well as an
individual "embed EXIF" option you can turn off.

Strictly speaking it's not free, but last version I downloaded could be
used indefinitely without paying (it slowly increases the application's
opening time if you don't). Paying to register it will also enable the
batch processing option so you can run the save / EXIF removal process
on a folder full of images in one go.

[Don Bruder]

In article <do_ray_me-3FC49...@aioe.org>,

Whines a disarmed, dependent subject of a police state...

Get over it, Do - I don't blame him because for the most part, I agree
with his sentiments, just not *QUITE* as vehemently. While it's unlikely
that I'm gonna go out and throw a party upon hearing of a cop's death,
it's even less likely that I'm going to bother shedding any tears.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-08-30, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <55e202d1$0$22461$c3e8da3$a909...@news.astraweb.com>

> TSA and similar "security" forces represent the worst people in
> existence. I place them just above pedophiles and serial killers and
> well below drug dealers and republicans.

Power-hungry people are naturally drawn like flies to powerful positions
of authority. That's why it is absolutely crucial that checks and
balances be in place at every single step of the way. Otherwise shit
like this happens. That's something this American generation's parents
and grandparents have seemingly long forgotten. The current American
generation finds themselves in a fucked up scenario much created by the
previous fucked-up baby boomer+ generation. The important thing is to
move forward from this point. And so it goes.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-08-30, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:

> In article <do_ray_me-3FC49...@aioe.org>,
> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <mrtil3$pfd$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Good
>> > grief, Warren, that's a nasty hate you've got on for 'em - not that I
>> > can blame you much, but... WOW!) views of the cops.
>>
>> "not that I can blame you much"! Any other weasel words, Don?
>
> Whines a disarmed, dependent subject of a police state...
>
> Get over it, Do - I don't blame him because for the most part, I agree
> with his sentiments, just not *QUITE* as vehemently. While it's unlikely
> that I'm gonna go out and throw a party upon hearing of a cop's death,
> it's even less likely that I'm going to bother shedding any tears.

+1

Rest assured, as long as cops are abusing innocent citizens this will be
the case. This is human fucking nature.

[Don Bruder]

In article <d4f557...@mid.individual.net>,

Easy, JR... I'm basically on your side of this argument. I'm just
surprised that the sentiment is so strong amongst this particular
segment of the population. Most "computer/electronics geeks" I've known
over the years have shown (at least to me) about as much interest in
politics as I have interest in how deep the dust in the center of Mare
Imbrium is.

Maybe there's hope after all...

[Savageduck]

...and that is a strong indication of your character.
Just this week two officers died because of your mindset. One was shot
when responding to a call of a DUI driver run off the road. The second
was gunned down in an ambush as he was filling his patrol vehicle with
gas.

<http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/The-Latest-Louisiana-trooper-dies-after-weekend-6461833.php>
<http://www.sfgate.com/news/texas/article/Deputy-shot-at-Houston-area-gas-station-6472537.php>

Those

officers had every right to go home to their families when they
completed their watch. They had every right to protect themselves from
potentially dangerous individuals. Unfortunately they were never given
that opportunity.

You might note that in both cases their killers managed to survive the
encounters.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Don Bruder]

In article <d4f8i9...@mid.individual.net>,

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-08-30, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > In article <do_ray_me-3FC49...@aioe.org>,
> > dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <mrtil3$pfd$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >> Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Good
> >> > grief, Warren, that's a nasty hate you've got on for 'em - not that I
> >> > can blame you much, but... WOW!) views of the cops.
> >>
> >> "not that I can blame you much"! Any other weasel words, Don?
> >
> > Whines a disarmed, dependent subject of a police state...
> >
> > Get over it, Do - I don't blame him because for the most part, I agree
> > with his sentiments, just not *QUITE* as vehemently. While it's unlikely
> > that I'm gonna go out and throw a party upon hearing of a cop's death,
> > it's even less likely that I'm going to bother shedding any tears.
>
> +1
>
> Rest assured, as long as cops are abusing innocent citizens this will be
> the case. This is human fucking nature.

True enough. Some of us, however, won't be abused without taking an
escort to hell with us. Remember the three boxes that keep government at
least somewhat under control: Soap, ballot, and bullet. I'm not much for
the first, but I'm a firm believer in the other two. (Although I have to
admit that the middle box doesn't have much of a chance to do a whole
lot of good when we've got dogshit like Trump pandering to the crowd
that makes "Real Housewives of..." and "Big Brother" top-rated TV shows
- And if that offends you, dear reader, whoever you might be, feel free
to be as offended as you like. Then eat shit and die like the worthless
pile of maggot puke you are)

I predict that it won't be long before there's no option left but to
bring #3 into play. I won't much like it, but... <shrug> I'm equipped
and capable if/when it comes to pass.

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-08-30, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > In article <do_ray_me-3FC49...@aioe.org>,
> > dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <mrtil3$pfd$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >> Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Good
> >> > grief, Warren, that's a nasty hate you've got on for 'em - not that I
> >> > can blame you much, but... WOW!) views of the cops.
> >>
> >> "not that I can blame you much"! Any other weasel words, Don?
> >
> > Whines a disarmed, dependent subject of a police state...
> >
> > Get over it, Do - I don't blame him because for the most part, I agree
> > with his sentiments, just not *QUITE* as vehemently. While it's unlikely
> > that I'm gonna go out and throw a party upon hearing of a cop's death,
> > it's even less likely that I'm going to bother shedding any tears.
>
> +1
>
> Rest assured, as long as cops are abusing innocent citizens this will be
> the case. This is human fucking nature.

I have as much empathy for a cop dying as I do for anyone else, though
less surprise given the occupation. But I do gain considerable pleasure
in recent years when I see a bad cop getting his legal and social just
deserts.

Not only because I see abuses elsewhere, but I once had a police officer
try to persuade me - amongst other similar patently untrue crap - that I
had "nothing to fear if I'd done nothing wrong" if I allowed myself to
be photographed and viewed by a witness to a crime who had wrongly
thought I looked like the criminal (that they clearly HADN'T got a good
look at!) and called the police on me, after I walked past them on the
way home (I later found out had happened).

I didn't mind being a suspect, as such (though that was scary enough). I
minded the bullshit that officer spouted to try to get me to agree to a
photo taken of me and put in front of someone who may very well have
confirmed their original incorrect identification of me as the criminal
(who, so I gathered, apparently was also wearing a hoodie and had a
beard - as I used to). I mean they'd already done so once! What was to
stop them from doing so again?

That incident taught me a very important lesson in my life - one cannot
trust the police to always have your best interests at heart. It was
sobering and my time in that police station being questioned (which I
now realise I should never have voluntarily agreed to - it had clearly
made me look guilty) has stuck with me. Now I think twice about any
interaction with the police, least I find myself on the wrong side of
some unethical jerk's quest for a result, as opposed to justice.

[Savageduck]

On 2015-08-30 02:34:19 +0000, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> said:

> In article <do_ray_me-3FC49...@aioe.org>,
> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <mrtil3$pfd$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Good
>>> grief, Warren, that's a nasty hate you've got on for 'em - not that I
>>> can blame you much, but... WOW!) views of the cops.
>>
>> "not that I can blame you much"! Any other weasel words, Don?
>
> Whines a disarmed, dependent subject of a police state...
>
> Get over it, Do - I don't blame him because for the most part, I agree
> with his sentiments, just not *QUITE* as vehemently. While it's unlikely
> that I'm gonna go out and throw a party upon hearing of a cop's death,
> it's even less likely that I'm going to bother shedding any tears.

...and folks like you would deny cops any hope they can get through a
watch to go home to family like any other worker.

I ask you what personal encounters with law enforcement led you to
develop your particular attitude.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On 2015-08-30 03:05:08 +0000, jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn

Genet) said:

> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-08-30, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> In article <do_ray_me-3FC49...@aioe.org>,
>>> dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <mrtil3$pfd$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Good
>>>>> grief, Warren, that's a nasty hate you've got on for 'em - not that I
>>>>> can blame you much, but... WOW!) views of the cops.
>>>>
>>>> "not that I can blame you much"! Any other weasel words, Don?
>>>
>>> Whines a disarmed, dependent subject of a police state...
>>>
>>> Get over it, Do - I don't blame him because for the most part, I agree
>>> with his sentiments, just not *QUITE* as vehemently. While it's unlikely
>>> that I'm gonna go out and throw a party upon hearing of a cop's death,
>>> it's even less likely that I'm going to bother shedding any tears.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Rest assured, as long as cops are abusing innocent citizens this will be
>> the case. This is human fucking nature.
>
> I have as much empathy for a cop dying as I do for anyone else, though
> less surprise given the occupation. But I do gain considerable pleasure
> in recent years when I see a bad cop getting his legal and social just
> deserts.

Agreed.

