We chose to sacrifice our liberty and transparency for the illusion of "security" after 9/11/2001.
We as a nation now believe that the "terrorist" could use such transparency in government as a tactical advantage for their future "attacks".
In some places, it is a felony to record local police on PUBLIC streets, even if you're standing clear of their scene, and just observing (several people have been charged and convicted for doing just that, under their states' wiretapping statutes). Yet the same standard does not apply to these agencies which put up elaborate camera systems, and monitor them, and use advanced facial recognition while YOU walk down the street.
The same agencies now have the power under law to observe YOUR communications without the bothersome, tedious legal process of getting a wiretap warrant, if they are investigating a claim that "you might be a terrorist..."
So to wrap it up:
1)-Police can video and audio record all their interactions with you, and observe and record you from a distance without your consent.
2)-You cannot record your encounters with the same, and you are prohibited from observing and recording the police in public passively.
3)-Police can have encrypted communications that you are prohibited from attempting to decode or decipher.
4)-Police can break encryption on your secured communications (wireless, wireline, email, etc) without warrants, your knowledge or consent.
Am I the only one who sees this as a double standard?
In a truly free society, the government should fear it's people to stay in check, not the other way around.
Oh wait, who said we lived in a free society. :roll: