Should we be doing this in the United States?

[nickel]

London has "Speed Cams" which I do know we have here, but now they are using those cams to catch motorists doing other things and fining them for things other than speeding. for example, the woman in the following article got fined for applying makeup while driving. i agree she was in the wrong, but it has been said that others have been ticketed via evidence gathered from these speed cams for eating while driving and one man got a ticket for taking a sip of water at a red light.

what do you think? do you think this would go over fine in the U.S.? should we be doing this? i know in NY where were it is illegal to talk on your cellphone while driving (unless it's hands free) that they would catch a lot of people on camera doing so.


A brush with the law Mar 9 2006
By Emyr Williams, Daily Post

A MUM last night branded her part-time model daughter "stupid" after she was filmed putting on make-up while driving at 32mph.

Donna Maddock, 22, was fined £200 yesterday for careless driving - just days after receiving a ban for drink-driving.

Maddock, of Llys Dedwydd, Mynydd Isa, Mold, was filmed by an Arrive Alive van driving near Pwllheli with both hands off the steering wheel applying her eye make-up.

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icnorthwales/mar2006/7/2/0001C5BC-FA56-140F-A95B0C02AC1BF824.jpg

Arrive Alive boss Inspector Essi Ahari said yesterday: "A car is a dangerous lump of metal in the wrong hands. "You need to be in control at all times and Miss Maddock's actions beggar belief."

Her mum Linda Williams, who lives in Mynydd Isa, said: "Donna has learned her lesson. She is the sort of person who likes to look good and she is fun-loving.

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icnorthwales/mar2006/8/2/000D825A-FA80-140F-A95B0C02AC1BF824.jpg
"She was on the way to meet friends for a day out in Abersoch.

"I've told her she shouldn't have been so stupid."

Maddock (above) was pictured holding a compact mirror and an eye brush as she drove a red Vauxhall Astra along the A499 on the outskirts of Pwllheli, at 4.53pm, on July 18 last year.

At a hearing on February 22, magistrates at Dolgellau adjourned the case until yesterday to make equipment available to show the video of the incident to the court.
http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/tm_objectid=16791111&method=full&siteid=50142&headline=a-brush-with-the-law-name_page.html

[LegendKiller]

I guess they don't have any privacy concerns over there.

[Itsme]

This is what many people fear about all the security cameras being put up. Does the operator just ignore non-security issues viewed?

[nickel]

I guess they don't have any privacy concerns over there.
invasion of privacy could occur in many ways with this. i don't know where exactly these speed cams are in my locality, or if they exist, but i do remember reading where a guy was caught on one of these cams and they mailed the evidence home (a picture) along with his speeding ticket. unfortunately for them his wife opened it and saw in the photo a woman in the passenger seat with whom the man was having an affair.

i don't have the link. this could be heresay, but it's not an unbelievable scenerio.

[LegendKiller]

invasion of privacy could occur in many ways with this. i don't know where exactly these speed cams are in my locality, or if they exist, but i do remember reading where a guy was caught on one of these cams and they mailed the evidence home (a picture) along with his speeding ticket. unfortunately for them his wife opened it and saw in the photo a woman in the passenger seat with whom the man was having an affair.

i don't have the link. this could be heresay, but it's not an unbelievable scenerio.


That's actually a pretty funny scenario. Personally, I don't like speed cams. I don't really like red light cams either, but I am more for them than anything else. I hate red light runners. However, tehre comes a point when you're more of a police state than a democracy.

[Merlin]

I guess they don't have any privacy concerns over there.
London is the most photographed city in the world. The average person in that city has their photo 65 times per day without their knowledge.

They also have the central London congeston charge. It is a network of traffic cameras set up all around the downtown area. If you frive into that area the cameras will catch a shot of your license plate number and charge you a toll of 7gbp. Imagine if instead of an easypass on the freeways there was just a camera catching your plate and sending you the bill.

The British, for good or for bad, have really embraced the idea of video. And yes, it does make me uncomfortable when I go there, which is fairly often.

[welfareloser]

London is the most photographed city in the world. The average person in that city has their photo 65 times per day without their knowledge.

65x a DAY? is that stat supposed to be per year? average per day per person seems a bit much. if there are 1 million ppl in london... i'm jsut sayin. it'd light that corner of the planet up like a city-sized spotlight, all those flashes going off :P

but, yeah. doesn't US law pretty much already cover this? like, evidence gathered without a warrant/probable cause/wahtever isn't admissible?

you're kinda screwed if the evidence is submitted to your angry wife instead of a court of law, tho :P

[Merlin]

65x a DAY? is that stat supposed to be per year? average per day per person seems a bit much. if there are 1 million ppl in london... i'm jsut sayin. it'd light that corner of the planet up like a city-sized spotlight, all those flashes going off :P

Nope, that is a per day number. Imagine if every spot on your daily commute had a security camera. Each business had several. And so on. The number starts to add up pretty fast. In my opinion is has crossed the line to the level of absurdity.

[welfareloser]

wow. reminds me of a few unsettling movies.

[TruckStuff]

I guess they don't have any privacy concerns over there. Should someone have a reasonable expectation of privacy while driving down a public road in rush hour traffic while surrounded by other motorists on the same public roadway? Anonomity != invisibility

[Merlin]

wow. reminds me of a few unsettling movies.
Just did a quick search and found this story in the Wall Street Journal.....

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112077340647880052-cKyZgAb0T3asU4UDFVNPWrOAqCY_20060708.html

They said 300 times a day but I guess different surveys will come up with different numbers but the bottom line is the same....in that city you will be on camera.

[Cubsfan]

So if they had a lot of these, and some decent face recognition software was developed, they be able to track people quite nicely. I suppose that the police (or some other 'agency') could have a nice Google map of everywhere you went and who you were with all of the time...

[clutchy]

the thing i don't like about machines is that they never leave room for a margin of error(unless it's programmed in). We have a few red light cams here at very very bad intersections and i can tell you i don't like them. They make me really nervous. I've had the urge to go out and buy a plate diffuser, and also to smash the crap out of them...

and i maybe am exposed to them once a month. Never had anything bad happen... but i just feel if we as a society are going to be policed it should be by the police not machines...

[zero2dash]

I definitely think there should be some measures put in place to catch people when they drive like idiots but there need to be limits to how far they go with it.

They put red light cameras in late last year down in Arnold, MO and they have already shown several pieces on the news where the camera caught people running lights; last month they showed 3 cars running a red light in a row (one after another), the last car almost causing a wreck to a car turning onto the street with a green light/right of way...and then last night they showed a car that ran a light a good 2 seconds after it turned red, almost hitting a school bus that also had the right of way. Hell, the news team at one of the intersections witnessed a wreck while they were reporting live. They also said the police have sent out 1,100 citations since the cameras were put up. :shrug:

People need to start paying more attention when they drive. :idea:

[MikeD]

Nickel, this one is pretty simple:

Yes. We should.

[welfareloser]

hmm... i totally agree with zero2dash... and clutchy... and Truckstuff... and Cubsfan...

taht pretty much covers it, doesn't it? :P

anyhoo... using em for traffic violations is a great idea, especially since i'm betting it's significantly cheaper than more officers. but, we'd have to make sure all kinds of safeguards were put up: can't use it for anything but traffic violations, maybe destroy all footage that reveals no traffic crimes immediately after review... of course, some people are going to want it archived to be used as evidence later "just in case" ... eek. what a mess. hurts my head to try to think it through.

[LegendKiller]

Should someone have a reasonable expectation of privacy while driving down a public road in rush hour traffic while surrounded by other motorists on the same public roadway? Anonomity != invisibility


This can apply to anything, including wire taps, emails..etc.

Should we expect that our government can watch and track us every waking moment of our lives?

That isn't freedom, it's prison.

[TruckStuff]

This can apply to anything, including wire taps, emails..etc. I don't think so. Phone calls and emails are easy enough to track, but if you are emailing/calling from your own bedroom, I'd say there is a much greater expectation of privacy than if you're driving down the freeway.

[LegendKiller]

I don't think so. Phone calls and emails are easy enough to track, but if you are emailing/calling from your own bedroom, I'd say there is a much greater expectation of privacy than if you're driving down the freeway.


Isn't the "information superhighway" nothing more than a collection of somewhat government subsidized freeways that are also supported by government controlled servers? Isn't that all public domain also?

[molecularfire]

Personal opinion, I like those red light cameras to catch people running red lights. I am fine with the cameras to catch people speeding. I do think that it is ok to use cameras to catch other things, but I think we should be VERY SPECIFIC about what is ok for a camera to catch and what isn't. I think it is a local issue (i.e. city or state level) and that something should only be added if agreed at the city or state level... and repealed by the same. I think it is a great tool for catching great tools but can be abused in the hands of greater tools.

[Memo]

I don't really have a problem with these. The laws have existed for a long time. This is simply a way to better enforce those laws. I don't really see privacy as the right to break the law when no one is watching.

[zenbooty]

Should someone have a reasonable expectation of privacy while driving down a public road in rush hour traffic while surrounded by other motorists on the same public road? Anonomity != invisibility
Being seen != being watched.

[zippyjuan]

Interesting discussion here. Many of the cameras installed in London were in responce to terrorist threats. People applaluded them being installed for that. They were useful for identifying the people involved in the subway bombings over there. Some of the people arguing against them here were on the other side of the issue when the discussion of monitoring terrorists was brought up. "Yeah, they are terorists and criminals. They should be kept an eye on! They don't deserve liberty and I am willing to give up some of mine to stop them!" Well guess what? That which monitors terrorists also monitors every day citizens like yourselves. Your internet activities. Your phone calls. Your movement on public streets. You cannot program the system to ignore non- terrorists. This is what some of us were agruing against.

[Wizard]

I'd hit it. No doubt about it.

[guiseppewv]

That's actually a pretty funny scenario. Personally, I don't like speed cams. I don't really like red light cams either, but I am more for them than anything else. I hate red light runners. However, tehre comes a point when you're more of a police state than a democracy.


I don't like the speed cams either. In DC people who are familiar with the area slow down when they come up to where one of the photo radar sites are and then they speed up as soon as they pass the site. How does that make things safer? :shrug: The only people who get tickets are those people who don't know about the sites (i.e. mainly out of towners).

[LegendKiller]

I don't like the speed cams either. In DC people who are familiar with the area slow down when they come up to where one of the photo radar sites are and then they speed up as soon as they pass the site. How does that make things safer? :shrug: The only people who get tickets are those people who don't know about the sites (i.e. mainly out of towners).


Thanks for letting me in on this :)

I have seen many out of control drivers here, speed cams or not. However, i'd have to say that they are much more controlled than FL.

[Thesifer]

I don't agree with Speeding Cameras because 95% of Speeders aren't really that dangerous it's the people in the fast lane going 60 or Below that cause more accidents, Or the people in california that damn near stop on the freeway because they see a red light on one of the onramps. There are some of the most retarded things that cause a slow down in California.

I on the other hand DO agree with Red Light cameras in certain intersections eventhough they make me nervous :) I Do think though that they need to have a set time for a yellow like and I think they should only be able to snap a Picture of people ENTER the Intersection when it's red. Not enter on Yellow and It turns red.

[zippyjuan]

So people who obey the law and drive the speed limit are more dangerous? Interesting. It is actually people changing lanes that slows down traffic on highways. Looking for that faster lane. I am lucky enough not to have to drive freeways. In fact, I don't have a car so if people want to ignore me on this, that is fine. I cannot comment from personal experience. If people are obeying the law, they should have nothing to fear about the cameras. The initial locations are usually selected because of accidents there and they are trying to reduce them.

[Houdini]

I'd hit it. No doubt about it.

:heh: I was waiting for someone to say that. :)

[OC]

I'd be much more in favor of real police cars with real officers in them going after tailgaters than I would be these speed cameras.

[MikeD]

I'd hit it. No doubt about it.

:heh:

Pre or post makeup? Or both? ;)

[clutchy]

If people are obeying the law, they should have nothing to fear about the cameras.

you mean if you're not a terrorist you shouldn't have anything to fear from wire taps or the patriot act?

[zenbooty]

If people are obeying the law, they should have nothing to fear about the cameras.Please, please let me never have to hear this line of reasoning used sincerely ever again about anything. Please?