I spent a large part (major periods in the 10 years before my
retirement) of my career weeding out bad cops. The usual refrain ws
"Why are you going after me? I was just doing my job." Some of those
ex-cops are selling cars, and hardware, and some of them are doing
time. Some got the proverbial slap on the wrist.
It is just not news to report that sort of thing.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[dorayme]

In article <mrtrgd$7cv$3...@dont-email.me>,

Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:

> In article <d4f8i9...@mid.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2015-08-30, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > > In article <do_ray_me-3FC49...@aioe.org>,
> > > dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <mrtil3$pfd$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > >> Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Good
> > >> > grief, Warren, that's a nasty hate you've got on for 'em - not that I
> > >> > can blame you much, but... WOW!) views of the cops.
> > >>
> > >> "not that I can blame you much"! Any other weasel words, Don?
> > >
> > > Whines a disarmed, dependent subject of a police state...
> > >
> > > Get over it, Do - I don't blame him because for the most part, I agree
> > > with his sentiments,

What is there exactly to get over? You agree with his *sentiments*?
What are these sentiments exactly, Don? Are they somehow "not quite"
well expressed by gloating over any and every policeman's death?

> just not *QUITE* as vehemently.

So how close to being gleeful over police deaths are your feelings,
not quite as strong as Oates but sort of not too far away? In your
case, is it less an *open glee* but more of a quiet sniggering?

> > > While it's unlikely
> > > that I'm gonna go out and throw a party upon hearing of a cop's death,
> > > it's even less likely that I'm going to bother shedding any tears.
> >

As if the gap between throwing a party and shedding tears does not
allow for just about every fair minded political and social philosophy
on earth!

> I predict that it won't be long before there's no option left but to

> bring [bullet] into play. I won't much like it, but... <shrug> I'm equipped

> and capable if/when it comes to pass.

Intellectual and deep thinker that you are!

--
dorayme

[Jamie Kahn Genet]

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

Kudos to you, mate.

You were in IA or a similar unit? How did other officers treat you in
general, if I may ask?

[Savageduck]

On 2015-08-30 04:32:46 +0000, jam...@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn

I worked for the State of California, and as a senior supervisor I was
occassionally tasked with supervising internal investigations,
including shooting boards.
I would conduct interviews with the subject of the invesigation and
other witnesses. It was not my job to judge these individuals, but to
compile the evididence, and to conclude that the charges were
substantiated, unsubstantiated, or inconclusive, and to give my reasons
for these conclusions. These results were then handed over to the
California Bureau of Investigative Review for a decision on personnel
action.

I supervised a team of Officers and Sergeants dealing primarily with
California street and prison gang crime. Those I worked with had no
sympathy for bad and corrupt cops.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On 2015-08-30 04:52:10 +0000, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

> In message <2015082919531724115-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2015-08-29 23:56:30 +0000, Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>> In article <201508291035417987-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Damn! Twenty five years and I never managed to kill any American
>>>> citizens, not even guilty ones.
>>>
>>> My two favourite words in the English language: Officer Down.
>>>
>>> officer down
>>> officer down lookit its guts spilt out on the ground
>>> lookit its brain matter spattert around
>>> rejoice
>>> rejoice
>>> there's an officer down
>>>
>>>
>>> and fuck you.
>
>> ...and that is a strong indication of your character.
>

> No, it is a strong indication of the lack of character (and ethics, and
> morals, and ability to abide the law) of the police.

>
>> Just this week two officers died because of your mindset. One was shot
>> when responding to a call of a DUI driver run off the road. The second
>> was gunned down in an ambush as he was filling his patrol vehicle with
>> gas.
>

> People despise and fear the police, they have good reason for that.
> Those police died because of the decades of actions by their colleagues.

>
>> Those officers had every right to go home to their families when they
>> completed their watch.
>

> Sure. But they did chose a profession that involves abusing every-day
> people. If you dress up in Klan Robes, you're going to be assumed to be
> a racist shithead. If you put on a police uniform, you are going to be
> assumed to be a repressive thug working against the citizens of this
> country and the Constitution.

>
>> They had every right to protect themselves from potentially dangerous
>> individuals. Unfortunately they were never given that opportunity.
>

> Their usual method of protection is shooting unarmed people in the back
> and tackling teenaged girls in bikinis.
>
> FUCK THE POLICE, they are the enemies of freedom and democracy and they
> get away with murder every single day.

>
>> You might note that in both cases their killers managed to survive the
>> encounters.
>

> So that's dead citizens 800, dead cops 2 for 2015?
>
> I also love how cops try to spread the lie that being a police officer
> is the most dangerous job when it doesn't even make the top ten.

No. It is not the most dangerous job. However, when you are dealing
with armed and sociopathic criminals, and individuals with mental
health issues, the danger level can climb rapidly. Sometimes too
rapidly for all concerned.

It is all well and good to second guess the actions of police officer
from the comfort of home.

> In the UK there have been about 50 lethal shootings by police in the last
> quarter century. It takes police in the US less than a month to exceed
> that.

Where did you dig up that factoid?

> In March 2015 US Police killed more people that all the UK police in the
> previous 115 years.

