Printable View
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091003/...lncG9saWNlZGVw
So, I'm encouraged to spy on my neighbour if he's wearing weird clothes or if he's burning his tyres in the backyard, despite what they say that this ain't a neighbour-watching exercise. :inquisitive:
What do you Orgahs think?
This just seems out of order to encourage me to look at my neighbour and analyze him from head to toe.
So you should:
(a) Report that person with the horrible aerosol.
(b) Report all costume drama actors
(c) Report the fire fighting corps when they annoy you with difficult questions about compliance with local safety regulations
(d) Report all farmers
They routinely fit the terrorist-job-description, apparently.
This is lame.
First of all because there a terrorist action won't happen anyway.
Secondly because if such a thing should happen, then security measures won't stop it anyway.
Gestapo.
LOL, I remember this. It wasn't just "privacy advocates" complaining that ditched the idea - it was lawyers pointing out liability issues: what if a bomb exploded, and a mailman should have seen it and reported it (before it blew up)? If he was officially tasked with that mission, the answer is "yes", both he and the Post Office are then liable for any damage done.Quote:
After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration proposed enlisting postal carriers, gas and electric company workers, telephone repairmen and other workers with access to private homes in a program to report suspicious behavior to the FBI. Privacy advocates condemned this as too intrusive, and the plan was dropped.
Fast-forward to the 2009 Police Chiefs and their iWATCH program: all they're doing is setting up a communications channel (website & toll-free phone numbers). I don't see what's wrong with this.
You see something sus and you tell the cops, what's new? Just sounds like crime stoppers.
Godwin's Law worked pretty fast here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar