|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 08/05/2001 : 20:48:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Different situations and you are missing the point.
I'd rather shop in a store with camera and pay that way then pay because of shoplifters. It is their choice to put the cameras on their own property.
Bravo, Snake! 
quote:
No, when you are on tape after the police catch you it's for both your and the police protection to know what happens during that time. It means a live officer saw something that appeared to be wrong.
Exactly. I was all pumped up to make these responses, but you beat me to it. 
Wendy Jones
 That's ok. Others have said what I wanted to, before. Glad at least someone agrees with me. Thanks.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
 |
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2001 : 03:17:33 [Permalink]
|
Wouldn't a photograph of a person going through a red light be proof that said person is a criminal?
Also whilst they may not learn quickly they tend to after a few times, if say after running the light 3 times then they lose their licence for a period of time.
Thats a very good way to teach people, pariculary if they end up losing their job because of it.
If you like your government the way it is then you should just live with whatever they do. When you don't, get out.
I would like to know why private enterprise is any different to government. Except that the population has more control over the government and the government is always a monopoly there isn't much difference.
Anyway, corporations can be worse then governments.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Penyprity
Skeptic Friend
64 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2001 : 18:35:24 [Permalink]
|
Bravo, Wendy and Snake. I couldn't agree more. Bestonnet, you seem to be under the impression that the government and private enterprise are the same thing. I can open up a book store and put cameras up to prevent shoplifting. That is my right if I own the business. I can not own the government. At best, I have a voice in our government (the last presidential election aside) but I cannot own it. I am a very small cog in a huge machine. Comparing the rights of an individual against government to an individual in a private business is silly. And what makes you think that taking a persons license away will keep them from driving. Or that if they get into enough trouble with the law, their behavior would change. How many times do we see horrible accidents with whole familys lost due to a drunk driver with prior DUI's. These people often drive without licenses and their behavior usually goes unchanged, even after they have killed someone. So, do I think cameras at an intersection will work to teach bad drivers a lesson. NO!!! I do agree that being a defensive driver is the only way to drive. I have become a very conservative driver. I have also been hit in an intersection by someone running a red light. No camera would have helped me that day, I can assure you. I prefer the eye witness I had (flesh and blood type) instead of a camera that, depending on the angle or the time of day or the position of the sun...
No thanks, I will keep hold of this little bit of privacy and personal freedom I still may have then to allow the government another view of my life. And if the good folks at Borders want to watch me shop, well, I hope they enjoy the view.
BTW, the law accepts my car as my personal space. Thus, cannot be entered without just cause or warrant. If I have given an officer just cause, then to bad for me. But if someone were outside my home taking pictures at the window, they would be arrested as a peeping tom, invasion of privacy, stalking...and a number of other crimes I could name. How is it so different if the government is taking pictures of me inside my car? This is also my private space.
Make your vote count. Become a supreme court justice......Peny |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2001 : 19:23:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Wouldn't a photograph of a person going through a red light be proof that said person is a criminal?
OMG!!! Have they taken that Right away from us already? I thought a criminal was someone who was CONVICTED of a crime.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2001 : 19:37:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I can open up a book store and put cameras up to prevent shoplifting. That is my right if I own the business. I can not own the government.
Thanks Peny. We'll make a good Libertarian out of you yet, ha ha.
quote:
At best, I have a voice in our government (the last presidential election aside)
LOL.
quote:
How many times do we see horrible accidents with whole familys lost due to a drunk driver with prior DUI's. These people often drive without licenses and their behavior usually goes unchanged, even after they have killed someone.
We certainly do see that here in California.
quote:
BTW, the law accepts my car as my personal space. Thus, cannot be entered without just cause or warrant. If I have given an officer just cause, then to bad for me. But if someone were outside my home taking pictures at the window, they would be arrested as a peeping tom, invasion of privacy, stalking...and a number of other crimes I could name. How is it so different if the government is taking pictures of me inside my car? This is also my private space.
Hadn't thought about that. Another good argument. BTW, it's called PC(probable cause)when an officer sees something suppious he can stop you. And if he asks to look in your car trunk, you don't have to let him. Just in case they take you to jail, (you might want to double chk, but when I worked with the police, I'm sure that's what they told us), so don't blame me.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2001 : 21:11:29 [Permalink]
|
Isn't speeding probable cause for snapping a photo? A street is a public place.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2001 : 23:26:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Isn't speeding probable cause for snapping a photo? A street is a public place.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
That I can't tell you. I only know about searching ones person, physicaly. I guess that's why we are debating this.
But then again.....a camera is NOT a cop. Not someone you can refuse to be searched by.
Unlessssss!
COP means 'Camera on Patrol' instead of 'Constable on Patrol'.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 02:41:01 [Permalink]
|
Should people who drive without a licence be allowed in society in the first place?
Usually there is a reason for them not having a licence (they haven't passed the test, did enough road rule breaking, etc). So if they don't stay away from a car they shouldn't be allowed to get near one.
If someone killed someone when they were driving because they were speeding or drunk or on drugs or ran a red light then they should be charged with manslaugher (they are over here).
The advantage of cameras is that they will only photograph when a person does run it, which is PC for doing so. Although you must know that over here PC isn't needed, in fact Random Breath tests have lowered the road toll by quite a bit.
As far as I'm concerned the red light cameras are pretty much just a witness to a crime.
One that wont lie or forget and which will only record the crime.
Defensive driving is the best way. But it doesn't always work.
As for Government and Private Enterprise, I don't remember saying they are the same. Is that just a misinterpretation or a strawman argument?
I know they are different, but one must recognise that they often operate much the same. However there are differences.
When a business gets a monopoly product quality falls, prices go up and the competition can't get in because it is too hard to compete against them.
With government when enough people get pissed off a new one replaces it. It's a lot easier to get government changed then corporations.
Going to a more direct democracy (don't go completely direct) would be helpful as well.
Although all those libertarians on this forum. Is it really for skeptics? Or libertarian extremists?
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer.
Edited by - bestonnet_00 on 08/10/2001 02:42:28 |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 06:24:52 [Permalink]
|
To Wendy, Snake, Penyprity...
Excellent rebuttals and responses. Now for a true crime-stoppers story from the files of Cleveland, Ohio.
A county sheriff was responding to a crime in progress and roared through an intersection against the light with lights on and siren wailing (so he testified). WHAM! He hit a sedan broadside that had the green light, but didn't stop for the siren. Witnesses said that the sheriff didn't hit the siren until almost on top of the intersection, not giving motorists enough time to respond. Now the fun part. The accident was recorded by a security camera atttached to a private building that was monitoring its parking lot. The intersection was in the camera's field of view. The plaintiff (sedan occupants) argued that the video should be admissible as evidence as it showed the accident at the intersection. The sedan occupants were not responding to the sheriff's siren as it was not on at the time. The defense (sheriff's department) argued to exclude the video...
a). since there was no audio, it could not be determined at what point the occupants could / should have heard the siren.
b). It was a private security camera whose function was NOT traffic surveillance and was therefore NOT "tuned" to optimal surveillance of a public interection.
Your ruling, your Honor? |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 07:04:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
b). It was a private security camera whose function was NOT traffic surveillance and was therefore NOT "tuned" to optimal surveillance of a public interection.
DAMN! make that "intersection"!!!  Sorry, Mr Ashcroft. I'm not part of a porn ring....HONEST!  . |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 23:53:25 [Permalink]
|
Man, I'm finding this thread too late to have too much of an impact, and I'm short on time so this will be short:
Hooray Wendy and Snake. I think I'm in love with you both.
Bestonnet, when you say that if we like our government we should support whatever it does, that's crap and you should know it. We like it because we don't HAVE to support whatever it does.
The comments about rights being taken away slowly are all spot on.
Someone pointed out that we should be fighting over bigger fish, like the property seizures resulting from the drug war (RICO is actually a result of the fight against organized crime, but its use was expanded to the drug war). RICO is actually an excellent example. Really, now; what could be more just than allowing the state to seize property used in the commission of a crime? After all, if John Gotti loses his coast-runner drug ship and the fleet of sedans he transports guns in, we're all better off, yes? The good ol' government would NEVER use this well-intended law to, say, seize a blue collar family's only car simply because their 17 year old son went out with friends and smoked pot once even though his parents told him not to, would they? The IRS would never seize the assets of a Pueblo woman's small business over a disputed tax bill without ever going to the courts, would they? No, of course not. Except they have.
Thomas Paine should be required reading for the world.
Will cameras at intersections do good things? Of course they will, but they also have bad implications. Do these cameras signal the end of freedom as we know it? Of course not, but if you wait to fight barbarians until they've already scaled the walls you've lost the war.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 01:13:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Should people who drive without a licence be allowed in society in the first place?
Usually there is a reason for them not having a licence (they haven't passed the test, did enough road rule breaking, etc). So if they don't stay away from a car they shouldn't be allowed to get near one.
If someone killed someone when they were driving because they were speeding or drunk or on drugs or ran a red light then they should be charged with manslaugher (they are over here).
The advantage of cameras is that they will only photograph when a person does run it, which is PC for doing so. Although you must know that over here PC isn't needed, in fact Random Breath tests have lowered the road toll by quite a bit.
As far as I'm concerned the red light cameras are pretty much just a witness to a crime.
One that wont lie or forget and which will only record the crime.
Defensive driving is the best way. But it doesn't always work.
As for Government and Private Enterprise, I don't remember saying they are the same. Is that just a misinterpretation or a strawman argument?
I know they are different, but one must recognise that they often operate much the same. However there are differences.
When a business gets a monopoly product quality falls, prices go up and the competition can't get in because it is too hard to compete against them.
With government when enough people get pissed off a new one replaces it. It's a lot easier to get government changed then corporations.
Going to a more direct democracy (don't go completely direct) would be helpful as well.
Although all those libertarians on this forum. Is it really for skeptics? Or libertarian extremists?
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer.
Edited by - bestonnet_00 on 08/10/2001 02:42:28
Evidently you haven't heard some of the stuff that goes on in the states. In particular, my state of Illinois. Here we have a governor who was first Secretary of State. He is now under investigation for his part in licenses for bribes. (Driver's license employees pressured to sell fund raising tickets for George Ryan turned to accepting bribes for driving tests.) The resulting investigation so far has uncovered nearly 1,500 licenses purchased for bribes including commercial drivers licenses. Of these, recalled drivers 3% have passed.
In the states, we have been treated to some officers who abuse the powers they have been given. Cameras watching roadways where the occupants are visible as well as the interior of the car constitutes an unlawful warrantless search of automobiles. I also had problems with the "Saftey checkpoints" that police have been asked to do. This was merely a revenue generating exercise in 4th amendment abridgement. The governments involved then attempted to expand it to "drug checkpoints" including drug sniffing dogs. It was struck down by the supreme court as unlawful search under the 4th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The problem with cameras is that they are indiscriminant of content. The threat of expansion into our private lives is real. There is a little used law in Illinois which prohibits a man from requesting oral sex from a woman without her express written permission. Cameras as premised also voilates the 4th amendment protection from unreasonable search. Police cameras that are currently in force are geared toward only capturing license plate information and documenting stops for cause. They are pointed at near ground level so as to not infringe the 4th amendment protections of innocent drivers. If they can put cameras at near street level pointed down the roadway at intersections, rather than above the street lights, it may be more acceptable. The premise as it stands, is unacceptable.
Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 08/11/2001 01:15:47 |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 01:16:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Witnesses said that the sheriff didn't hit the siren until almost on top of the intersection, not giving motorists enough time to respond.
I gotta say it... go with the witnesses. That's why we've got 'em.
quote:
The accident was recorded by a security camera atttached to a private building that was monitoring its parking lot... The defense (sheriff's department) argued to exclude the video... since there was no audio, it could not be determined at what point the occupants could / should have heard the siren.
Res ipsa loquitur.
quote:
b). It was a private security camera whose function was NOT traffic surveillance and was therefore NOT "tuned" to optimal surveillance of a public interection.
Since we're talking about a siren here, and there was no audio, I think this is a moot point.
quote:
Your ruling, your Honor?
In all seriousness, I think we all know there are situations when this could bring some low-life to justice. The problem is the injustice that would be done to the rest of us in the process.
Occasionally a family on vacation making a home movie and minding their own business will, through purest chance, tape a crime in progress. It's wonderful when that happens. I have no love of criminals. However, I do not want to forfeit my personal freedom in what is (IMO) a misguided attempt to catch a select few.
Hey, Snake, Garrette loves us. Think he'll still respect us tomorrow?
Wendy Jones |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 09:42:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Man, I'm finding this thread too late to have too much of an impact, and I'm short on time so this will be short:
That's ok, pull up a chair.
quote:
Hooray Wendy and Snake. I think I'm in love with you both.
Finally after all these years, someone cares!
I don't have a problems with it. Wendy?
quote:
Someone pointed out that we should be fighting over bigger fish, like the property seizures resulting from the drug war (RICO is actually a result of the fight against organized crime, but its use was expanded to the drug war). RICO is actually an excellent example. Really, now; what could be more just than allowing the state to seize property used in the commission of a crime? After all, if John Gotti loses his coast-runner drug ship and the fleet of sedans he transports guns in, we're all better off, yes? The good ol' government would NEVER use this well-intended law to, say, seize a blue collar family's only car simply because their 17 year old son went out with friends and smoked pot once even though his parents told him not to, would they? The IRS would never seize the assets of a Pueblo woman's small business over a disputed tax bill without ever going to the courts, would they? No, of course not. Except they have.
Thank you for pointing that out.
quote:
Thomas Paine should be required reading for the world.
Will cameras at intersections do good things? Of course they will, but they also have bad implications. Do these cameras signal the end of freedom as we know it? Of course not, but if you wait to fight barbarians until they've already scaled the walls you've lost the war.
Good examples. Thanks.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2001 : 09:56:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To Wendy, Snake, Penyprity...
Excellent rebuttals and responses.
quote:
Now for a true crime-stoppers story from the files of Cleveland, Ohio.
The plaintiff (sedan occupants) argued that the video should be admissible as evidence as it showed the accident at the intersection. The sedan occupants were not responding to the sheriff's siren as it was not on at the time. The defense (sheriff's department) argued to exclude the video...
Your ruling, your Honor?
Too many variables with what we've been given so far.
Right now, I would rule to exclude the tape. Although eye witnesses are not always accurate. Photos and tapes might not be either, depending on angles and lighting.
Also the plaintiffs are partially at fault if they didn't yield to the flashing lights on the police car even if there was no siren. There were lights, weren't there?
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art.
Edited by - snake on 08/11/2001 10:02:44 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