So?

> THOUSANDS of people are killed by US police. It's institutionalized
> murder and the police are untouchable for their crimes.

Your ignorance regarding these things, prejudice and attitude are quite
revealing. Your lack of sympathy is noted.

Regarding your allegation of "THOUSANDS of people killed by US police",
check your facts. In 2014 there were a total of 623 Law Enforcement
related killings. In 2013 - 337, 2012 - 602, 2011 - 166. Admittdly
higher than you experience in the UK, but we are not dealing with the
UK here.

We have violent and armed criminals to deal with.
In 2014 133 officers were killed in the line of duty. 47 of them by
gunfire and 10 by vehicular assault.

In 2015 we have had 81 deaths on duty, some have been vehicle
accidents, some have been killed by vehicular assault, and 23 were
victims of gunfire.

Others died as a result of injuries from physical assault.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On 2015-08-30 05:03:01 +0000, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

> In message <2015082920054619358-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Sounds a lot like a bible-thumper asking what god ever did to make you
> hate him. The difference is that while god is imaginary the bloodbath of
> the police is well-documented (though not nearly well-documented enough
> since most crimes committed by police are covered up or never
> investigated).
>
> 800 dead bodies THIS YEAR. Thousands dead ever couple of years. A
> pattern of corruption and murder that is systemic. A long history of
> police murdering unarmed people without consequence.

Where the fuck do you get these numbers?

> Police riding tanks through people's front door. Getting no-knock
> warrants and murdering people in their beds who have done nothing wrong.
> Police throwing grenades into cribs when they are at the wrong address
> and literally blowing holes in infants.

What are you reading, or what TV shows are you watching?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-08-30, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2015-08-30 05:03:01 +0000, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:
>
>> In message <2015082920054619358-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> On 2015-08-30 02:34:19 +0000, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> said:
>>
>>> I ask you what personal encounters with law enforcement led you to
>>> develop your particular attitude.
>>
>> Sounds a lot like a bible-thumper asking what god ever did to make you
>> hate him. The difference is that while god is imaginary the bloodbath of
>> the police is well-documented (though not nearly well-documented enough
>> since most crimes committed by police are covered up or never
>> investigated).
>>
>> 800 dead bodies THIS YEAR. Thousands dead ever couple of years. A
>> pattern of corruption and murder that is systemic. A long history of
>> police murdering unarmed people without consequence.
>
> Where the fuck do you get these numbers?

It ain't just murder - plenty of innocent civilians are abused by
American police every single day. A section of those are murdered, but a
larger section are deprived of their rights and dignity, enduring false
arrests and horrible mistreatment by those in authority. All one has to
do is open a paper to see it. It's anything but hidden. How many doesn't
matter - if it happens to just one of us, it happens to *all* of us.
Even one wrongful death is too many.

>> Police riding tanks through people's front door. Getting no-knock
>> warrants and murdering people in their beds who have done nothing wrong.
>> Police throwing grenades into cribs when they are at the wrong address
>> and literally blowing holes in infants.
>
> What are you reading, or what TV shows are you watching?

Open your eyes.

<http://heavy.com/news/2014/05/bounkham-bou-bou-phonesavanh-baby-hit-by-police-grenade-raid/>

<http://justiceforbabyboubou.com>

[Larry Gusaas]

On 2015-08-30, 12:54 AM super70s wrote:
> In article <mrtil3$pfd$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
> wrote:

> Not a very thoughtful thing to post considering the event that just
> happened in Texas. I guess some people are so wrapped up in Apple
> geekdom they don't read the national headlines, or maybe at least catch
> them on TV.

Not as thoughtless as the huge number of unarmed people the police have killed.

--
_________________________________

Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese

[dorayme]

In article <mrue2v$vgm$1...@dont-email.me>,

Larry Gusaas <larry....@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Not a very thoughtful thing to post considering the event that just
> > happened in Texas. I guess some people are so wrapped up in Apple
> > geekdom they don't read the national headlines, or maybe at least catch
> > them on TV.
>
> Not as thoughtless as the huge number of unarmed people the police have
> killed.

Fancy thinking that all the people killed by police were thoughtless?
What an insult to some of them.

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article <300820150926596156%timst...@greenbee.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <mrtq00$7cv$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>

> wrote:
>
> >In article <do_ray_me-3FC49...@aioe.org>,
> > dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <mrtil3$pfd$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >> Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Good
> >> > grief, Warren, that's a nasty hate you've got on for 'em - not that I
> >> > can blame you much, but... WOW!) views of the cops.
> >>
> >> "not that I can blame you much"! Any other weasel words, Don?
> >
> >Whines a disarmed, dependent subject of a police state...
>

> It's actually the USA that's more like a police state, as any foreigner
> will tell you. And here, where generally neither the cops nor the
> citizenry are armed, the chance of dying in a shooting incident is nice
> and low.
>

Well, I was a foreigner in the USA recently and many of the things
that I had heard outside the USA were untrue. One thing I did not feel
was that it was anywhere near a police state. In fact, just looking at
how the roads are policed, Australia is much more so. And if there is
any connection between police state and nanny state, the USA is way
not so. Australia is way so.

And besides, my experience with American police was very positive. I
asked a San Fran cop where the start of the cable car was in town, he
made two things very clear and I completely found both to be
reasonable. One was that it was near a yellow awning which he pointed
out with his finger. The other was unspoken but just as clear, I
deduced if I asked any more damn fool questions he would shoot me, I
saw the size of his gun.

I think everyone here should take a few deep breaths and look at real
police states both contemporaneous and historical before jumping o
conclusions.







> I'm not going to look up the figures but it goes roughly like this:
>
> Number of shooting deaths per annum:
>
> UK - about 50
> US - at least 10,000

--
dorayme

[Warren Oates]

In article <do_ray_me-2AF03...@aioe.org>,

dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:

> So how close to being gleeful over police deaths are your feelings,
> not quite as strong as Oates but sort of not too far away? In your
> case, is it less an *open glee* but more of a quiet sniggering?

Heh. There's also a sense of poetic justice. Mr. Betjeman (as 'e woz
then) didn't really want Slough to be permanently destroyed, he just
wanted his feelings made public.

(It's worth quoting the whole thing; it was written in 1936):

Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!

Come, bombs and blow to smithereens
Those air -conditioned, bright canteens,
Tinned fruit, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned beans,
Tinned minds, tinned breath.

Mess up the mess they call a town-
A house for ninety-seven down
And once a week a half a crown
For twenty years.

And get that man with double chin
Who'll always cheat and always win,
Who washes his repulsive skin
In women's tears:

And smash his desk of polished oak
And smash his hands so used to stroke
And stop his boring dirty joke
And make him yell.

But spare the bald young clerks who add
The profits of the stinking cad;
It's not their fault that they are mad,
They've tasted Hell.

It's not their fault they do not know
The birdsong from the radio,
It's not their fault they often go
To Maidenhead

And talk of sport and makes of cars
In various bogus-Tudor bars
And daren't look up and see the stars
But belch instead.

In labour-saving homes, with care
Their wives frizz out peroxide hair
And dry it in synthetic air
And paint their nails.

Come, friendly bombs and fall on Slough
To get it ready for the plough.
The cabbages are coming now;
The earth exhales.
--
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene.
-- notes for Blade Runner

[Warren Oates]

In article <2015082920165424712-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Some of those
> ex-cops are selling cars, and hardware, and some of them are doing
> time. Some got the proverbial slap on the wrist.

And some are carpenter's wives?

[Alan Browne]

On 2015-08-29 21:25, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>

>> On 2015-08-28 13:11, John McWilliams wrote:

>>> On 8/28/15 PDT 10:02 AM, Ant wrote:
>>>> Hello.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know of a good free Exif removal software that can do in

>>>> batch, not lower quality, etc. like IfranView in Windows? This is in an
>>>> updated Mac OS Xes (v10.5 and up). I am not finding any free ones from
>>>> Apple's App Store and Google searches don't seem to be showing any good
>>>> ones.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance. :)
>>>
>>> I thought Preview or Photos could do that, but I am not checking as I
>>> don't remove EXIF info, unless posting to the web, and even then,
>>> seldom. LR and PS certainly can do it but are hardly free.
>>>
>>> Why would you want to remove masses of EXIF info??
>>
>> Data miners.
>>
>> With the use of GPS aided cameras or tagged images, not to mention
>> smartphone cameras, each image creates a pebble path of where and when
>> you were (to coin a phrase).
>>
>> 99.99% of the time that probably doesn't matter. But, it could easily
>> reveal where you live and work or play or perhaps unsavoury activity and
>> that may be stuff you prefer to keep secret or at least obscure.
>>
>> An example is an experimental farm project a friend of my SO's has. He
>> doesn't want it publicly known where it is. I took pictures there and I
>> had my GPS recording. He asked what was what. I told him. He asked me
>> not to tag those phots with L/L. No problem.
>
> I've been using my real name and email address online for a little over
> a decade and a half (it took me a few years to get over initial privacy
> concerns), and have often mentioned the country and city I live in, as
> well as a few other details that can further narrow it down. Anyone able
> to perform a decent internet search could locate enough info to easily
> track me down in real life.

You're a statistical sample of one.


