how-to block ads
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to trebzon
Re: meh
Sure it does! As the law enforcement agencies will say themselves.. "we are a society of rules".. period. End of discussion.
If you wanted the rules broken here, then maybe warrentless wire taps were a good thing after all, right?? I mean, it was for the best interest of the country, right?
You can't have it both ways.. you have a break down of law and order.. and then the lines of what's right and wrong are blurred. No way.. no thanks..
I also don't want law enforcement thinking that a cell phone is a tracking device. The next time they want to catch a guy for unpaid speeding tickets.. you think they should just call the provider and say "track them.. they're law breakers"...? You're asking the same thing.
It may not have been a great heroic story for Verizon on this one.. but I'm sorry.. the ends don't justify the means..
You guys REALLY, and I'm sorry to say this, REALLY need to take a lesson on civics and society issues. We don't do what "feels" right when it comes to these things.. we do what is right.. and Verizon, as much as I SOOO hate them, I'm standing up for them. The "law" is not above the law. You have NO idea what you're asking for and getting yourself in to.. its very clear. | |
trebzon
join:2001-09-03
Grandville, MI
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| Your argument is specious. There is no question Verizon would have turned the device on regardless of any legal precedent or rule. The question is not that regardless of your ability to puff yourself up and argue a different issue then is on the table. The issue is that the Verizon rep put $20 in revenue in front of a human life. If you want to propose that this is good behavior then do so but your arguments currently are misleading and obscuring the truth. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Just becuase you want to ignore facts, laws, and quite honesty, the way life works, is not going to make your argument any better by simply saying it's so.
In many places, there still is no "good Samaritan" laws either.. meaning, if you helped someone on the street in need and what you did caused further damage to them, you CAN be sued for it.
It's nice to sit back in an illusion of a perfect society and say nice heart warming things like "$20 in front of a human life" all day long.. but, in reality, it's not so simple as you may want to. I've said it many times, I've given examples, I've even stated potential downfalls, but people like you come back and attack my "specious arguments" as you say.. while you're focused on the $20 over "a life" (talk about drama and a half here) why don't you, and the others that care to attack me, go back and address the very arguments I actually made. Until then, this "perfect harmony word" you all believe we live in is still going to remain anything but!
Again, and until you address the following, anything you say is simply perfect world Utopian at its best.
1) Would you accept warrant-less wire taps? After-all, they are argued to save thousands of lives.. (I don't support them, however, the argument was made AND the supporters of them believe they HAVE saved lives, but others who disagree say they don't becuase there has not been a life lost yet.. how does anyone know that they did in fact work?)
2) Would you accept the fact that while they can turn the phone on to save a life, what's next? .. turn it on becuase you MAY be someone about to hurt / kill someone else and by simply having Verizon or any company turn on a phone account would be beneficial to save the potential loss of life? I don't know about you, but if some law enforcement agency did that to me with out a warrant, I'd be up Johnny Law's ass in a heart beat with a lawyer for trampling my constitutional rights.. you can't simply bend the rules in one case with out allowing it for others.
3) Verizon gave them the location of the phone. Yet, the article still states that it took all the kings horses and all the kings men to find this guy. The story alone stinks and is over exaggerated. Why would they need the phone turned on? Besides, if your telephone was turned off for non-payment, and unless it happened in the last hour or two, which I doubt, do YOU carry a phone with out that is not in service?
4) You're saying that it's Verizon who is at fault here with the who issue.. it was, let me see.. "CORPORATE GREED".. right? It was CG that once again, got in the way between this so-called Good and Evil argument that people here believe exists.
The bottom line, the more and more people like you come in with this Utopian view and argument on how we should simply break rules, policy, procedure, and LAW becuase of someone's JUDGMENT CALL, or LACK OF FOLLOWING THE LAW (and not violating the rights of the very person they wanted the phone turned on of) the more and more I'm standing proud behind Verizon for "doing the right thing"..
Johnny law needs to follow the rules. PERIOD. I would GUARANTEE that you are of the same mentality that stood up after 9/11 and the patriot act stating that we should not give up our freedoms in the name of terrorism. To give up freedoms is to give up liberty.. right? I mean, with the argument you're making now, about Johnny law getting to demand something with out following the very protections we have in place (that the patriot act violated) you're asking them to do now.. So, I can only assume that you MUST support the Patriot act as well, right?
Simply put, you can't have it both ways... not in a society of laws. The MOMENT you cross those lines, you open yourself and the rest of us up to more over reaching powers.
I'm sorry to say this.. but, if the guy died.. oh well! Yup! I said it! OH WELL! We as people are NOT perfect. People die all the time. It's a simple fact of life. Remember our friend Darwin? I like him a lot! The fact remains that we try to legislate perfection. We try to ensure that we can always do the right thing.. that all lives will be saved. This is nothing more than a pipe dream. We try to save lives and we have seat belt laws. (I disagree with them. I am on the camp that believes that seat belts can also KILL you too) We can not ensure every life will be saved.. sorry.. yea, I'm cold hearted.. but, if we didn't have cell phones, this would be a moot point. How else would Johnny law have saved the man that day? .. by doing exactly what they did, as it should be.
If it's ok for them to bend the rules this time, what about next? when does it stop? .. it stops now. I believe in the constitution and it's purpose to limit the hands of the law. WE grant the powers to the government, .. they are not there for them to take. If a life is lost over this.. sorry.
Now, attack away and tell me how horrible a human I am.. becuase if you believe so.. go for it! I'm proud to be who I am! | |
-
|