[Merlin]

Please, please let me never have to hear this line of reasoning used sincerely ever again about anything. Please?
Give Zippy a break. We all know he really REALLY likes cameras. :hehehmm:

[MikeD]

Give Zippy a break. We all know he really REALLY likes cameras. :hehehmm:

And, on top of that, his reasoning makes sense. :)

[zenbooty]

And, on top of that, his reasoning makes sense. :)
So we'll jut put a camera in your bedroom, then. Hey, if you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?

[MikeD]

So we'll jut put a camera in your bedroom, then. Hey, if you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?

Hey, if you want. I mean, someone here has to be getting down on the regular. Not sure who fits the bill though, but if you want to live vicariously thru me... ;)

[Memo]

So we'll jut put a camera in your bedroom, then. Hey, if you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?

That's slightly different. Your bedroom is private domain, while the streets are public domain. That said, you can watch me wack it all you want.

[zenbooty]

That's slightly different. Your bedroom is private domain, while the streets are public domain. That said, you can watch me wack it all you want.Are your phone conversations public domain? That's what MikeD was trying to sell with this argument.

[MikeD]

Are your phone conversations public domain? That's what MikeD was trying to sell with this argument.

WTF? Back up a sec...when did I argue about phone conversations? Are we reading things that aren't here?

[zenbooty]

WTF? Back up a sec...when did I argue about phone conversations? Are we reading things that aren't here?
Aww ****, I meant clutchy. Sorry.

[guiseppewv]

So we'll jut put a camera in your bedroom, then. Hey, if you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?

I thought we were talking about cameras in out in public. :confused:

[MikeD]

Aww ****, I meant clutchy. Sorry.

:shakehand

[TruckStuff]

Isn't the "information superhighway" nothing more than a collection of somewhat government subsidized freeways that are also supported by government controlled servers? Isn't that all public domain also? The internet is in no way supported by "government controlled servers." You could take every "government controlled server" off the net and it would continue to function (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet-infrastructure.htm) just fine. All of the major backbones are corporately owned (http://navigators.com/isp.html). And I don't know about other server admins, but there is no way in hell my servers are "public domain." They are mine to control and do with as I see fit. I don't give a crap if the "public" wants access to my servers. They are mine.

[LegendKiller]

The internet is in no way supported by "government controlled servers." You could take every "government controlled server" off the net and it would continue to function (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet-infrastructure.htm) just fine. All of the major backbones are corporately owned (http://navigators.com/isp.html). And I don't know about other server admins, but there is no way in hell my servers are "public domain." They are mine to control and do with as I see fit. I don't give a crap if the "public" wants access to my servers. They are mine.


Again, the main root servers are still online and data flows through them. You *COULD* take them offline and the internet would work, but will you be able to do that? Furthermore, we already know that backdoor deals with the telecoms have been struck and data flows through them. Include TIAA (carnivore or whatever) into the mix and you get little to no assumption of privacy. Furthermore, they don't even need to have suspicion of activities to seize property thanks to the Patriot Act, they just have to write a memo and it doesn't even have to be judicially aproved. Therefore, your "private property" server is anything but.

If we have nothing to fear, then we should allow cameras everywhere, complete "open kimono" of our house, finances, job, lives, and society in general. After all, it would completely stop terrorists, criminals, and evil doers, right?


right?

There is a very fine line between private/public property and the assumption of privacy. Personally, if you aren't using speed/redlight cameras for speeding and redlights, you are violating their mandate, and the law.

I have known 3 people who have died because of redlight running. I feel they are justified. Speed cameras, on the other hand, are not.

[Maarchk]

I think Mr. Killer meant that telephone lines, poles, and things like that are subsidized if not paid for by governments. Thus they have the right to protect them from inappropriate use just like they protect the freeways from inappropriate use.. it is kind of an odd thought though... once the phone call leaves your house, technically its in a public place until it goes back inside at the callers house... so does everyone who can "see" it, have the privelidge to listen in on it... I guess i would say no, but i can see how that argument is a little weaker than two people inside of one house talking to each other...
Perhaps if we had carrier pidgeons... or little rockets that we shot messages in... no wait, same problem, government shoots down my bird, reads my message, and sends me a couple feathers and an apology letter... or more likely, one charred feather and no letter... hmm a messy situation indeed... Perhaps its time to move to superbia.

[LegendKiller]

I think Mr. Killer meant that telephone lines, poles, and things like that are subsidized if not paid for by governments. Thus they have the right to protect them from inappropriate use just like they protect the freeways from inappropriate use.. it is kind of an odd thought though... once the phone call leaves your house, technically its in a public place until it goes back inside at the callers house... so does everyone who can "see" it, have the privelidge to listen in on it... I guess i would say no, but i can see how that argument is a little weaker than two people inside of one house talking to each other...
Perhaps if we had carrier pidgeons... or little rockets that we shot messages in... no wait, same problem, government shoots down my bird, reads my message, and sends me a couple feathers and an apology letter... or more likely, one charred feather and no letter... hmm a messy situation indeed... Perhaps its time to move to superbia.

That was my point exactly. All of the telecom infrastructure, including voice and data, has been subsidized by the government to a certain degree. One could make the argument that they are *all* public domain and anything that travels on them is subject to scruitiny, regardless of source or destination. I believe this argument has been made by the government before and actually used in the justification for information interception. Until it is opened or downloaded by you, it is "fair game".

Furthermore, even if it is downloaded by you or an ISP server, if they even suspect something is up, they can seize the info without a warrant. Therefore, your privacy is even in question.

Same thing with the roads. It *Shouldn't* be that way. However, the "less freedom for more security" mindset of this country has dragged us in that direction.

[nickel]

I thought we were talking about cameras in out in public. :confused:
yeh, it took a twist.

i'm waiting for someone to blame Bush. oh wait, they probably have. :P

[guiseppewv]

yeh, it took a twist.

i'm waiting for someone to blame Bush. oh wait, they probably have. :P

It is all his fault!!!! Damn him!!! :P ;)

[welfareloser]

It is all his fault!!!! Damn him!!! :P ;)

yeah. how could anyone think of blaming the patriot act on him...

[guiseppewv]

yeah. how could anyone think of blaming the patriot act on him...

I, for one, am glad the patriot act is around so that isn't blame that is credit.

[MikeD]

I, for one, am glad the patriot act is around so that isn't blame that is credit.

:agree:, so make it x2.

Now the thread has really been derailed...;)

[Wizard]

:agree:, so make it x2.

Now the thread has really been derailed...;)

Rush Limbaugh '08

If you don't vote for him you're a terrorist, you hate America, and you're probably gay!

[nickel]

Rush Limbaugh '08

If you don't vote for him you're a terrorist, you hate America, and you're probably gay!
ok guy, after seeing you post that at least 3 times it's getting old fast. :P

[MikeD]

Rush Limbaugh '08

If you don't vote for him you're a terrorist, you hate America, and you're probably gay!

You throwing your support behind him? If so, I can try and come up with a custom Rush avatar or something for ya'...:hehehmm:

[Wizard]

ok guy, after seeing you post that at least 3 times it's getting old fast. :P
PSH! I'm not joking, Rush = Bomb.

I think Nickel is a guy, who's with me?


You throwing your support behind him? If so, I can try and come up with a custom Rush avatar or something for ya'...:hehehmm:

Really? SWEET! Yeah make me a Rush '08 Avatar!

[nickel]

PSH! I'm not joking, Rush = Bomb.

I think Nickel is a guy, who's with me?



Really? SWEET! Yeah make me a Rush '08 Avatar!
are you drunk or what? :hmm:

[molecularfire]

PSH! I'm not joking, Rush = Bomb.

I think Nickel is a guy, who's with me?



Really? SWEET! Yeah make me a Rush '08 Avatar!
Not really a big suppporter of the Rush Limbaugh in 08' thing but we've already discussed the whole nickel is a guy thing in a prior thread and he's already fessed up and posted a real pic. of himself as part of a plea bargain where we don't tell the girl he's stalking what's going on.

[guiseppewv]

ok guy, after seeing you post that at least 3 times it's getting old fast. :P

:stupid:

[zippyjuan]

Please, please let me never have to hear this line of reasoning used sincerely ever again about anything. Please?
I was just using the line that others have used to support things like the warrantless wiretaps and other "anti terrorist" rules like recording telephone conversations and monitoring internet usage or what books you check out from the library. These are considered more private activities than what someone is doing in public like while they are in their car or walking down the street. Some people have no problems with those based on that reasoning.