>
> I have yet to be or feel threatened by this. Mind you, I lead an
> extremely uninteresting life. I expect if I ever became rich or -
> despite my best efforts - famous (urgh) I might attempt a little more
> anonymity in a new location. But otherwise I have no such concerns. I am
> only private and security conscious about data that could be used to
> defame and defraud me. The rest - well I could give a shit who knows
> where I travelled, or what I bought while I was there.

Again, you're you. What others may feel about their privacy belongs to
them.


>
> I respect the desire of others to keep the detail of their lives a
> little closer to their chest, but it simply hasn't troubled me.
>
> If I do indulge in an activity I'd prefer remain private, I'll use the
> Tor Browser, VISA gift cards, and the like. Oh and GraphicConverter's
> 'Save for Web' to strip photo's EXIF data :-)

Sure.

[Alan Browne]

On 2015-08-29 21:25, Jamie Kahn Genet wrote:

> Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:
>
>> Suggestion: avoid tawdry activities. Avoid web sites like "Ashley
>> Madison."
>
> I feel little sympathy for the cheaters exposed by the Ashley Madison
> hack, as they entrusted personal details of their dodgy behaviour to a
> third party, when they could so easily have used the Tor browser, a gift
> credit card, a fake name, an anonymous free email account for that
> single purpose, etc.
>
> If people want to do stuff like cheat they should start thinking again
> with their brains - at least long enough to hide their true identity ;-)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/opinion/the-ashley-madison-hack-shows-were-too-dumb-to-cheat.html

[Alan Browne]

On 2015-08-29 19:56, Warren Oates wrote:

> My two favourite words in the English language: Officer Down.

Despicable.

[M. John Matlaw]

On 8/29/15 9:47 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
> On 2015-08-30, dorayme <do_r...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> In article <55e246af$0$46880$c3e8da3$aae7...@news.astraweb.com>,
>> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My two favourite words in the English language: Officer Down.
>>
>> So, you would have... blah blah blah
>
> Spare us the pathetic and lousy thinly-veiled anti-patriotic sentiment,
> DOYYY. All too often today, when bad officers wrongly kill innocent
> American citizens, not only do police unions, police departments, and
> even prosecutors stand fully behind them, they do everything they can to
> influence grand juries to avoid trial, even when the officer is guilty.
> It's blatantly obvious, and everyone who supports it deserves the same
> scrutiny from the American public, whom they are sworn to serve and
> protect.
>
>> Strange beings you earthlings!
>
> Go back to your own stupid planet, fucktard alien. These are Earth
> matters.
>

The prosecutors too seem to get away with malfeasance. Take a look at
California's Orange County DA's office mess.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/office-658161-judge-attorney.html

California AG (and leading Democratic contender for the seat of retiring
US Senator Dianne Feinstein) Kamala Harris isn't looking too good in
regards to that situation either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/scott-dekraai-case_n_6911258.html

The Staten Island DA who managed to get the cop whose choke hold
resulted in the death of Eric Garner off the hook was recently elected
to Congress.

One of the systemic problems with policing brought about by the
investigation of the Ferguson incident is the use of law enforcement as
a source of revenue. And it's not just Ferguson. Despite repeated
denials, tapes made by an officer in New York City show that a quota
system was in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Schoolcraft

"After voicing his concerns, Schoolcraft was reportedly harassed and
reassigned to a desk job. After he left work early one day, an ESU unit
illegally entered his apartment, physically abducted him and forcibly
admitted him to a psychiatric facility, where he was held against his
will for six days."

If you want to keep track of the sorry state of the criminal justice
system in the US, The Marshall Project, https://www.themarshallproject.org
is a good place to start.

The stories of third party bail debt resulting in, essentially, debtor's
prison is pretty much proof positive of the old adage that it is better
to be guilty and wealthy than innocent and poor.


I drove a cab for a few years and, as Lewis mentioned, police work is
not the most dangerous job around. Cab driving is frequently at the top
of the list. But, while being robbed was a not infrequent occurrence
for me I don't think bad folks were as out to cause me physical harm as
they are for cops. Driving a cab in NYC was an extremely stressful job
but I'm not sure I could handle the stress of being a PO.

[Warren Oates]

In article <RuCdnY6hyphWm37I...@giganews.com>,

That's my third favourite.

[Savageduck]

On 2015-08-30 14:59:19 +0000, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> said:

> In message <2015082922341823720-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>

> Please, the way police deal with mentally ill people is nothing short of
> despicable.

..and how is that?

>> It is all well and good to second guess the actions of police officer
>> from the comfort of home.
>
>>> In the UK there have been about 50 lethal shootings by police in the last
>>> quarter century. It takes police in the US less than a month to exceed
>>> that.
>
>> Where did you dig up that factoid?
>

> There's this thing called the Internet.

