vcheng says, "P.P.S. Also, If you can blithley say "so what" to one type of illegal activity (Quote: "You brought up one instance where it was discovered that the cameras were "illegally" recording. I say "so what?" about that" Then why are you worked so worked up at another "illegal" activity like speeding? "
Au Contraire..........
One is illegal with no negative consequences. That unused video has harmed no one.
One is illegal with severe negative consequences. Speeding harms a lot of people.
vcheng says, "All modern vehicles have OBD-2. The newer proposed standards for OBD-3 have a GPS module built in. If that system is mandated, then any vehicle, 24/7, can keep a record of where it is, and what the speed limit is at that location, and keep records that can be downloaded wirelessly and a fine generated. (If you think that this is mere speculation or paranoia, please see: http://asashop.org/autoinc/may/obd_iii_new.cfm)"
I would absolutely approve of that system, were it made workable and proven technically sound.
I've got no reason to hide where I've been or how fast I went while getting there. Do you?
Without seeing the survey methods, I'm willing to bet the sample included nothing but land-line phone respondents (probably in Sun City no less). Just like all the surveys that had the presidential election much closer than it was, those phone surveys failed to capture adequate samples of people under 50 years of age. Why? Because only older people (the most steadfast supporters of big government programs) rely on landlines as their primary communications device. My landline phone is used for dialing 911 and as a backup for receiving emergency phone calls. Survey companies don't yet have my cellphone numbers and on the rare occasion that I get a call from a number I don't know, I let it go to voice mail. If it's important, they'll leave a message (or call my trusty backup). When a survey company manages to fool me into answering, I don't have time for their nonsense. Older people are more likely to sit there and pontificate to the minimum wage earner who is paid to listen to their opinions.
"Survey says: 60% for photo radar, 31% against. That's a substantial margin. Guess there is not much need for this board going forward. Using your logic we could immediately eliminate abortion-on-demand, ethanol, NAFTA, amnesty for illegal immigrants, trials for heinous criminals, funding for the arts, equal opportunity programs, english as a second language classes, work on Mondays, corporate bonuses to failed bankers and investment managers, and overweight flight attendants who crash into shoulders ever time they go down the aisle.
Now that I think about it, I sort of like your logic...
vinnyny says, "...land-line phone respondents (probably in Sun City no less). "
Yes, because the more mature you get, the more you realize that catching speeders with the least possible resources is a reasonable thing to achieve.
The more and more time I spend looking into it, the more strongly I believe that photo radar opposition is all about the need to speed, and not much else.
That is your opinion about consequences. Both are illegal activities. One illegal activity just stole 174 million dollars from the good people of Arizona.
Views cannot be by definition untrue or true. Only facts can be thus.
So Photo radar will be made obsolete soon, tha't great news I agree.
"I've got no reason to hide where I've been or how fast I went while getting there."
That is what you like to think. Why don't we let a paid employee figure out the best way to maximize the fine that somebody else has decided that you may owe. May be your pattern of driving indicates that you might or might not be kerb crawling.
That is good to know that you are an upright solid citizen just like I am, but totally irrelevant to the issue of photo radar in the present discussion.
... understand your views a bit better. Not that I agree with you, but I can see where you are coming from.
The OBD-3/GPS issue is another example of how we as a society need to talk about the implications of technology and its potential to impact our lives, for better and worse.
The issues with the Fourth amendment have not been worked out yet with OBD-3, and also not with photo radar. I have tried to support my points with evidence. I now understand you views better, unsupported as they are, but if possible, some more facts and sources would be vey helpful to convince me.
You're just a glutton for punishment! At what point are you going to stop banging your head against the wall and realize that these guys read "1984" and thought: "What a great idea!" You can stand at the edge of the cliff waving your arms and shouting all you want, but the lemmings are still going diving.
