but this company has a major threat in the coming backlash against technology as an arm of law enforcement. It is pretty obvious that we're heading into Orwellian territory in this country. There are millions of sheep who will gladly trade freedom and privacy for security, and even think they are being patriotic in doing so. But there are also millions who are starting to see the dangers of overreaching government very clearly and are nearly enraged about the death of our Constitution. BFDI investors might want to hedge their bets by looking for a company that is selling and developing encryption software to combat the snooping police state we've become.
I doubt very much if you hate to say it. It's transparent what you are attempting to do...basically you're another run of the mill BFDI basher. You may do it more subtly, but your schtick is commonplace. Too bad for you.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
this post is one example of the tone of this board, in my opinion. Any poster who expresses that there may be some risk in investing in BFDI is promptly ridiculed for being a moron or having a recent moniker. Hiero has posted before and has a pretty reliable libertarian slant on surveillance issues, I'd say, but obviously that makes him a 'basher.'
As I weigh the pros and cons of BFDI, I have personally refrained from posting my reservations about it because I know that nobody here is interested.
Actually, BFDI has been very good to me, and I am grateful to hopeful and others for their insight. I did sell my position, but that doesn't mean I want others to lose. I've felt uncomfortable with this stock for ideological reasons from the beginning, although I made my post in the interest of free information (something our own government apparently opposes). I think it would be foolish for investors to discount the politics of technology in law enforcement and info gathering. Actually, however, it might work out very well for any of you. After, Monsanto, GE and many other patently evil (or at least soulless) companies are thriving in the present environment. If you consider the Baltimore news articles on BFDI and what seems to be an agenda against the company, you would certainly want to also consider the potential of a larger backlash against government intrusion. The climate means a lot in a stock like this. Please don't kill the messenger.
for at least the near term, i think the blat is right. cant imagine there not being some fallout from this phone record and irs scandal. while i disagree that traffic cameras invade my privacy, management of devices that can has some consternation that needs to be dealt with first.
I find it difficult to understand why the objection to cameras to prevent crimes makes people feel like their "rights" have been invaded. There is a marked dfference between spying on people, their activites, hobbies, etc and using technology as a deterrent to traffic infractions...
The 2 Boston Marathon terrorists were primarily identified by security cameras in the area of the blasts. I heard no protests over cameras in that case; in fact, camera technology was applauded. Why the difference? It seems to me that people dislike security/traffic cameras when they are paranoid over their misbehavior. Law abiding citizens don't have the guilt trip. I'm all in favor of traffic cameras. JMHO.
I see the correlation. What's next? Sensors which detect alcohol blood levels placed outside of bars and restaurants so that PI and DUI arrests can be made? Black boxes on automobiles? I'm not saying those are analogous to speed and redlight ATE sytems, but it justs "feels" different when you're caught breaking the law vs when someone is watching you just in case you happen to break the law.
I don't see the correlation either, Fish....and it's not just because I'm a stakeholder here. Whether a camera or a traffic cop pointing a radar gun at me is the reason I'm ticketed, I have to break the law before I'm in trouble. Sure a mistake can happen....in fact, I did receive a speeding ticket years ago for doing 67 in a 55 zone....when I was just turning onto the highway and was not even doing 20 mph. This was not a machine, but a person who cited me....it was thrown out later and it was explained to me that the officer probably was receiving the signal from a car further up the road instead of mines (since my car was moving too slow to be detected).
Blaming the cameras for the current speed camera negative coverage is ludicrous, IMO, as is comparing speed enforcement with privacy violations due to invasive technology used to spy. Correct the human behind the camera and the camera will do its job correctly, IMO.
Breaking the law is not a "right." I think the real problem is with unethical individuals that may work for some vendors and in some municipalities that cause the amoral cameras to receive blame for violating rights when, in fact, the cameras are technology doing what they are instructed to do via programming. If bfdi behaves unethically, I'm not going to be favoring the company.....however, my experience and knowledge to date makes me feel very good about this company. All IMO, Hopeful