Former Mayor Giuliani, unbelievable.
 

Quoted today saying -

"..privacy rights need to back down in favor of security"


F - U sir.

I can not believe he said this in the context of what just happened in NY. He wants more cameras with the capability to sense heat and look through trunks, wtf. Seems to me like CITIZENs did just fine. And I'm sorry, but you have to read a citizen their rights, regardless of their actions. There is actually a debate over how fast he should be Marandized. Are we kidding?

As a honest US Citizen I have nothing to hide and think that increased security measure are necessity to keep us safe. We are at war and need to realize that. I think that the former mayor is correct.

The cameras in NYC help capture the suspect before he could leave the country. It explains why NYC has become tough about window tinting. Driving a car on the street is not a right but a privilege.

Revoking privileges is one thing; but there are these things called rights, that a lot of people seem to just want to toss in favor of a little more "security." Even worse, some people do not know the difference between a right and a privilege and are willing to let it all go just so they can feel a little safer.

Saying that you are an "honest citizen" and are wiling to trade rights for safety is just fine, until you have no rights to lose.

Just how many of your rights are you willing to toss just to sleep a little better at night. Which of your rights can we come take away right now so that you will feel safe enough to walk the streets?

Hell has frozen, and pigs are flying because...I agree with Wagner.:wow: Privacy is one of the most fundamental rights in America. Apparently, Giualini is not well versed in the Constitution or Supreme Court rulings on the right to privacy.

uck U sir ...there now I agree :D

:iagree: can't pick and choose what they take away, and this lame brain idea that every bad thing that happens needs a new law or process behind it is ridiculous, how about these three letter agencies doing there job, there taking huge amounts of $$$ , yet the citizens are the ones giving up freedoms/privacy

......people think giving up these freedoms will stop anything are forgetting the high failure rate that the gov't continues to maintain regardless of what we give up

Ex-mayorGiualianiGenius is just editing from the back row of the peanut gallery...
and, I bet one of his companies has fingers in the next bid(s) for additional
"security" in NYC and other major metro areas. He's become a high priced, loud mouth ho, imo.

Ibid what BigR, Blktoptrvl & KrimsonX said.

OK, I'll be the naysayer. I think that Security comes before Privacy rights.

After having met so many people who lost family and friends on September 11th, 2001, there is no way that I can accept that Privacy comes before Security...

Note that I am NOT saying that diabolical acts in the name of security, like those that have occurred all over the world for many years, should be accepted or tolerated.

3 things:

1. No amount of security can stop a human's ability to find ways around it.

2. I would rather risk being blown up in the air than take my goddamn shoes and belt off at the airport and wait in lines for hours on end.

3. I cannot fathom willingly giving up privacy for a false sense of security.

Krimson, eventually it had to happen :D

To all those that would toss Rights aside for Security, wow. Let me know how you'd feel about the following, because all could be done under the preface of 'security of the nation':

- Closing down the Internet
- Viewing your personal bank account and following your purchases
- Asking for a decleration of all your personal assets
- Asking for a list of all your family and relationships
- Reviewing all your phone calls or texts
- Putting cameras in every neighborhood
- Making your produce a rationale or purpose for traveling
- Checkpoint at state to state borders

and so on and so forth. Be careful what you're willing to "OK".

Ryan,

Good questions. Putting Security before Rights doesn't mean ANY of those items. In my case, I was just saying which comes first.

You're in IT (as I am). I am VERY aware of all the info that is available on the internet that most people think is private. I'm always amazed at what I can find out about somebody, some organization, etc. when I really want to. My point is that some of the items that you listed above is already accessible to a lot of federal organizations (and large companies).

We don't have the cameras like they do the UK and some other countries (and I hope that we never do). But should we have cameras at potential terrorist targets (Times Square, Grand Central Terminal, airports, etc.)? My answer is an emphatic yes.

I understand why you're saying and why you have that opinion, my question would immediately be: You honestly believe that politicians would stop there?

Soon it would be yes and we need every single federal building, then every local government building, then public areas and so on and so forth. Sadly our politicians simply are not that honest, sad I know.

I watched an Ex-CIA agent asked about the security and how we could protect ourselves, his response: we did. Observant civilians are far more effective than any surveillance equipment.

The problem with that statement is that some observers know the difference between a car in Times Square with smoke coming out, and a guy taking off his shirt and putting it in a bag.

I do not want people watching me any more than security cameras watching me.

I see people every day that I could question who they are and what they are doing.