All rightee then.

>>> In March 2015 US Police killed more people that all the UK police in the
>>> previous 115 years.
>
>> So?
>

> Right. Why am I not surprised? Your callous indifference to the bloodbath
> inflicted by LEOs is disgusting, but not surprising.

Once again you are entitled to your opinion.

>> Regarding your allegation of "THOUSANDS of people killed by US police",
>> check your facts. In 2014 there were a total of 623 Law Enforcement
>> related killings. In 2013 - 337, 2012 - 602, 2011 - 166. Admittdly
>> higher than you experience in the UK, but we are not dealing with the
>> UK here.
>

> 800 this year. Start adding up the numbers and you get to thousands very
> quickly.

So you are rounding up?

If you actually check the circumstances behind the majority of LEO
shootings, you will find that not all those killed were sweet innocent
bystanders. Even from an activist site doing its best to paint Law
Enforcement in a bad light.
<http://killedbypolice.net>

>
>> We have violent and armed criminals to deal with.
>

> Yes, sadly a large number of them have badges.

On your next visit to our violent shores, perhaps I can arrange a
ride-along for you, so you can see for yourself what many Police
Departments have to deal with. I can think of three locations which
might prove to be enlightening for you, East Salinas, Santa Maria, or
Oakland, any of those on a Friday or Saturday night should work.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <2015083010151883320-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> We have violent and armed criminals to deal with.
> >
> > Yes, sadly a large number of them have badges.
>
> On your next visit to our violent shores, perhaps I can arrange a
> ride-along for you, so you can see for yourself what many Police
> Departments have to deal with. I can think of three locations which
> might prove to be enlightening for you, East Salinas, Santa Maria, or
> Oakland, any of those on a Friday or Saturday night should work.

I stopped reading this thread a while back because I have no interest
in removing EXIF data from my photos, but I happened to click on it
today.

I've known more than a few LEOs over the past few decades, and I have
to say that there are good cops and bad cops. The good cops far
outnumber the bad cops, but the fact that they are good cops means that
they don't do much of anything that is newsworthy, so almost all we
read about are the bad cops. This gives the public a very distorted
view of the police.

That's all I have to say about that.

[Jolly Roger]

The good cops aren't the ones citizens are complaining about. A "good
cop" that sits idly by while his fellow boys in blue step on the rights
of citizens is actually a useless bad cop. And the systems, unions, and
organizations that support those bad cops are responsible as well.

[Savageduck]

Thank you for that. There seem to be some here who don't understand that.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[John Varela]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 05:34:18 UTC, Savageduck

FWIW I'm 100% on your side in these exchanges. I am thoroughly
disgusted with JR, Lewis, Oates, and that ignoramus Streater.

I hope others will come forward in support of you.

--
John Varela

[Jolly Roger]

I understand that perfectly well. That doesn't make the problem
magically go away. Next?

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-08-30, John Varela <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> FWIW I'm 100% on your side in these exchanges.

Yeah? So you think he was right to accuse the OP of theft simply because
the OP wants to remove personal information from image files? What a
laugh.

> I am thoroughly disgusted with JR, Lewis, Oates, and that ignoramus
> Streater.

You should be disgusted with the cops who abuse innocent civilians
across the nation.

[John Varela]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:15:18 UTC, Savageduck

105 homicides in the District of Columbia alone so far this year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/gunfire-erupts-all-over-di
strict-friday-night-as-police-step-up-patrols/2015/08/29/8a623eb8-4e
05-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html

Most by gunfire. Makes that 800 number (Sourced where? The Internet?
We can rely on the accuracy of that, can't we?) look kind of lame.

--
John Varela

[Savageduck]

Thank you for your understanding of this sensitive issue.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Michelle Steiner]

In article <d4gtup...@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger

<jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2015-08-30, Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> > In article <2015083010151883320-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> We have violent and armed criminals to deal with.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, sadly a large number of them have badges.
> >>
> >> On your next visit to our violent shores, perhaps I can arrange a
> >> ride-along for you, so you can see for yourself what many Police
> >> Departments have to deal with. I can think of three locations which
> >> might prove to be enlightening for you, East Salinas, Santa Maria, or
> >> Oakland, any of those on a Friday or Saturday night should work.
> >
> > I stopped reading this thread a while back because I have no interest
> > in removing EXIF data from my photos, but I happened to click on it
> > today.
> >
> > I've known more than a few LEOs over the past few decades, and I have
> > to say that there are good cops and bad cops. The good cops far
> > outnumber the bad cops, but the fact that they are good cops means that
> > they don't do much of anything that is newsworthy, so almost all we
> > read about are the bad cops. This gives the public a very distorted
> > view of the police.
> >
> > That's all I have to say about that.
>
> The good cops aren't the ones citizens are complaining about.

