[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Hidden cameras to catch speeders
-
Subject: Re: Hidden cameras to catch speeders
-
From: rlooney@csc.com (Richard Looney)
-
Date: 6 Sep 1995 09:52:52 -0400
-
Newsgroups: dc.driving
-
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation
-
References: <42ckuv$92g@portal.gmu.edu>
Robert J Kaufmann (rkaufman@osf1.gmu.edu) wrote:
>> Hey everybody,
>> what ever happended to police departments installing hidden cameras
>> [hidden in a tree, the cameras would take a picture of your license
>> plate, then the cops would mail you a picture of your car with a speed
>> the camera clocked you doing, plus a fine you had to pay] to catch
>> speeders? This used to be a big controversy in the late 1980s and early
>> 1990s [especially in Florida where violators charged the various
>> departments with bypassing their due-process], but I haven't heard anything
>> since early 1992; when Fairfax County started installing these things
>> around the county.
I've heard that they are removing this system in Canada because it
didn't work, i.e. on roads where it was installed, traffic did not
slow down. Oh sure, no doubt some "perpatrators were apprehended",
but apparently the more enlightened Canadians kept in mind the
real objective for implementation of this system. "Photo radar"
was discussed here not long ago; the following posts are of interest.
In article <3riuat$bl4@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, sorandi@wam.umd.edu said:
>Ernie Pittarelli (epittare@csc.com) wrote:
>: sorandi@wam.umd.edu (Persepolis) wrote:
>: monitoring devices to enforce the laws. Whatever happened to privacy
>: and due process? What possible chance do you have to defend yourself
>
>Do you feel the same way about surveilance camera's in banks and ATM
>machines? And how about a house or car alarm? baby monitor?
Surveillance cameras in banks and ATM machines are not there to enforce the
law. They are there because the owner of this private property wanted to
monitor that property. Same thing with house and car alarms.
To compare a baby monitor to photo radar is beyond ridiculous.
Photo radar is being used not to supplement the observations of an officer,
but to REPLACE an officer. You are being accused and convicted by a machine
and there is nothing you can do about it. That is WRONG. Surveillance used
without just cause for suspicion is a tool of oppression.
We have a traffic law/enforcement system now that is rife with abuse. To
make this system even more adept at treating motorists as cash cows is not
in the best interests of society. The current system fosters resentment of
and contempt for the police and the courts. And you want to make this worse?
>The only reason you
>are feeling a pinch on your privacy is because a percent[age] of the
>population
>have taken liberties with am[b]iguous laws, and this in turns causes all of
>us to lose a little of our freedom.
I believe it was Ben Franklin that said "those who are willing to sacrifice
liberty in order to have security deserve neither" or similar wording.
Excusing invasion of (other people's) privacy in order to enhance (your)
security is not acceptable in a free society.
> against a citation that allegedly occurred weeks or months before when you
> didn't even know that you had been observed speeding? Or are you just assuming
> that all of these photo radar machines will work flawlessly?
>
>With this line of reasoning, you should propose an alternate method of
>enforcing such law.
[snip]
>You see, there ARE NO devices which are error proof. There will always
>be error and what we can do is to hope that we can advance technology
>to minimize error.
That is why we have a court system where one can confront one's accuser.
Michael Johnson
Relay Technology, Inc.
Follow-Ups: