What still hasn't been made clear is the exact scope of the surveillance. It seems apparent that faculty and staff are included, but what about students or student organizations? What about patients at the medical centers? What about library searches or loans? (Keep in mind that UC libraries are used not just by the campus community but also by the general public.)
And then they're sending all this data... to an outside vendor. Aside from the obvious security risk, will an outside vendor be bound by the same legal restrictions on sharing private information as a state university? Would a private vendor fight a subpoena for, say, someone's library records as strongly as a university would?
No wonder President Napolitano's office was so eager to keep this secret.
And nine, nine keys were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else desire power. But they were all of them deceived, for another key was made. In the land of Mordor, in the fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord Chaum forged in secret, a master key, to control all others.
A couple of examples of those circumstances in which video-recording/photographing of you might constitute the crime of Resisting might be: ... 2. You are acting in an undercover capacity, you are actively conducting law enforcement business (not, e.g., on lunch break, etc.), i.e., you are actually performing some legal duty (e.g., conducting an investigation), and the video-recording/photographing would somehow reveal your identity as a police officer
Thus demonstrating that they prioritize stopping the public from recording them over doing their actual jobs.
We would be wise to remember that the courts will not likely accept your expectation of non-recording if that expectation is tainted by hypersensitivity or something the courts might construe to be an unusually high degree of paranoia.
So... a high degree of paranoia is acceptable so long as it's not unusually high? What's the standard we're using?
In they end, they found that "Democrats fared better than Republicans when it came to supportive and positive sites within the first page of results. Democrats had, on average, seven favorable search results in those top 10, whereas GOP candidates had only 5.9."
The greatest danger of them all is open communication.
If terrorists are allowed to talk to each other, they can plan to hurt us. If they are allowed to speak publicly, they might recruit followers. Therefore, terrorists cannot be permitted to speak.
But of course we cannot easily determine who might be a terrorist, so we must err on the side of caution.
No one should be permitted to communicate in any form -- spoken, written, semaphore, etc. -- without first being vetted. A simple screening process can determine each person's level of access to the various methods of self-expression.
If it saves just one American life it will be worth it.
Islam is just a symptom; the real problem is that the people who live there have been at each other's throats literally for thousands of years, regardless of which religious or political entity held sway at any given time.
And you're making yet another ignorant assumption by associating Islam with a single region in the world, when in fact almost 70% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims live outside the Middle East and North Africa.
The Al Jazeera poll referenced does not ask about the voter's country (I just voted!), and is an online poll, so... not meaningful. (Note that I just voted. Vote for yourself and all your friends at http://www.aljazeera.net/votes/pages?voteid=5270 )
It doesn't include Saudi Arabia, likely because getting meaningful polling results in such an oppressive state is very difficult, but I doubt that Saudi Arabia would be such an outlier as to have the "75-80% support for ISIS" as was claimed.