Of course; that's my point.

[Jolly Roger]

On 2015-08-30, Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
> Next is to start merging forces. Why should Palo Alto, Menlo Park,
> Atherton, Stanford, Mountain View and the other 50 or so fragments of
> the Bay Area each have its own police force? Merge the lot. That way
> you decouple the command structure from the local politicians. The Bay
> Area Chief of Police will be appointed by the state governor, not
> elected. You can also get rid of Grand Juries. We scrapped those more
> than 50 years ago.

Both sound like good ideas to me.

> My guess is there's not much wrong with a cop starting his career, he
> just gets corrupted by the system. Well, change it then.

I think it varies. For instance positions of authority naturally attract
a lot of people who are power-hungry assholes. Some probably start out
that way. Police departments also hire veterans who are trained to
combat enemies and often come back with PTSD and other problems that
might not be best for someone in such a position. They also receive tons
of cheap/free weapons of war from the government, which they use against
civilians. The "war on drugs" is used by cops across the nation every
single day to steal money and possessions from innocent civilians. Of
course citizens have wanted to change these things for a long time; but
politicians paid by corporate and special interests don't care what the
public wants, and serve their financial masters instead. It's not just
the cops on the beat. There are huge system issues involved. And this
hasn't been a government by the people for the people in a long, long
time.

> If you want to improve the quality of your politicians, first step is
> to ban TV political advertising.

Good luck with that one.

> And since it's unlikely that we can get guns banned (some of you will
> go all stern and noble like a Victorian papa and start bleating about
> constitutional rights), how about requiring a psychiatric test in order
> to legally own one. Won't stop the crooks, I know, but it might rein in
> the nutters.

Absolutely agreed. But then how do you catch someone who has owned a gun
for many years and slowly loses mental capacity?

Also I would go a step further and make it illegal to use one without
hefty liability insurance covering medical bills and so on in case of
accidents.

[Warren Oates]

In article <2015083011292181445-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Hands up, don't shoot.

[Don Bruder]

In article <super70s-0D9995...@boina.datemas.de>,

super70s <supe...@super70s.invalid> wrote:

> In article <mrtil3$pfd$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>

> wrote:
> > In article <55e246af$0$46880$c3e8da3$aae7...@news.astraweb.com>,
> > Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > My two favourite words in the English language: Officer Down.
> > >
> > > officer down
> > > officer down
> > > lookit its guts spilt out on the ground
> > > lookit its brain matter spattert around
> > > rejoice
> > > rejoice
> > > there's an officer down
> > >
> > >
> > > and fuck you.
> >

> > Interesting how such a comparatively small sample of the general
> > population - A sample I assume (without any way to verify) assembled
> > from all across the nation, not to mention possibly the world, and

> > presumably of decent education - has such similar (and strong! - Good

> > grief, Warren, that's a nasty hate you've got on for 'em - not that I
> > can blame you much, but... WOW!) views of the cops.
>

> Not a very thoughtful thing to post considering the event that just
> happened in Texas. I guess some people are so wrapped up in Apple
> geekdom they don't read the national headlines, or maybe at least catch
> them on TV.

Wanna tell me why I give a damn about the texas incident? A cop getting
his/her ticket punched is nothing more or less to me than anybody else.
That cute blue (or khaki) uniform and shiny tin badge don't make them
any more important than any other human being on the planet.

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[Savageduck]

As I have said, after 25 years of opportunity, I have had gun in hand
from time to time, but all who encountered me survived the experience.
Even some nasty SOBs. So I am not likely to be provoked by a stupid ass.

...and over the years I maintained a comfortable proficiency with
weapons I am qualified to use. I consider myself fortunate that as an
officer I was never compelled to fire at anybody. My military
experience was something else altogether.
<https://db.tt/KpFqbCL3>


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

Thanks for the confirmation that you are a nasty SOB.

BTW: you boast of having a S&W to provide security, what model would that be?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Jolly Roger]

Those in positions of authority must be held to a *higher* standard than
the average citizen, who pays them to use calm and civil methods to
protect and serve the general public. When cops do the opposite of
protecting and wrongly kill an innocent civilian, and the system protects
them rather than fixing the core issue, it's an attack on the ideals the
citizens of this country hold dear. Rather than being deemed acceptable,
it should cause those in power to implement real systemic and social
change. The reason people are so pissed off about this today is they
don't see significant change happening. Meanwhile more innocent
civilians are killed. As long as that continues, things will continue to
get worse for those in authority.