Billy Brown wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > One problem here is that it is hard to determine who to target as
> perpetrator of
> > these kinds of erosions of freedom.
> >
> > For example, in this red-light camera situation, it is obvious that
> Lockheed
> > Martin, privately making money off some kind of law enforcement, is
> somewhat to
> > blame for advancing this violation not only of privacy but of the
> Consitution
> > which states quite bluntly that citizens are innocent by default.
>
> How, exactly, is putting up a camera at an intersection a violation of
> Constitutional rights? The presumption of innocence does not imply that the
> State can't watch you to see if you do something illegal - if it did, police
> would not be able to patrol the streets giving out traffic tickets. So long
> as the normal standards of evidence are observed in court (i.e. they have to
> show that it was you, not just someone with your license plate number), no
> rights have been violated.
>
> Likewise, there is no general right to privacy in public places. In practice
> such a 'right' would be both nonsensical and coercive, since it would amount
> to a demand that no one be able to look at you when you walk down the
> street.
>
> No, I'm afraid that if we want to turn this into a rights issue, we'll have
> to campaign for a Constitutional amendment forbidding government
> surveillance.
>
> > Anyways, I say this before, it seems quite obvious, any automated
> > law-enforcement like a red-light runner camera is a violation of every
> citizen
> > who passes through that intersection's right to presupposed innocence
> under the
> > Constitution.
>
> In theory there is no legal difference between automated and non-automated
> law enforcement. If a cop can sit at an intersection and watch for traffic
> violations (a perfectly reasonable activity), he can put up a camera to do
> it for him. In practice the automated systems are actually held to a higher
> standard than human police - if a traffic cop says he saw you break the law
> the courts will usually take his word for it, but an automated system has to
> collect enough evidence to convince the court that there is no reasonable
> possibility of error (usually your picture, a picture of your license plate,
> and an instrument reading showing your violation, all time stamped and
> recorded by a tamper-resistant system).
>
> > Mr. Brown, you state that you think that it is not easy to require the
> > government to not monitor its citizens. Well, its bad enough now and that
> is
> > why we need proactive measures and law to protect the citizenry's explicit
> right
> > to presupposed innocence. It's in some ways as simple as suing the
> government
> > to prevent them from doing so.
>
> Unfortunately, as I pointed out above, you don't have any grounds to sue
> them. You might be able to trump up some strained interpretation of an
> implied right to privacy, or something equally iffy, but that's about it.
> IMO such lawsuits are inherently harmful no matter what the cause is - if
> you think we should have a right that isn't clearly recognized by the
> Constitution, the proper course of action is to work to get an amendment
> passed.
>
> Now, personally, I don't worry too much about this kind of observation. Even
> if we end up with cameras everywhere, the results are not especially bad.
> The danger is that they will want to expand the system to cover private
> property and/or internet activity. However, I think that it not too hard to
> draw a distinction between public and private spaces, and to forbid
> government surveillance of the latter.
>
> Mind you, we will still have to come to terms with the fact that in 10 years
> everyone is going to be able to inconspicuously record everything that
> happens in their presence, whether you want them to or not.
>
> Billy Brown
> bbrown@transcient.com
> http://www.transcient.com
Yet it is too simple to assign blame to them when Anthony Williams has succumbed
to the the idea there were ever any red-light runners in the district. There
simply weren't that many, ever. Sure, it used to have the highest murder rate
in the country (because of drug prohibition), but people are generally pretty
good about red lights.
Perhaps Williams thought that this setup would be as good for the city as its
parking meters, which is one of the largest sources of income for the district,
which means there are very many meter-readers. Perhaps moreso L-M payola.
Overridingly, this is some kind of pilot program to gauge how far the public can
be shafted by those who would shaft. I say to make it quite obvious that those
would-be shafters should go about shafting themselves and leave the rest of us
alone.
***Also, the fact that this is privatized and thus provides a financial
incentive
to the contractor for each ticket issued is an extremely bad precedent as the
profit could be seen as a reason to further overstep the contractor's bounds.
So, it is absolutely certain that the contractor or other private provider
should be required not to be paid more for each infraction reigstered, that is
to say, the profit incentive to violate any driver's Consitutional rights should
be removed. That is completely simple, the city must arrange to pay one fee for
operation and all transactions, until such time as it is proven unconstitutional
and the whole thing scrapped.
Well, along these lines, drug prohibition is bad for our country on the whole,
and should be abolished. Relegalization and clemency for non-violent drug users
would be a step in the right direction.
Who's violating your rights today? It's hard to tell exactly who, and also it's
not so obvious to each of us that each of the rest of us has also had their
rights violated. So, along those lines, everyone who feels that Constitutional
rights are good things should be against this privatized program and find ways
to unite generally for freedom.
It's pretty bad that we have one elected official and his appointed thug "doing
a hold-up of the law."
Just because a law is on the books, it doesn't mean that is a) right, b) moral,
c) ethical, and/or d) Constitutional (ethical, mostly right). Many are. Let's
take a good look at the books.
Ross F.
You have a good point in whether if a mechanism to detect a lawbreak is remote
and mechanical or human might be moot. Here is one reply I have about it:
consider this red-light system. If the camera _only_ captures pictures of those
that actually run red lights, then it is more a valid mechanism, although I
still do not see it as one. However, any time where no crime has been committed
where government resources are used to remotely record innocent citizens for the
express or real purpose of identifying things the government does not like, then
that is wrong.
I have a problem with the attitude that "it's inevitable, accept it." I guess
first, nothing's inevitable, and second, if it's wrong it should not be
accepted. Of course, people have different definitions of right and wrong.
So I see a difference between a cop on his beat and an institutionalized system
of citzenry monitoring. I do think there are plenty of good policemen, in fact
there are enough good policemen and we don't need any more policemen.
It is as this: people use the roads. People use the roads to commute from
place to place. Criminals (and in this case, red-light scofflaws) use the roads
to commute from place to place. People use phones and the Internet. People use
electronic methods of communications to communicate from place to
place.Criminals (and in this case, red-light scofflaws) use electronic methods
to communicate from place to place. Should government be allowed to inspect all
electronic communcations? NO.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:29 MDT