On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest >>>>>> self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term >>>> - I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as
the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks >>>> call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're
obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a
humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and
owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is >>> neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being
encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I. >>> to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be >> required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily
agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off. >> Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are >> and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that
Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"?
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term >>>>> - I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as >>>>> the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks >>>>> call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a
humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is >>>> neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being
encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I. >>>> to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily
agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We >>> demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off. >>> Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that
Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"?
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
On 3/31/2026 2:36 AM, BTR1701 wrote:hustling.
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the >>>>>>>> biggest self-owns in the history of race
owns" before - is that the
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the >>>>>> term - I've never heard the term "self-
to capture the person beingsame as the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call >>>>>> soccer) folks call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a
humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered >>>>> is neutral and that a bodycam is going
encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of >>>>> P.I. to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE
agents be required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans >>>> readily agreed. Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're
backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. >>>> We demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned >>>> off. Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved
villains are and tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that
Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"?
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
Okay, that does at least attest to considerable confusion (...which I
share in my own conflicted views about bodycams and surveillance).
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest >>>>>>> self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term >>>>> - I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as >>>>> the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks >>>>> call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a
humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is >>>> neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being
encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I. >>>> to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be >>> required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily
agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We >>> demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off. >>> Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are >>> and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that
Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"?
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term >>>>>> - I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as >>>>>> the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks >>>>>> call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a
humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being
encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I. >>>>> to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily >>>> agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We >>>> demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that
Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"?
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
wear switched off body cameras?
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>>>
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term >>>>>>> - I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as >>>>>>> the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks >>>>>>> call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a
humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is >>>>>> neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being
encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I. >>>>>> to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily >>>>> agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We >>>>> demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off. >>>>> Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that
Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"? >>>
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
wear switched off body cameras?
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>>> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term >>>>>>>> - I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as >>>>>>>> the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks >>>>>>>> call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>>>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a
humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>>>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being
encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I. >>>>>>> to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily >>>>>> agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We >>>>>> demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that
Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"? >>>>
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
wear switched off body cameras?
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
That?s code for 'narrative protection'.
On 3/21/26 2:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Essex police have turned off their live facial recognition cameras as they >> were catching too many black people committing crimes. They have also admitted
that it was extremely rare the cameras would flag somebody up who wasn't on >> the watchlist.
They put up cameras to catch bad people, the cameras caught the bad people, >> but because they were predominantly black, the cameras had to go.
https://x.com/BROKENBRITAIN0/status/2034870668265701418?s=20
------------------------------
So rather than arrest the criminals regardless of their skin color, the
government deemed the *cameras* (and therefore, one assumes, reality) to be >> racist and got rid of them. Sounds about right.
Which supports the notion that crime is more of
a policy than a lack of technology; none of
the surveillance systems are being used to
stop crime in high crime areas, whether in
Britain or the USA. It's like the camera
systems are being used as to support "designated
high crime neighborhoods", where being a crime
victim is considered to be a case of "the bitch
got what he deserved" or in more plain
language as the sadistic philosophy that "victims
always deserve it".
On 2026-03-31 23:21:09 +0000, Pluted Pup said:
On 3/21/26 2:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Essex police have turned off their live facial recognition cameras as they >>> were catching too many black people committing crimes. They have also admitted
that it was extremely rare the cameras would flag somebody up who wasn't on >>> the watchlist.
They put up cameras to catch bad people, the cameras caught the bad people, >>> but because they were predominantly black, the cameras had to go.
https://x.com/BROKENBRITAIN0/status/2034870668265701418?s=20
------------------------------
So rather than arrest the criminals regardless of their skin color, the
government deemed the *cameras* (and therefore, one assumes, reality) to be >>> racist and got rid of them. Sounds about right.
Which supports the notion that crime is more of
a policy than a lack of technology; none of
the surveillance systems are being used to
stop crime in high crime areas, whether in
Britain or the USA. It's like the camera
systems are being used as to support "designated
high crime neighborhoods", where being a crime
victim is considered to be a case of "the bitch
got what he deserved" or in more plain
language as the sadistic philosophy that "victims
always deserve it".
Every other post from this guy is about some "outrage" in the UK,
apparently he thinks everything going on in the US under Trump now is a utopia full of unicorns.
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term
- I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as >>>>>>> the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks >>>>>>> call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a
humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being
encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I.
to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily >>>>> agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that
Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"? >>>
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
wear switched off body cameras?
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
On 4/7/2026 5:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term
- I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as >>>>>>>>> the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks >>>>>>>>> call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>>>>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a >>>>>>>> humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>>>>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being >>>>>>>> encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I.
to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily >>>>>>> agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that >>>>>> Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"? >>>>>
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
wear switched off body cameras?
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
That?s code for 'narrative protection'.
'On' should be the default, with 'off' elapsing after, say, 90 seconds.
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 18:32:19 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term
- I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as >>>>>>>>>> the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks
call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>>>>>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a >>>>>>>>> humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>>>>>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being >>>>>>>>> encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I.
to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily >>>>>>>> agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that >>>>>>> Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"? >>>>>>
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
wear switched off body cameras?
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
That?s code for 'narrative protection'.
'On' should be the default, with 'off' elapsing after, say, 90 seconds.
There's no logic in that since incidents are rarely 90 seconds long.
Sounds like the left is looking for ways to get around them being seen
in their illegal behavior.
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-03-31 23:21:09 +0000, Pluted Pup said:
On 3/21/26 2:37 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Essex police have turned off their live facial recognition cameras as they >>>> were catching too many black people committing crimes. They have also admitted
that it was extremely rare the cameras would flag somebody up who wasn't on
the watchlist.
They put up cameras to catch bad people, the cameras caught the bad people,
but because they were predominantly black, the cameras had to go.
https://x.com/BROKENBRITAIN0/status/2034870668265701418?s=20
------------------------------
So rather than arrest the criminals regardless of their skin color, the >>>> government deemed the *cameras* (and therefore, one assumes, reality) to be
racist and got rid of them. Sounds about right.
Which supports the notion that crime is more of
a policy than a lack of technology; none of
the surveillance systems are being used to
stop crime in high crime areas, whether in
Britain or the USA. It's like the camera
systems are being used as to support "designated
high crime neighborhoods", where being a crime
victim is considered to be a case of "the bitch
got what he deserved" or in more plain
language as the sadistic philosophy that "victims
always deserve it".
Every other post from this guy is about some "outrage" in the UK,
apparently he thinks everything going on in the US under Trump now is a
utopia full of unicorns.
Super70s just hates it that he can't figure out a way to blame the leftist authoritarianism overtaking Europe on Trump.
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 15:03:01 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>>> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term >>>>>>>> - I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as >>>>>>>> the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks >>>>>>>> call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>>>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a
humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>>>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being
encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I. >>>>>>> to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily >>>>>> agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We >>>>>> demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that
Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"? >>>>
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
wear switched off body cameras?
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
Thereby defeating the purpose of having them in the first place...
On 4/8/2026 7:23 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 18:32:19 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/7/2026 5:47 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to >>>>>> wear switched off body cameras?
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term
- I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as
the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks
call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're
obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a >>>>>>>>>> humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and
owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being >>>>>>>>>> encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I.
to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily >>>>>>>>> agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that >>>>>>>> Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"?
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
That?s code for 'narrative protection'.
'On' should be the default, with 'off' elapsing after, say, 90 seconds.
There's no logic in that since incidents are rarely 90 seconds long.
Sounds like the left is looking for ways to get around them being seen
in their illegal behavior.
How many seconds would constitute "logic"?
Btw, the "left" wants the cameras *on*. What's alleged above is that they're demanding a hypocritical exception for protected minorities.
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 15:03:01 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term
- I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as >>>>>>>>> the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks >>>>>>>>> call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>>>>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a >>>>>>>> humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>>>>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being >>>>>>>> encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I.
to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily >>>>>>> agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that >>>>>> Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"? >>>>>
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
wear switched off body cameras?
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
Thereby defeating the purpose of having them in the first place...