Until one of their family members is refused life-saving surgery because their in-vehicle monitoring system showed that they were doing 1 mph over the limit when they crashed, they won't see the problems associated with the Orwellian tactics applied by our incompetent bureaucracies.
I have no trouble seeing how some people could view photo radar as an invasion of privacy. I see how they could feel that way, but it is in my mind a completely unreasonable stance to take.
When you break it down, TO ME it's absolutely not different at all ( from a privacy perspective ) than if a human officer with a dashcam stops you and asks you to get out of the vehicle and takes a 5-minute video of you and your license plate.
No one is successfully complaining in the court system about that dashcam procedure being a supposed invasion of privacy, and that seems to me to be way more invasive than a single snapshot of a speeding driver.
vinnyny says, "At what point are you going to stop banging your head against the wall and realize that these guys read "1984" and thought: "What a great idea!"
No, I never read 1984 and thought "what a great idea!"
vinnyny says, "Until one of their family members is refused life-saving surgery because their in-vehicle monitoring system showed that they were doing 1 mph over the limit when they crashed"
If all you can come up as a good argument is that sort of science fiction, then I feel for you.
Do you know of ANY society in the world which allows/condones an injured speeder to die?
No, I didn't think so.
Subliminal message to photo radar opponents: Admit it......you just want to speed unimpeded......c'mon, admit it............:)
larsb: "No, actually, it is something I completely know. Not an opinion. A fact. "
Didn't the Church try to convince Galileo that his theory was wrong, since the Church knew for a fact, absolutely surely, that the sun and the heavens rotated around the Earth?
Your statement may be paraphrasing it, but please don't take any unintended offence when I say that sounds awfully like that approach.
If it is indeed fact, can you please present some evidence to shore up your argument?
At what point do you say taking everyones picture is a violation of our rights? You do know there are people that object to men standing by a school yard and photograph children? You do know that TV stations are supposed to get permission to take and show your picture? You do know it is Illegal for a employer covertly tape by sound alone or video a conversation with a employee? If none of these people are doing anything wrong why would we consider it illegal? If you aren't doing anything wrong at home why is it ilegal to tap your phone?
You do know the legislature in Texas has ruled it is a rights issue. You know the Governor of Arizona said he hates photo radar for some of the same reasons? Do you feel we would be in a better world if all TV sets could record their viewers so everyone could be monitored? Once a right is given up the opportunity for misuse rears its ugly head. It has already happened in your state because the company taking the photos admitted they have been keeping the film longer than promised. In other words they already broke their own rules.
All things like Photo Radar do is turn the whole area into one giant low security prison. This isn't the case of after the speed was exceeded a picture is snapped the picture is recorder before anything happens. It is like being searched before you leave the grocery store. If you didn't take anything why care?
As far as Science fiction goes, THX1138. A world where the state monitors everyone.
Using your logic we could immediately eliminate abortion-on-demand, ethanol, NAFTA, amnesty for illegal immigrants, trials for heinous criminals, funding for the arts, equal opportunity programs, english as a second language classes,
Re my comments on the 60/30 "favorable" to photo radar survey - I said only that there might not be a need for the related Edmunds board. I had raised questions in previous posts whether aclus around the country were examining the legal question about photo radar "and" also expressed that maybe the Supreme Court could get involved in the question.
On side issue of funding for the arts - those citizens of the US, and also the many illegals, can support funding for the arts if they choose by writing a check and sending to the appropriate entity. The arts should not be funded with taxpayer dollars. Artists' (music, sculpture, movies, paintings, etc) works should survive and prosper on their merits and the marketplace.
Excellent to hear that you were not rendered paranoid after reading it. I did not turn paranoid after reading it either. However, I was impressed by its applicability to the inappropriate use of technology.
What impression did you form of his book? If the hosts think that is not relevant to this forum, please email me. My address should be visible to you in my profile.
To me, whatever is established societal or court-based allowed or disallowed is fine with me. If California courts say it's illegal for a suspected pedophile to take pics of kids in public, then it is illegal.
I don't lose any rights when that happens.
You and I, as a part of society, make plays in those decisions. We elect people who vote on or then appoint people who make these decisions.
FBI/NSA/whomever can come tap my phone right now. I would not lose any rights.
They can do an infrared scan too. I would not lose a right.
In fact, they want to come in and search my house, that's fine too. I would not lose any rights.
Anyone who wants to know what I watch on TV can come ahead and do so. I would not lose any rights.
They can search me and my kids when I leave Wal-Mart too if they want. I would not lose anything.
Your tying all that into Photo radar is kinda "reaching" in my opinion though.
Even if a ton of other "privacy invasions" were to be made acceptable practices, taking a picture of a speeder sitting in his/her car is not any kind of invasion.
This is merely a prediction based upon historical observation. The scientific process would be to determine why it comes up and goes down, and that is what led to the confrontation between Galileo and the Church, did it not?
Without seeing the survey methods, I'm willing to bet the sample included nothing but land-line phone respondents (probably in Sun City no less).
If you can speculate, so can I. I might guess that a majority teen age boys, single men in their early 20's would be against practice of photo radar. This is the same demo that has highest auto insurance rates because of their accident/crash and driving records.
The tone I see in the response is derogatory toward senior citizens and is not deserved.
Oh good Lord...............that book was a minor blip in my past, 20 years ago, among the thousands of other books I have read in my lifetime.
To try and remember for you: I don't know that I formed any kind of impression per se, but I do remember being kinda amused at how some of my classmates were affected during the class discussions. I can see where the book would cause undue paranoia in some people, but I'm just not that kind of person.
I was 25 and had already been around the world as a Marine, and most of my classmates were wet-behind-the-ears young adults. I guess that had something to do with it. I was less impressionable at the time, so the book "made less of an impression" on me.
Well, there is no "scientific process" which I can use to prove that I've got ABSOLUTELY no reason to hide where I've been or how fast I went while getting there.
How about reading it again with the benefit of your maturity and lifetime experiences, and in view of all the technology that is new since you read it? I hope you have the time, but that may not be the case.
"Without seeing the survey methods, I'm willing to bet the sample included nothing but land-line phone respondents (probably in Sun City no less).
If you can speculate, so can I. I might guess that a majority teen age boys, single men in their early 20's would be against practice of photo radar."
That is precisely why I would request everybody post links and references where they use a fact to bolster thier argument so that everybody can think about the data, rather than shouting "I am right, no I am right" back and forth.
In fact, they want to come in and search my house, that's fine too. I would not lose any rights.
Anyone who wants to know what I watch on TV can come ahead and do so. I would not lose any rights.
They can search me and my kids when I leave Wal-Mart too if they want. I would not lose anything.
Do not agree with any of the above. Cops better have a search warrant to get into my house. Absolutely nobody's business what I watch on tv or what I read.
For paranoid types here, don't ever buy a book with membership card and/or credit card at Borders, Costco, Sams, Barnes, etc. Use cash only and look if any security camera watching you at cash register.
To extent that photo radar running continuously 24/7, I would disagree with and would organize citizens/drivers to oppose any such thing in my area. I do agree that photo radar should only trigger camera when speed of vehicle is beyond the 10+ margin. The law has been violated and the perpetrator should be identified and punished.
That is precisely why I would request everybody post links and references where they use a fact to bolster thier argument so that everybody can think about the data, rather than shouting "I am right, no I am right" back and forth.
To extent that governments have adequate programs to assure that photo radar equipment is calibrated and accurate 24/7, then speeders 10+ over have no justification for complaint about being caught. I would also add that oversight and control of equipment should be by duly bonded, or similar method, government employees and not the vendor/supplier of the equipment.
If there is the clear need for such controls for the use of the technology compatible with our laws, then why not replace it with OBD-3-GPS as discussed above?
I think 1984 is relevant. Everyone is doing nicely at staying on topic.
Larsb, thanks for your service to the country. But should we turn from Always Faithful to Always Watched? Shall we change the Marine Corps motto to Semper Spy now? :shades:
I think that people's privacy concerns about cameras everywhere are real with ample opportunity for misuse. Especially since there are other, less invasive methods of discouraging speeding or red light running.
steve says, "But should we turn from Always Faithful to Always Watched? Shall we change the Marine Corps motto to Semper Spy now? "
No, of course not.
But I gave up FAR more privacy by serving in the USMC than I ever will from getting a photo radar ticket. They got my fingerprint, my health records, my addresses for six years, etc. If I were a worrier about the info "THEY" had on me, my service time gave "them" far more than one snapshot ever could.
And extrapolating a photo radar pic used one time into worrying about 24 hour surveillance is a LITTLE bit of a stretch, no?
All I'm saying is that worrying about your privacy rights because of one little picture of you sitting in your car, driving, speeding, is burning up some unnecessary paranoia.
You are using more than your sharanoia, and then someday you might need it for a REAL privacy invasion, but then you already used it up ( cried wolf ) worrying about a little single snapshot.
larsb: "All I'm saying is that worrying about your privacy rights because of one little picture of you sitting in your car, driving, speeding, is burning up some unnecessary paranoia. "
... that innocent picture is fraught with consequences, which I have referenced above, including live video recording 24/7 that was hidden from the Arizona legislature, plus other examples as well, of less than ethical conduct by politicians, private contractors and police.
Let me rephrase my question, based on you previous statment that we are talking about the CONCEPT of photo radar, not what can go wrong with it. Can you describe to me what the the proper implementation, in your opinion, of photo radar, that would be compatible with our Constitution? In other words, what do you think should be the proper failsafe mechanisms that would be required to use it as intended?
I thank you too for your service in the Marines, but please remember that Lee Harvey Oswald was an ex-marine too. I mean no disrespect, but merely trying to point out that a proper legal system cannot work on the honour system alone. Larsb may be the ideal Honest Joe, but not everybody will be, including those entrusted with running a photo radar system. So what safegurads must be built into the system to allows "paranoid freaks" or "concerned citizens" to accepting the system?
vcheng says, "...that innocent picture is fraught with consequences, which I have referenced above, including live video recording 24/7 that was hidden from the Arizona legislature."
No, no, a thousand times NO !! I'm not talking about the video situation - it's an anomaly and not applicable to this discussion about PROPERLY FUNCTIONING photo radar systems !!!
But since you insist on talking about it, answer my question about the live streaming video ( unrelated to photo radar) which is routinely recorded every day on freeways around this country and around the world. And in public library parking lots. Is that an invasion? If not, why not?
And to answer this question you posed:
vcheng asked, "Can you describe to me what the the proper implementation, in your opinion, of photo radar, that would be compatible with our Constitution? In other words, what do you think should be the proper failsafe mechanisms that would be required to use it as intended?"
Yes. Any manner in which it is done which involves a single picture of a single driver combined with the radar speed and a single picture of the license plate. But nothing about it is an invasion of privacy. You cannot legally expect "privacy" in the public domain, as reiterated by the courts over and over so far.
Even the "illegal video" you seem to love to refer to was not a violation of the Constitution, because it was not used to deny anyone their privacy.
You cannot legally expect "privacy" in the public domain
Sure you can - just because I'm cruising in the library parking lot doesn't give anyone the right to zoom in and see what books I'm reading or what DVDs I'm returning.
The Arizona Constitution on this issue merely states, “no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”
Over the years, many cases have been brought to court with privacy rights questions, and one by one courts have refused to rule on a citizens privacy expectation whether someone has been accidentally or purposely exposed to the public.
In other words, once you hit the open road and expose yourself to public areas such as the freeways that have cameras waiting, you have no expectation of privacy.
It's not completely solid law, but so far, there have been no major victories which I know about for the "paranoia" crowd.
And on the "library camera" issue - I don't know of any case which has made public libraries shut down their surveillance systems. Or Wal-Mart.
Wal-Marts are private property so that could be argued as being a bit different than someone expecting to enjoy a modicum of privacy out on public property.
My library doesn't keep records of what patrons have checked out, so anyone in law enforcement trying to do a Clarence Thomas on me would have to be get permission from a judge, who hopefully will look at each situation on a case by case basis.
But the library parking lot camera could be used by anyone with access to the camera to try to embarrass people. Cameras can do that.
larsb: "Over the years, many cases have been brought to court with privacy rights questions, and one by one courts have refused to rule on a citizens privacy expectation whether someone has been accidentally or purposely exposed to the public."
Forgive me for being sceptical, but your Kendall 2004 (the only specific reference you have quoted) turned out to be a bit of a damp squib, not a Supreme Court decision.
Can you please give me specific court cases with links, like I have to done to support my statments, that one can read as to their relevance and what their judgements might be applicable to?
One also has to be able show that why the court's decision is applicable by extension to photo radar as we are discussing it.
The point of my post was that today's surveys tend to capture the opinions of older respondents--for the specific reasons cited. It wasn't meant to be derogatory. Furthermore, I think the assertion that older respondents are more likely to favor governmental controls is a fair statement.
As I get more and more into the older demographic (56), I guess I'll have to disagree with your second sentence. Sometimes I think it's just the opposite in fact.
Some older citizens are more interested in the effects of "over-government" (if there is such a word) and the younger demographics are sometimes accused of being more apathetic towards societal issues.
In either case, I think it behooves both demographics to behave politely: The younger people should not come across as derogatory, and the older crowd should not prosletyze from a bully pulpit and take the approach that says "Only I know what is good for you".
"...I gave up FAR more privacy by serving in the USMC than I ever will from getting a photo radar ticket..."
True, but I assume it was your CHOICE to join the military. Photo Radar is like being drafted, no choice. People were resistant to being drafted so they did away with it. So it should be for photo radar.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Comments
Of course, different people are entitled to learn different lessons from the same experiences!
Au Contraire..........
One is illegal with no negative consequences. That unused video has harmed no one.
One is illegal with severe negative consequences. Speeding harms a lot of people.
Là se trouve la différence.
I would absolutely approve of that system, were it made workable and proven technically sound.
I've got no reason to hide where I've been or how fast I went while getting there. Do you?
"Survey says: 60% for photo radar, 31% against. That's a substantial margin. Guess there is not much need for this board going forward. Using your logic we could immediately eliminate abortion-on-demand, ethanol, NAFTA, amnesty for illegal immigrants, trials for heinous criminals, funding for the arts, equal opportunity programs, english as a second language classes, work on Mondays, corporate bonuses to failed bankers and investment managers, and overweight flight attendants who crash into shoulders ever time they go down the aisle.
Now that I think about it, I sort of like your logic...
Yes, because the more mature you get, the more you realize that catching speeders with the least possible resources is a reasonable thing to achieve.
The more and more time I spend looking into it, the more strongly I believe that photo radar opposition is all about the need to speed, and not much else.
Theoretical thinking is housed in academia comforted by other philosops with little or no experience in the behavorial sciences. :P
Views cannot be by definition untrue or true. Only facts can be thus.
There is no contest here, and thus there is no winner.
"I've got no reason to hide where I've been or how fast I went while getting there."
That is what you like to think. Why don't we let a paid employee figure out the best way to maximize the fine that somebody else has decided that you may owe. May be your pattern of driving indicates that you might or might not be kerb crawling.
No, actually, it is something I completely know. Not an opinion. A fact.
I've got ABSOLUTELY no reason to hide where I've been or how fast I went while getting there.
The OBD-3/GPS issue is another example of how we as a society need to talk about the implications of technology and its potential to impact our lives, for better and worse.
The issues with the Fourth amendment have not been worked out yet with OBD-3, and also not with photo radar. I have tried to support my points with evidence. I now understand you views better, unsupported as they are, but if possible, some more facts and sources would be vey helpful to convince me.
Until one of their family members is refused life-saving surgery because their in-vehicle monitoring system showed that they were doing 1 mph over the limit when they crashed, they won't see the problems associated with the Orwellian tactics applied by our incompetent bureaucracies.
I have no trouble seeing how some people could view photo radar as an invasion of privacy. I see how they could feel that way, but it is in my mind a completely unreasonable stance to take.
When you break it down, TO ME it's absolutely not different at all ( from a privacy perspective ) than if a human officer with a dashcam stops you and asks you to get out of the vehicle and takes a 5-minute video of you and your license plate.
No one is successfully complaining in the court system about that dashcam procedure being a supposed invasion of privacy, and that seems to me to be way more invasive than a single snapshot of a speeding driver.
No, I never read 1984 and thought "what a great idea!"
vinnyny says, "Until one of their family members is refused life-saving surgery because their in-vehicle monitoring system showed that they were doing 1 mph over the limit when they crashed"
If all you can come up as a good argument is that sort of science fiction, then I feel for you.
Do you know of ANY society in the world which allows/condones an injured speeder to die?
No, I didn't think so.
Subliminal message to photo radar opponents: Admit it......you just want to speed unimpeded......c'mon, admit it............:)
Didn't the Church try to convince Galileo that his theory was wrong, since the Church knew for a fact, absolutely surely, that the sun and the heavens rotated around the Earth?
Your statement may be paraphrasing it, but please don't take any unintended offence when I say that sounds awfully like that approach.
If it is indeed fact, can you please present some evidence to shore up your argument?
You do know the legislature in Texas has ruled it is a rights issue. You know the Governor of Arizona said he hates photo radar for some of the same reasons? Do you feel we would be in a better world if all TV sets could record their viewers so everyone could be monitored? Once a right is given up the opportunity for misuse rears its ugly head. It has already happened in your state because the company taking the photos admitted they have been keeping the film longer than promised. In other words they already broke their own rules.
All things like Photo Radar do is turn the whole area into one giant low security prison. This isn't the case of after the speed was exceeded a picture is snapped the picture is recorder before anything happens. It is like being searched before you leave the grocery store. If you didn't take anything why care?
As far as Science fiction goes, THX1138. A world where the state monitors everyone.
Some things are just KNOWN.
You "know" the sun is coming up tomorrow. Can you provide me "EVIDENCE" to prove it?
What kind of "Proof" that "I've got ABSOLUTELY no reason to hide where I've been or how fast I went while getting there" would you require?
If you can give me something tangible I can use to prove it, then I surely will do so.
Re my comments on the 60/30 "favorable" to photo radar survey - I said only that there might not be a need for the related Edmunds board. I had raised questions in previous posts whether aclus around the country were examining the legal question about photo radar "and" also expressed that maybe the Supreme Court could get involved in the question.
On side issue of funding for the arts - those citizens of the US, and also the many illegals, can support funding for the arts if they choose by writing a check and sending to the appropriate entity. The arts should not be funded with taxpayer dollars. Artists' (music, sculpture, movies, paintings, etc) works should survive and prosper on their merits and the marketplace.
What impression did you form of his book? If the hosts think that is not relevant to this forum, please email me. My address should be visible to you in my profile.
I don't lose any rights when that happens.
You and I, as a part of society, make plays in those decisions. We elect people who vote on or then appoint people who make these decisions.
FBI/NSA/whomever can come tap my phone right now. I would not lose any rights.
They can do an infrared scan too. I would not lose a right.
In fact, they want to come in and search my house, that's fine too. I would not lose any rights.
Anyone who wants to know what I watch on TV can come ahead and do so. I would not lose any rights.
They can search me and my kids when I leave Wal-Mart too if they want. I would not lose anything.
Your tying all that into Photo radar is kinda "reaching" in my opinion though.
Even if a ton of other "privacy invasions" were to be made acceptable practices, taking a picture of a speeder sitting in his/her car is not any kind of invasion.
This is merely a prediction based upon historical observation. The scientific process would be to determine why it comes up and goes down, and that is what led to the confrontation between Galileo and the Church, did it not?
If you can speculate, so can I. I might guess that a majority teen age boys, single men in their early 20's would be against practice of photo radar. This is the same demo that has highest auto insurance rates because of their accident/crash and driving records.
The tone I see in the response is derogatory toward senior citizens and is not deserved.
To try and remember for you: I don't know that I formed any kind of impression per se, but I do remember being kinda amused at how some of my classmates were affected during the class discussions. I can see where the book would cause undue paranoia in some people, but I'm just not that kind of person.
I was 25 and had already been around the world as a Marine, and most of my classmates were wet-behind-the-ears young adults. I guess that had something to do with it. I was less impressionable at the time, so the book "made less of an impression" on me.
That still does not make it less of a fact.
If you can speculate, so can I. I might guess that a majority teen age boys, single men in their early 20's would be against practice of photo radar."
That is precisely why I would request everybody post links and references where they use a fact to bolster thier argument so that everybody can think about the data, rather than shouting "I am right, no I am right" back and forth.
Anyone who wants to know what I watch on TV can come ahead and do so. I would not lose any rights.
They can search me and my kids when I leave Wal-Mart too if they want. I would not lose anything.
Do not agree with any of the above. Cops better have a search warrant to get into my house. Absolutely nobody's business what I watch on tv or what I read.
For paranoid types here, don't ever buy a book with membership card and/or credit card at Borders, Costco, Sams, Barnes, etc. Use cash only and look if any security camera watching you at cash register.
To extent that photo radar running continuously 24/7, I would disagree with and would organize citizens/drivers to oppose any such thing in my area. I do agree that photo radar should only trigger camera when speed of vehicle is beyond the 10+ margin. The law has been violated and the perpetrator should be identified and punished.
Yeah vinnyny, some of us old farts are hell on wheels. Of course those wheels are on our chairs but we can still spin `em if we want.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
To extent that governments have adequate programs to assure that photo radar equipment is calibrated and accurate 24/7, then speeders 10+ over have no justification for complaint about being caught. I would also add that oversight and control of equipment should be by duly bonded, or similar method, government employees and not the vendor/supplier of the equipment.
Except for times when I shower, I would not have a problem living in a glass house. (believe me, no one wants to see that situation anyway.)
To me, none of that other stuff has anything to do with photo radar.
I don't see it as any kind of privacy issue AT ALL.
Larsb, thanks for your service to the country. But should we turn from Always Faithful to Always Watched? Shall we change the Marine Corps motto to Semper Spy now? :shades:
I think that people's privacy concerns about cameras everywhere are real with ample opportunity for misuse. Especially since there are other, less invasive methods of discouraging speeding or red light running.
No, of course not.
But I gave up FAR more privacy by serving in the USMC than I ever will from getting a photo radar ticket. They got my fingerprint, my health records, my addresses for six years, etc. If I were a worrier about the info "THEY" had on me, my service time gave "them" far more than one snapshot ever could.
And extrapolating a photo radar pic used one time into worrying about 24 hour surveillance is a LITTLE bit of a stretch, no?
All I'm saying is that worrying about your privacy rights because of one little picture of you sitting in your car, driving, speeding, is burning up some unnecessary paranoia.
You are using more than your sharanoia, and then someday you might need it for a REAL privacy invasion, but then you already used it up ( cried wolf ) worrying about a little single snapshot.
... that innocent picture is fraught with consequences, which I have referenced above, including live video recording 24/7 that was hidden from the Arizona legislature, plus other examples as well, of less than ethical conduct by politicians, private contractors and police.
Let me rephrase my question, based on you previous statment that we are talking about the CONCEPT of photo radar, not what can go wrong with it. Can you describe to me what the the proper implementation, in your opinion, of photo radar, that would be compatible with our Constitution? In other words, what do you think should be the proper failsafe mechanisms that would be required to use it as intended?
I thank you too for your service in the Marines, but please remember that Lee Harvey Oswald was an ex-marine too. I mean no disrespect, but merely trying to point out that a proper legal system cannot work on the honour system alone. Larsb may be the ideal Honest Joe, but not everybody will be, including those entrusted with running a photo radar system. So what safegurads must be built into the system to allows "paranoid freaks" or "concerned citizens" to accepting the system?
It's that slippery slope thing again. And there's other, less invasive ways to accomplish the same goal.
(thanks for taking the Marine pun in good graces too
No, no, a thousand times NO !! I'm not talking about the video situation - it's an anomaly and not applicable to this discussion about PROPERLY FUNCTIONING photo radar systems !!!
But since you insist on talking about it, answer my question about the live streaming video ( unrelated to photo radar) which is routinely recorded every day on freeways around this country and around the world. And in public library parking lots. Is that an invasion? If not, why not?
And to answer this question you posed:
vcheng asked, "Can you describe to me what the the proper implementation, in your opinion, of photo radar, that would be compatible with our Constitution? In other words, what do you think should be the proper failsafe mechanisms that would be required to use it as intended?"
Yes. Any manner in which it is done which involves a single picture of a single driver combined with the radar speed and a single picture of the license plate. But nothing about it is an invasion of privacy. You cannot legally expect "privacy" in the public domain, as reiterated by the courts over and over so far.
Even the "illegal video" you seem to love to refer to was not a violation of the Constitution, because it was not used to deny anyone their privacy.
Sure you can - just because I'm cruising in the library parking lot doesn't give anyone the right to zoom in and see what books I'm reading or what DVDs I'm returning.
The Arizona Constitution on this issue merely states, “no person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”
Over the years, many cases have been brought to court with privacy rights questions, and one by one courts have refused to rule on a citizens privacy expectation whether someone has been accidentally or purposely exposed to the public.
In other words, once you hit the open road and expose yourself to public areas such as the freeways that have cameras waiting, you have no expectation of privacy.
It's not completely solid law, but so far, there have been no major victories which I know about for the "paranoia" crowd.
And on the "library camera" issue - I don't know of any case which has made public libraries shut down their surveillance systems. Or Wal-Mart.
My library doesn't keep records of what patrons have checked out, so anyone in law enforcement trying to do a Clarence Thomas on me would have to be get permission from a judge, who hopefully will look at each situation on a case by case basis.
But the library parking lot camera could be used by anyone with access to the camera to try to embarrass people. Cameras can do that.
Forgive me for being sceptical, but your Kendall 2004 (the only specific reference you have quoted) turned out to be a bit of a damp squib, not a Supreme Court decision.
Can you please give me specific court cases with links, like I have to done to support my statments, that one can read as to their relevance and what their judgements might be applicable to?
One also has to be able show that why the court's decision is applicable by extension to photo radar as we are discussing it.
Some older citizens are more interested in the effects of "over-government" (if there is such a word) and the younger demographics are sometimes accused of being more apathetic towards societal issues.
In either case, I think it behooves both demographics to behave politely: The younger people should not come across as derogatory, and the older crowd should not prosletyze from a bully pulpit and take the approach that says "Only I know what is good for you".
Either pitfall is self-defeating in the long run.
True, but I assume it was your CHOICE to join the military. Photo Radar is like being drafted, no choice. People were resistant to being drafted so they did away with it. So it should be for photo radar.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Wow, you ARE old. Who woulda thunk?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible