Screaming Penguin - Source Does Matter

AMEN!!!

Sorry, these people talking about privacy, even in the local Atlanta media don't know what they are talking about. The movement of your vehicle on a public street is not private information nor is there any reasonable expectation of privacy when talking to a police officer or, heaven forbid, running a red light. Yes, this extends the ability of the police to enforce the laws, but it doesn't give them any more power than they would have were there a cop eating doughnuts on the corner where you just ran the light.

With things like Carnivore and passive thermal imagine of your home out there, there are plenty of areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy that these idiots let the government tromp all over, because they have been distracte by the "hey-look-over-here" slight of hand getting a traffic ticket is providing.

Well, looks like I am going to have to buck the trend and disagree with Charlie on this one. Several points are to follow...

1 - Yea, you are actually right about the traffic cameras. I mean, the only possible way these things can take a picture of you is if you are breaking the law and running a red light. Don't like it? Tough @!#$. But if you want to talk about the real privacy issue, read about the cameras they have set up in Tampa Bay. They place cameras on the street that capture the face of everyone that walks by them then crosschecks them with outstanding warrants. This is a problem because it isn't just capturing the images of light-running scofflaws, but everyday people - and recording where they were, when they were there, who they were with, etc, etc, etc. Wave to big brother the next time you are in Tampa.

2 - While these alcohol-flashlights are no doubt useful for easy detection of drunks, I believe they violate the spirit - if not the letter - of alcohol laws. Fundamentally, the reason why we have alcohol laws is to protect the sober public from the danger that drunk people potentially pose, NOT to repremand people for their poor evening beverage choice. For instance, if I have had too much to drink one night and decide to walk back to my dorm instead of taking my car back, and I manage to make it home without jaywalking, vandalising something, urinating behind the 7-11, etc...I should be free from criminal prosecution. However, if an officer can flash me from 200 yards away and detect alcohol on my breath, he can make an arrest even if I haven't broken any laws other than being over the legal BAC limit. While I suppose this is legal, it seems to be using a means as an end. As in - creating a legal limit for alcohol was a means to make an arrest in the event that someone is posing a threat to the public. In this case, it stands on its own as the sole arresting factor. Why don't the cops just stand outside the door of a nightclub and flash everyone coming out? What happens is we take laws that were meant to protect the public and apply them to unanimously crack down on drinking - a constitutionally protected action. Isn't it "I have rights until I infringe on others rights"? So if I am drinking and keeping to myself, I have the fundamental right to be protected from arrest and even discovery.

While some technology certainly can and is being used to make our streets safer and even protect our privacy, the things mentioned above are just a few ways I think our government is slowly usurping our rights to live as private citizens. I dunno, tell me what you think.

> Anyway, how is this really different than the 7-11 or bank
> ATM camera's pointing at you all of the time?

The difference is that at the ATM or the gas station, the tapes are kept for a while and never watched unless there was a burglary or if the cops ask for them. With the govt cameras, the tapes are scrutinized, faces are scanned and matched with identities, peoples whereabouts are documented in a database.

> this is similar to Ga's fingerprinting when getting a drivers
> license. So what? I am a mostly law abiding citizen. If I
> ever go into an OJ rage, I will have to try and remember
> gloves that don't fit right.

There is a fundamental difference between this and fingerprinting at the DMV and cameras on the street. It is a difference of identification and observation. Fingerprinting has the sole purpose of identification and would be completely impractical as a means of surveilance (imagine going to the corner of Pharr and Peachtree dusting for prints just to see who was there that night). The only time prints become useful is at the scene of a crime, and then it is justified because you are getting the fingerprints of a criminal (same theory why red light cameras are okay). The cameras, however, do more than just identify someone. They record time, date, location, etc. and store it all in a database. This is clearly a different issue than fingerprinting and should not be discussed jointly.

> The only difference that they have built a system
> that makes this a lot easier. Yeah, it can tattle on me, but
> so can the other countless cameras out there that are in the
> control of Private Corps. At least with the Gov't we got a
> snowball's chance in hell of monitoring it.

I see it a bit differently. The private corporations might not have to show you the tapes, but they have a lot less power than the govt (i.e. they can't put you in jail). Yo

> Your second point is well taken, but I think that that is
> more of a 'usage' problem than the technology problem.

I think everything we are talking about is a problem of usage and not technology. Technology has neutral moral worth...the people who implement the technology add a layer of morality to it. Look at nuclear energy, genetic engineering, and even the cameras and the alcohol flashlights...one person can use this technology to accomplish great good on earth, while another can use it for great evil. That is the paradoxical nature of new technology.

> I'd say that there'd be a nice little uprising, and
> people do have the power to pass laws affecting this type of
> thing.

You are absolutely right. I am not so jaded as to think that we can change things in government. If enough people become tired of these new technologies, then they will probably go away. I guess that is the safety net of democracy. However, I am just afriad that these technologies can slip under the radar screen (two BIG examples are Carnivore and Echelon). If people don't get involved and voice their opinions about these things, then we are all screwed.

So if I'm hanging out on an empty street corner in Tampa and decide rather than head to a bar for a Vodka on the rocks I want to smoke a joint - no one nearby to inhale 2nd hand smoke - not bothering anyone at all - but low and behold get busted by the cops from a video camera....

Sounds a lot like Big Brother to me... Maybe it all comes down to active vs. passive monitoring - because if someone mugged me on that same corner I would support using the video tape to find the bastard.

this is really a reply to andy and turner.

you are both on the same track and both correct. my entire point is that technology is good.

as to whether or not you should be busted for smoking a join, having an abortion, or anything else, those are issues with our laws and our justice system, not with technology. (dont get me started on drugs, see my original article for a hint of my feelings on that.)

and andy, i would put cameras everywhere, ala 1984, again, what we need to fix is the system that allows the abuse, rather than discarding the cameras. of course inside someones home is a "private" place, but if they help, then you are absoultely right why not put them on every street corner?