• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Has NYC City Council Lost Their Minds?

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The article calls it a "proposal" and says:

Council members Dan Garodnick (D-Manhattan) and Vanessa Gibson (D-Bronx) introduced the bill, which would require the NYPD to publish “impact and use” reports that detail what spy tools the force employs, as well a description of how the technology works, internal rules over its use and how the police use and protect sensitive data.
(...)
Garodnick told the committee that he was willing to revise the bill with more input from the NYPD.

I think the last line is very significative and ought to de-trigger people a bit. It is fair to ask whether there is a need for so much secrecy.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
The article calls it a "proposal" and says:



I think the last line is very significative and ought to de-trigger people a bit. It is fair to ask whether there is a need for so much secrecy.
They could indeed issue a lengthy report to the city council that doesn't actually say very much. You know, sort of like how long-winded politicians can manage to speak for hours but say nothing.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
NYPost? Sources esmith. This is a tabloid paper.
...owned by Murdock.

I'm suspicious of its accuracy as well and would seek confirmation from other sources before blindly believing in anything Murdock's publications state. But, as it stands, I have no particular interest in this thread.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
...owned by Murdock.

I'm suspicious of its accuracy as well and would seek confirmation from other sources before blindly believing in anything Murdock's publications state. But, as it stands, I have no particular interest in this thread.
then why did you interject yourself into the thread?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Seems that the NYC City Council bill would force the NYPD to open its anti-terror playbook to the public. Talk about dumb ideas.

http://nypost.com/2017/06/14/nypd-calls-city-council-plan-to-reveal-anti-terror-tactics-insane/

They're claiming that it's "overreach," and that may be so, although there was a quote from the article that did cause me to take notice:

But the proposal is pure overreach, according to NYPD Deputy Commissioner for Legal Matters Larry Byrne.

“The public must trust cops with sensitive matters,” he argued. “[The public doesn’t] have the right to know how certain technology can be used. There are very strict safeguards around how long and how these technologies are used.”

How much can the public actually trust the police anyway? I don't think we should give away any state secrets or compromise law enforcement's ability to protect us from terrorism. But I also think we have a system of checks and balances just because no one individual or organization should be trusted that much.

Another point raised is that civilians control the police department, not the other way around. The biggest problems seem to arise when one of their own goes bad. Then there's also a lack of transparency, which seems to be an ongoing problem whenever there's any kind of police-related shooting.

I'm not even sure if this kind of secrecy is really all that reassuring, at least in terms of protecting the public from terrorism or other bad guys out there. How secure is the NYPD? For quite a long period of time, they were under the thumb of organized crime through bribery and other methods of persuasion. Is it possible that some mole or operative from a terrorist organization, criminal network, or foreign spy agency could be operating within NYPD? Wouldn't they already know the technologies available and the methods and practices of police departments?

A lot of things that have been kept secret are/were things the "enemy" already knew about, so is the culture of top secrecy really about keeping information from "the enemy" or is it to merely keep it from the people? Or are the people now the enemy of the government?
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Terrorist have a fast learning curve when it comes to defeating safeguards. If you released the tools being used, you have given the advantage to the terrorist.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
NYPost? Sources esmith. This is a tabloid paper.
Let's take a serious look at the facts presented by the article vice your condemnation of the source because you don't like what they have to say.
Now be forewarned, I am going to use some language and tactics that Democrats, especially far left Democrats like to use.
Ready?
Here goes
What we have here are two members of the NYC City Council, along with fifteen other members that are supporters of terrorist, either by their stupidity ( typical for your coastal Democrats) or trying to make a name for themselves. This is typical of the we-no-nothing about what we are talking about but we are smarter than everyone else Democrats
Fact: The council’s Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology Act would require the NYPD to issue reports on what kinds of spy equipment police use — such as license-plate readers, cellphone trackers and X-ray vans used to peer through walls — as well how the department stores and protects private information collected.
Fact: Fifteen members of the City Council are co-signers of the bill
Fact: One of the writers of the bill said they were willing to revise the bill with more input from the NYPD.
Fact: Mayor de Blasio believes the legislation is a non-starter, according to spokesman Austin Finan.

Now this shows the stupidity of those that wrote the bill. They didn't have the brains to go to the NYPD and ask for input before writing the bill. But after being told they are basically **** -for-brains they backtracked.
Now I will revert back to the kindly old gentleman that I am.

Now @tytlyf please explain why you do not accept the article, other than you have nothing else to do. There are no opinions expressed by the author of the article, they only reported what was said by other parties. Seems that you have a problem with accepting facts that you don't like.
 
Last edited:

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
Terrorist have a fast learning curve when it comes to defeating safeguards. If you released the tools being used, you have given the advantage to the terrorist.
I agree, sensitive information needs to be protected.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Let's take a serious look at the facts presented by the article vice your condemnation of the source because you don't like what they have to say.
Now be forewarned, I am going to use some language and tactics that Democrats, especially far left Democrats like to use.
Ready?
Here goes
What we have here are two members of the NYC City Council, along with fifteen other members that are supporters of terrorist, either by their stupidity ( typical for your coastal Democrats) or trying to make a name for themselves. This is typical of the we-no-nothing about what we are talking about but we are smarter than everyone else Democrats
Fact: The council’s Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology Act would require the NYPD to issue reports on what kinds of spy equipment police use — such as license-plate readers, cellphone trackers and X-ray vans used to peer through walls — as well how the department stores and protects private information collected.
Fact: Fifteen members of the City Council are co-signers of the bill
Fact: One of the writers of the bill said they were willing to revise the bill with more input from the NYPD.
Fact: Mayor de Blasio believes the legislation is a non-starter, according to spokesman Austin Finan.

Now this shows the stupidity of those that wrote the bill. They didn't have the brains to go to the NYPD and ask for input before writing the bill. But after being told they are basically **** -for-brains they backtracked.
Now I will revert back to the kindly old gentleman that I am.

Now @tytlyf please explain why you do not accept the article, other than you have nothing else to do. There are no opinions expressed by the author of the article, they only reported what was said by other parties. Seems that you have a problem with accepting facts that you don't like.
I never made a comment on the article of supporting it or not. I pointed out your source which is a tabloid outlet known for leaving out context and important information relevant to the topic at hand.

I do agree that this may expose technologies and techniques used for spying, but there's also a constitutional angle. Civil liberties. How would the public know if law enforcement agencies are abusing these powers? It's a double edged sword.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
I never made a comment on the article of supporting it or not. I pointed out your source which is a tabloid outlet known for leaving out context and important information relevant to the topic at hand.

I do agree that this may expose technologies and techniques used for spying, but there's also a constitutional angle. Civil liberties. How would the public know if law enforcement agencies are abusing these powers? It's a double edged sword.
By your comment you insinuated that the story was not valid because you are saying that the source is invalid; nice try but squirming doesn't work.
 
Last edited:

tytlyf

Not Religious
By your comment you insinuated that the story was not valid because you are saying that the source is invalid; nice try but squirming doesn't work.
True, but I didn't comment on the story. I commented on your source. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to use credible sources.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
True, but I didn't comment on the story. I commented on your source. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to use credible sources.
I'm playing the bull**** card on that.
As far as credible sources I could care less what you do or do not consider credible because the only "credible" source you recognize is a source that agrees with you.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
I'm playing the bull**** card on that.
As far as credible sources I could care less what you do or do not consider credible because the only "credible" source you recognize is a source that agrees with you.
Nope, I'm not interested in agreement. I'm interested in facts. Sometimes facts don't feel good.

Stop posting fake news sources.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
The facts that don't feel good to you are the ones you disagree with.
I don't create threads with fake news. Your sources are known to be fake news. You'll claim it's liberal lame stream media deciding that your sources are fake news. The circle goes round and round. Do you know what propaganda is?

Know how Hitler brainwashed millions of people?
1. Keep the dogma simple. Make only 1 or 2 points.

2. Be forthright and powerfully direct. Speak only in the telling or ordering mode.

2619968802_0722139041_m.jpg
3. As much as possible, reduce concepts down into stereotypes which are black and white.

4. Speak to people’s emotions and stir them constantly.

5. Use lots of repetition; repeat your points over and over again.

6. Forget literary beauty, scientific reasoning, balance, or novelty.

7. Focus solely on convincing people and creating zealots.

8. Find slogans which can be used to drive the movement forward.

Hitler’s Guide to Propaganda – The Psychology of Coercion | Brain Blogger

Can you spot the propaganda in this video?
 
Last edited:
Top