Kevin Cloud

Trying to live and enjoy life to the best of my ability

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

PSA: You can call me a "bootlicker" and tell me "sybau", but just know, if that is your whole counter response to one of my arguments, I just take that as your white flag of surrender.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

@HeavilyRecruitd And sorry, you are correct I meant subjective not objective. I will neck myself for using the wrong word.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

I will have to respond this way because Ole Windigo blocked me after not being able to come up with logical responses. While standing up for ones morals is admirable, the problem here is that morality is objective. Your moral viewpoints dont automatically align with the world. If everyone started committing criminal acts or acts of violence in the name of morality, then we are back at the crusades. Now with all three examples you gave, they weren't changed because of criminal action, they were changed through new laws and amendments. We already see that collective pushback from citizens has led to cities canceling contracts and politicians on both sides of the aisle introducing anti-ALPR bills. So why encourage people to risk their freedom when the only potential positive impacte for the vast majority of americans is just peace of mind?

[HeavilyRecruitd @HeavilyRecruitd]

@DuoNevik @WENDIGO_420x Just because it's law doesn't mean it's moral and right. Slavery was law. Turning in Jews was law. Black codes were law.

Preserving liberty is more moral than obeying unjust laws.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

You literally said, "Just because it's law doesn't mean it's moral and right." That is bringing up morality in the law. How is morality not objective? Everyone can have their own opinion on morality as their opinion on right and wrong can differ. Do you think your morals and the morals of those in Islamic extremists groups are the same?

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Ok, I will give you the same chance to make your argument to that point that I gave the other person who said the courts are wrong.

The 4th protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and for a search to be unreasonable, the information gained from it can't be readily available to the public. How then do you contest, that the observable exterior of a vehicle while driving down a public road, is not observable by the public?

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

@MyBearNinja That is a matter of opinion. Was it then 100% justified when Saladin recaptured Jerusalem? I am sure he felt so. The point that seemed to completely slip your grasp, is that violence merely based on one's own moral compass begets chaos.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

You are really struggling with this concept aren't you? Other than the American Revolution, in NONE of those examples are the criminal actions actually what created change. And in the revolution, the only reason the criminal action did create the change, is because we overthrew the standing government and create an entirely new one. That means legislative change IS the only thing the brings about reform, unless you think you can gather enough believers for your own revolution.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

@bloodwealthsoil You are right, humans have free will and can think or do what they want. That doesn't mean though that their feelings are fact or that their decisions are logical.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Sorry, have to respond this way because windigo couldn't handle logical arguments and blocked me. There is a major difference between being truly oppressed under a tyrannical government that appoints your politicians for you, and committing criminal acts because you are afraid of what could potentially happen. I think you would be hard pressed to find many people willing to die in a revolution over cameras capturing and cataloging publicly observable images. Also, the founding fathers took many steps prior to declaring independence, trying to have their grievances heard but nothing changed. The criminal act was the final option. Public backlash has already had an impact as we see cities canceling contracts and federal politicians weighing in with anti-ALPR bills. Encouraging people to risk their freedom so that others can simply have peace of mind is quite ridiculous.

[Blood * Wealth * Soil @bloodwealthsoil]

@DuoNevik @WENDIGO_420x Uh, yes. That is my view. It's also the view of the founders since breaking away from England was illegal.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Ok then, well let's hear your argument since you are apparently such a scholar of the constitution. The 4th protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and for a search to be unreasonable, the information gained from it can't be readily available to the public. How then do you contest, that the observable exterior of a vehicle while driving down a public road, is not observable by the public?

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

@DougChico @RonDeSantis 187k on a $75Million budget, is a drop in the bucket.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Except the intention of the 4th is to prevent against unreasonable search, not just any search. For a search to be unreasonable, the information gained can't be openly available to the public. For that to be the case with ALPRs, you would have to reasonably believe that no one would be able to observe the outside of your vehicle when you are driving down a public road.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

you are the one who brought up morality in the law, and that is why I chose to respond with a focus on morality. Again though, none of those laws changed because people broke the law, they changed through political efforts. World War 2 wasn't a breaking of the law, it was countries standing up for their own sovereignty and the sovereignty of those countries invaded by the Germans and Italians. Slavery ended due to political change and a war to force that change in states that didn't want to accept. Slavery didn't end because of vigilantes burning down all of the plantations and southern farmers just giving in. The other problem here, all of these instances had real and tangible mass negative impacts on people, not just the perceived impact or the fear of possible impact. The entire anti-Flock movement is based on portraying the fear of potential impact as present day tangible impact which just isn't the case.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

But again, in all of those instances, true injustice was being inflicted among a group of people, not just perceived injustice or fear of potential injustice. When encouraging unrest due to your personal moral compass, you have to keep in mind how others may take that example to justify their own means to an ends. 9/11 was an attack on America to punish the west for perceived immoral interference with Islam in the middle east. We as Americans don't sit back and say, well they were justified because they held moral convictions, no we condemn the innocent loss of life. The whole Anti-Flock argument is simply one of fear of possible impact in the future. Yet constantly, individuals are passing false statements off as fact to portray a current injustice. If you can make a logical argument around how the current state of ALPRs are negatively impacting the vast majority of Americans, outside of peace of mind, I am all ears.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

@JimLawrenc6624 @MW4Liberty Please explain using logic and not emotion how ALPRs are a violation of the 4th amendment.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

@jamesklug It is actually really simple, 99.9% of law abiding citizens will feel absolutely zero impact from these systems. Everyone "Anti-Flock" is truly just experiencing anxiety over what possibly could happen, not what is happening.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

Wait there is money in this, how do I get paid?

My problem is that the only true argument people have against ALPRs is that they fear this will lead to actual mass surveillance and violations of privacy. Every other argument made is easily shot down with logic. So every Anti-Flocker is truly just experiencing anxiety that our judicial system will stop upholding the constitution, which if they do, there is far more concerning things worry about than pictures of cars driving down public roads.

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

@AnonJourna96897 And how do you define mass surveillance?

[Kevin Cloud @DuoNevik]

How do you go from, supporting license plate readers covering .04% of US roads to me wanting global surveillance? You are still basing your argument off of fear instead of logic. Let me help you out with why your fear is irrational. The courts have already indicated that true mass surveillance(not the current ALPR coverage) would be a constitutional violation. That means your fear of mass surveillance would require the judicial branch to stop upholding the constutution, which if that happens, your fear should not be around knowledge that can be gained through public observation, but the private information stored on personal devices. We already know the government can access phone data easily from the Snowden disclosures, so all we can do is trust that the judicial branch upholds the laws and the constitution to stop truly private intrusions.