47 votes

Rand Paul: If The Government Is Going To Watch Us They Need Probable Cause - Fox News 4/27/2013

"If the government is going to use cameras to watch us, they need to have probable cause. They need to have an argument to use the Constitution to do surveillance on us, then I'm ok with it. But willy nilly on everyone in open spaces, I'm against that."


http://youtu.be/-M-lnCfYI-E

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rand made one important distinction.

There is a difference between allowing private cameras in businesses or homes to protect yourself or business.

The problem arises when we allow GOVERNMENT to use public surveillance as in drones flying all over the city watching everyone. Government can go too far and may end up watching us all in our homes as in 1984.

He didn't answer the question..

I liked the direction Rand was speaking of, however he always seems to pull his punches. He doesn't want to say he's against cameras in public, and I would bet if he were really pressed on it he might be ok with them legally, but might oppose them morally. Who knows!?

It's so obvious he's playing the "game," being careful of what he says. He's going to have to address the sheeple issue of "being soft on crime," at some point during his 2016 run, he's simply minimizing the amount of "controversial" soundbites. For us, it's frustrating. His father would have been crystal clear.

To give Rand credit, it's hard to appease the mass audience of statists, neocons, "moderates" annnnd libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc.

He might not be getting all of them, but he's doing a better job than anyone ever has. Isn't that what Rand is? A Coalition builder?

Rand did not answer his question

The newscaster feels safer if government expanded specifically in this arena to install surveillance cameras at terror targets. The argument that private cameras and not government cameras caught these suspects avoids the question that if government cameras were installed would they have caught the suspects sooner. Can you sacrifice liberty for safety? Why not? Would it be better to have more liberty and less safety? In my opinion yes, but we need to find clear arguments to address this question as it seems the GOP is especially vulnerable to disagree with this part of the constitution. People do not believe our government is or could be abusive is part of the problem.

Many of our fellow

Americans are rather ignorant in this area.

his gotta be crazy! !!

It sounds just like gun control

And how far is probable cause ?
Were dos it starts and we're dos it end?

Cacama

So you

Don't think a business (like a gas station) should be able to use cameras?
I think he is saying that the PEOPLE have the right to use cameras on their property, but government should not be permitted to use cameras on anyone's property without a warrant.
This is what he mean't when it comes to drones too.

Ron brought the Liberty movement together, Rand is expanding the crap out of it! :)

yep

another example if why you should support him!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

"Jane you ignorant slut"

from SNL's old shows comes to mind when listening to this host, it's either that or (and most probable) the host is forwarding the government agenda. GAWD I miss common sense, where the hell did it go?!?!?!
Kudos to Rand for keeping his head when faced with such an obvious tool.

the notion that privacy

the notion that privacy involves being in a “private location” is nonsense. American citizens do not need to be supervised going about their daily business like prison inmates, who are naturally suspected of malevolent intentions.

Cameras don’t make things simply more sophisticated; they make permanent records. Your neighbor monitoring his own private property, or a corporation doing the same, is not akin to government officials reconnoitering large public areas looking for anybody who might come off as “odd.”

Having more cameras on our streets aren’t going to keep us safe from or help to “stay ahead” of terrorists. A suicide bomber is not going to care whether or not he is caught on camera blowing himself up. Actually, the idea of a permanent recording capturing what he views as an act of self-martyrdom might just tickle his fancy.

What expanded surveillance will do is put Americans more at risk of being harassed and abused by petty government bureaucrats – police, prosecutors and other revenue collectors of all varieties. After all, once the cameras are installed, why not maximize their utility by looking for drug and prostitution activity, speeding or traffic violations, etc.?

What evreyone needs to realize is that the “war on terror” is a metaphorical war that is a poor framework for dealing with the terrorism that afflicts Americans as a result of their government’s invasive and destructive actions abroad. It is war with no end, because terrorism is a tactic, not our actual enemy.

jhon

Proud to say

I stand with Rand.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Well said

Dr. Paul

I am Ron Paul