As if people have any legal expectation of privacy in a public place at a public protest to begin with.
On 4/8/2026 1:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 15:03:01 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term
- I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as >>>>>>>>>> the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks
call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>>>>>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a >>>>>>>>> humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>>>>>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being >>>>>>>>> encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I.
to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily >>>>>>>> agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that >>>>>>> Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"? >>>>>>
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
wear switched off body cameras?
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
Thereby defeating the purpose of having them in the first place...
As if people have any legal expectation of privacy in a public place at a
public protest to begin with.
Afaics, it's fuzzier than that. E.g., if you stroll daily at lunchtime
to your favorite sidewalk bodega, and I surreptitiously video you and
post a compilation on YouTube, I think that's invasive and actionable.
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2026 1:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 15:03:01 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to >>>>>> wear switched off body cameras?
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term
- I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as
the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks
call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're
obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a >>>>>>>>>> humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and
owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being >>>>>>>>>> encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I.
to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily >>>>>>>>> agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that >>>>>>>> Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"?
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
Thereby defeating the purpose of having them in the first place...
As if people have any legal expectation of privacy in a public place at a >>> public protest to begin with.
Afaics, it's fuzzier than that. E.g., if you stroll daily at lunchtime
to your favorite sidewalk bodega, and I surreptitiously video you and
post a compilation on YouTube, I think that's invasive and actionable.
The key words there are "I think" because that?s all is: your opinion,
which has no basis in law.
And even if it did, that's not what would be happening with the police body cams at protests.
On 4/8/2026 3:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2026 1:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 15:03:01 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to >>>>>>> wear switched off body cameras?
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term
- I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as
the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks
call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're
obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a >>>>>>>>>>> humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and
owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being >>>>>>>>>>> encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I.
to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily
agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that >>>>>>>>> Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"?
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection. >>>>>>
Thereby defeating the purpose of having them in the first place...
As if people have any legal expectation of privacy in a public place at a >>>> public protest to begin with.
Afaics, it's fuzzier than that. E.g., if you stroll daily at lunchtime
to your favorite sidewalk bodega, and I surreptitiously video you and
post a compilation on YouTube, I think that's invasive and actionable.
The key words there are "I think" because that?s all is: your opinion,
which has no basis in law.
Afaics, it's fuzzier than that, at least according to Google's AI:
"Posting photos of someone without their consent is generally risky
and can violate privacy laws, social media policies, or constitute harassment, even if taken in public."
And even if it did, that's not what would be happening with the police body >> cams at protests.
Probably not. I just question the blanket license of "a public place".
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2026 3:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2026 1:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 15:03:01 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to >>>>>>>> wear switched off body cameras?
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term
- I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as
the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks
call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're
obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a >>>>>>>>>>>> humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and
owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being >>>>>>>>>>>> encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I.
to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily
agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording." >>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that >>>>>>>>>> Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"?
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection. >>>>>>>
Thereby defeating the purpose of having them in the first place...
As if people have any legal expectation of privacy in a public place at a >>>>> public protest to begin with.
Afaics, it's fuzzier than that. E.g., if you stroll daily at lunchtime >>>> to your favorite sidewalk bodega, and I surreptitiously video you and
post a compilation on YouTube, I think that's invasive and actionable.
The key words there are "I think" because that?s all is: your opinion,
which has no basis in law.
Afaics, it's fuzzier than that, at least according to Google's AI:
"Posting photos of someone without their consent is generally risky
and can violate privacy laws, social media policies, or constitute
harassment, even if taken in public."
Per the Supreme Court, if you are legally allowed to be in a place, you can photograph or video record anything you can see from that place.
And even if it did, that's not what would be happening with the police body >>> cams at protests.
Probably not. I just question the blanket license of "a public place".
On 4/8/2026 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2026 3:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2026 1:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:The key words there are "I think" because that?s all is: your opinion, >>>> which has no basis in law.
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 15:03:01 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>>> wrote:As if people have any legal expectation of privacy in a public place at a
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to >>>>>>>>> wear switched off body cameras?
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term
- I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as
the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks
call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're
obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a >>>>>>>>>>>>> humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and
owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being >>>>>>>>>>>>> encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I.
to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily
agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording." >>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that >>>>>>>>>>> Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"?
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection. >>>>>>>>
Thereby defeating the purpose of having them in the first place... >>>>>>
public protest to begin with.
Afaics, it's fuzzier than that. E.g., if you stroll daily at lunchtime >>>>> to your favorite sidewalk bodega, and I surreptitiously video you and >>>>> post a compilation on YouTube, I think that's invasive and actionable. >>>>
Afaics, it's fuzzier than that, at least according to Google's AI:
"Posting photos of someone without their consent is generally risky
and can violate privacy laws, social media policies, or constitute
harassment, even if taken in public."
Per the Supreme Court, if you are legally allowed to be in a place, you can >> photograph or video record anything you can see from that place.
In my example, the infraction would occur not when I pressed 'Record'.
but when I put the recording on youTube.
And even if it did, that's not what would be happening with the police body
cams at protests.
Probably not. I just question the blanket license of "a public place".
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2026 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2026 3:07 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/8/2026 1:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:The key words there are "I think" because that?s all is: your opinion, >>>>> which has no basis in law.
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 15:03:01 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:As if people have any legal expectation of privacy in a public place at a
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to >>>>>>>>>> wear switched off body cameras?
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term
- I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as
the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks
call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're
obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and
owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being >>>>>>>>>>>>>> encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I.
to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily
agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that
Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"?
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection. >>>>>>>>>
Thereby defeating the purpose of having them in the first place... >>>>>>>
public protest to begin with.
Afaics, it's fuzzier than that. E.g., if you stroll daily at lunchtime >>>>>> to your favorite sidewalk bodega, and I surreptitiously video you and >>>>>> post a compilation on YouTube, I think that's invasive and actionable. >>>>>
Afaics, it's fuzzier than that, at least according to Google's AI:
"Posting photos of someone without their consent is generally risky
and can violate privacy laws, social media policies, or constitute
harassment, even if taken in public."
Per the Supreme Court, if you are legally allowed to be in a place, you can >>> photograph or video record anything you can see from that place.
In my example, the infraction would occur not when I pressed 'Record'.
but when I put the recording on youTube.
And even if it did, that's not what would be happening with the police body
cams at protests.
Probably not. I just question the blanket license of "a public place".
Also not illegal as the hundreds of millions (if not billions) of vacation photos and videos posted online by people which contain complete strangers
in the background from whom no permission was obtained to record them or
post them online will attest.
Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
wear switched off body cameras?
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
wear switched off body cameras?
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
That?s code for 'narrative protection'.
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
That?s code for 'narrative protection'.
'On' should be the default, with 'off' elapsing after, say, 90 seconds.
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 15:03:01 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/2026 11:07 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2026 06:36:08 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 11:24:04 AM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
On 3/27/2026 2:09 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 27, 2026 at 1:25:03 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
Tue, 24 Mar 2026 19:32:08 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
The whole BLM demand for bodycams movement has been one of the biggest
self-owns in the history of race hustling.
I believe the above line was written by BTR but Adam may know the term
- I've never heard the term "self-owns" before - is that the same as >>>>>>>>> the British football (e.g. what we North Americans call soccer) folks >>>>>>>>> call an "own goal"?
It's "You can't stop thinking about me. I own your headspace." You're >>>>>>>> obsessing over having lost a meaningless argument on line in a >>>>>>>> humiliating way rather than just immediately acting like an adult and >>>>>>>> owning up to having made a mistake.
In this case, it was failure to consider that video evidence gathered is
neutral and that a bodycam is going to capture the person being >>>>>>>> encountered by police misbehaving and will not provide evidence of P.I.
to justify a lawsuit against police.
Earlier this year, Democrats in Congress were demanding that ICE agents be
required to wear bodycams, something to which the Republicans readily >>>>>>> agreed.
Now, as part of their DHS shutdown demands, they're backtracking and saying,
"On second thought, we don't really want the cameras on all the time. We
demand rules about when they can and can't be recording."
Nothing says "peaceful protest" like demanding all cameras be turned off.
Their problem is that the cameras don't know who the approved villains are
and
tend to capture everything without political bias.
Googling tells me only that Dems (Mar 24) *want* the bodycams (that >>>>>> Biden ordered for *all* govt. cops). Got a cite of the "backtracking"? >>>>>
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/07/democrats-fear-body-cameras-could-be-ices-new-mass-surveillance-tool-00769363
wear switched off body cameras?
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
Thereby defeating the purpose of having them in the first place...
As if people have any legal expectation of privacy in a public place at a >public protest to begin with.
Afaics, it's fuzzier than that, at least according to Google's AI:
"Posting photos of someone without their consent is generally risky
and can violate privacy laws, social media policies, or constitute >harassment, even if taken in public."
And even if it did, that's not what would be happening with the police body >> cams at protests.
Probably not. I just question the blanket license of "a public place".
Per the Supreme Court, if you are legally allowed to be in a place, you can >> photograph or video record anything you can see from that place.
In my example, the infraction would occur not when I pressed 'Record'.
but when I put the recording on youTube.
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 18:32:19 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
Thatƒ??s code for 'narrative protection'.
'On' should be the default, with 'off' elapsing after, say, 90 seconds.
In another posting I suggested that a reasonable reason to shut off a
chest cam might be while in the restroom. I don't recall many times I
made a trip to the loo having done my business, almost always
including hand washing in under 90 seconds.
If you can you definitely have my respect :)
On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 17:26:10 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Afaics, it's fuzzier than that, at least according to Google's AI:That AI is swifter than most AIs normally are. In general if a police
"Posting photos of someone without their consent is generally risky
and can violate privacy laws, social media policies, or constitute
harassment, even if taken in public."
And even if it did, that's not what would be happening with the police body >>> cams at protests.
Probably not. I just question the blanket license of "a public place".
officer is using a particular clip as part of a specific prosecution
then all well and good. And if the judge grants a waiver for public
release of a particular clip (which I >don't< think should be
routinely granted) all well and good.
And I do believe that 'for the purposes of evidence in a criminal or
civil trial' I don't really have much problem with that. If that means
95+% of taken video is routinely erased at the end of a holding period
(which it normally would be barring a prosecution request for it to be retained for trial) I fail to see the foul.
On Tue, 7 Apr 2026 15:03:01 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Pardon my ignorance but what's the benefit of requiring officers to
wear switched off body cameras?
Allegedly, they should sometimes be off. E.g., privacy protection.
Besides occasional trips to the loo or doing official duties inside
the police station (most of which are picked up by other means) when
exactly?
Wed, 8 Apr 2026 18:39:00 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
Per the Supreme Court, if you are legally allowed to be in a place, you can >>>photograph or video record anything you can see from that place.
In my example, the infraction would occur not when I pressed 'Record'.
but when I put the recording on youTube.
In the US in a court proceeding is that actually the definition?
Because if there are no penalties for release of video NOT released
from privacy legislation for the purposes of a trial then you don't
have any privacy restrictions at all.
There's no logic in that since incidents are rarely 90 seconds long.
Sounds like the left is looking for ways to get around them being seen
in their illegal behavior.
In another posting I suggested that a reasonable reason to shut off a
chest cam might be while in the restroom. I don't recall many times I
made a trip to the loo having done my business, almost always
including hand washing in under 90 seconds.
If you can you definitely have my respect :)
You'd be allowed to keep if off by hitting it every 90 seconds (...which >would indicate continued intention).
On Sun, 12 Apr 2026 11:36:29 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
In another posting I suggested that a reasonable reason to shut off a
chest cam might be while in the restroom. I don't recall many times I
made a trip to the loo having done my business, almost always
including hand washing in under 90 seconds.
If you can you definitely have my respect :)
You'd be allowed to keep if off by hitting it every 90 seconds (...which
would indicate continued intention).
Didn't mean to be impertinent but I'd be highly surprised if there has
ever been an officer who has NEVER visited the loo while on duty.
Obviously this isn't something you engage them in conversation about
:)
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 91:46:05 |
| Calls: | 211 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 82,341 |