>From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <email@example.com>
>Subject: RE: camera tech for crime prevention
>Date: Sun, 3 Oct 1999 02:36:39 -0700 (PDT)
>Eugene voted on the negative side of ubiquitous cameras, Spike
>offered that this tends to be a problem only if you are a criminal.
>Then On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Kurt Buff wrote:
> > Spike,
> > What an amusing and refreshing naivete you display.
> > Your words only hold if there's no problem with large corporate
> > such as governments or business.
>So, we are really back to governments. Now, in what ways *exactly*
>do governements want information on what its citizens are doing?
>Primarily they want to determine if the citizens are breaking the
>law. This can include things like speeding, drug/alcohol/tobacco
>sales, prostitution, tax evasion, theft and violent crimes.
>Now where I think people on this list get stuck is when we are
>forced to live under legal systems that we personally didn't
>sign the contract for. How many of us *always* obey the speed
>limits or parking restrictions of our local municipalities?
>How many of us think that (in the U.S.) that a law that would
>allow us to be jailed for serving a glass of wine at diner
>to our son or daughter is stupid? How many of us would take
>the opportunity to avoid paying taxes if we thought we could
>get away with it? etc.
In Orange County, we will be soon experiencing - in Irvine, or course - what other areas in California have already been put through - the use of cameras to catch speeders or people running red lights. On MacArthur Blvd. I counted seven camera locations already installed. Of course, if political harrassment were the goal then the cameras could be used to track the victim.
My chief concern, however, as a motorcycle rider is that very few of the lights respond to my 630 pound bike. Thus, I am forced to run red lights or turn signals every day, or spend excessive time waiting for a car to trigger the light. A local bike shop owner was actually cited for this a few years ago and discovered that the law in CA actually takes this into account. If the light doesn't respond, then you have the right to proceed with caution, under CA's "reasonable person" basic driving law. However, she had to go to court, pay an attorney, etc. (the fine for running a red light is now over $250 here, not to mention insurance costs) With the new automated system, I can easily imagine getting twenty or thirty citations in the mail suddenly, and having to spend a month off work - which would mean getting a new job - fighting each one. Of course, the judge might rule against me, as you can't get a jury trial, and Orange County judges are notorious for arbitrary rulings, in which case I would probably have to leave the state, and become a fugitive...