Slashdot Mirror
Law Enforcement by Machines
Inst1gator writes "Nowadays, it seems as if more and more law enforcement is being done by machines. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be up to the job. And the humans don't want to take responsibility, either. This is a great "wakeup call" for those of you who are not aware."
Computers Don't Argue, by Gordon Dickson, is a short story I found in the first Nebula award stories, is particularly apropos to this. It is a short, humorous, and satiric look at this particular role of computers in society, and while a bit dated, still is quite effective at illustrating the point found in the article.
Intellectual property law is going to be a big chunk of automated law enforcement. Check out this : Intellectual Property Bots Wonder if IBM found this eBay auction for IBMLinux.com with it yet.
At the bail hearing for Johnston, Tinney and three other defendants in Houston, the FBI's Kristen Sheldon ... testified that an IP address is, "in very simple terms, a Social Security number. Only one person at one specific time can have that number." In fact, an IP address identifies a computer, rather than a person, and may not even consistently map to a particular machine in networks that use dynamic IP addressing.
IP addresses are more analogous to phone numbers. One computer, one IP is typical, but different configurations are certainly possible. You can have multiple IPs on one computer, for instance, or you can have multiple computers NATd onto one IP. Likewise, one location, one phone number is typical, but can be done differently. You can have multiple phone numbers at one location, as in the example case of households with extra phone lines for fax, modem, teen, whatever, or you can have one phone number that auto-routes the caller to your nearest office. Also central to this analogy is that phone numbers do not necessarily keep the same owner over a period of time, and the same is true for IP addresses. This does not hold true for SSNs.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
If the light turns red while you're in the intersection then you are completly legal.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
most auto ticket things dont take into acount time ware you have no choice but to run a red light, for example if your sitting in the middle of an intersection tring to turn and the light turns red you have to turn or else your holding up trafic, the camera will take your pic
Poor example: you shouldn't move into the middle of the intersection until you can leave it safely too. The middle of an intersection is a really dangerous place to stop, which is why you shouldn't stop there. If you do, then you are (in most states) in violation of the traffic regulations and you should get a ticket, whether its from a camera or a cop.
Sailing over the event horizon
Don't confuse this with a news story about IP law or anything else: its an editorial by Glenn Reynolds, who also runs www.instapundit.com, a Republican blog. I'm not disagreeing with his point in the article, but be sure to take it with a grain of salt.
Note to slashdot editors: It would be super if you could post these stories with some mention that it is an editorial.
Here in San Diego we have the automated traffic light enforcement. For these devices to take pictures at dusk and dark they employ a strobe. One night some cross traffic was in the intersection when the lights switched, prompting the camera into action. When it did this, as I start moving on my green, I am hit by three bright flashes that virtually rendered me blind.
I had to slow down and it took a few moments to regain my sight. Fortunately those behind me where understanding, most likely victums themselves, and didn't honk. The point is that this automation could have caused damage to property.
Later they had to be shut down by court order due to false results. San Diego sued its local enforcement, as well as the operator (lockheed I believe) for "rigging" them to improve revenue.
Ever since they had been installed I wondered where all the teenage hooligans had gone that would bash them at a HIGH cost to the city. Even if it comes out of my pocket at the end of the day, I wouldn't have shed a tear, nor the vast majority of San Diego. In fact there had been a vote or a petition to remove them completely, of course ignored by those who run our city who obviously know best (cough gag hack).
Ben Franklin warned us that, "He who gives up liberty for a little temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security."
It is amazing how far from the constitution America has wandered.
I ripped the following from the TAFA website but it is right on
Due Process:
DEFINITION: The legal process by which U.S. citizens are promised a fair trial in the U.S. Constitution Article XVI Paragraph 1. U.S. Citizens are promised "The Equal Protection of Law" in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. These rights have been reaffirmed in numerous federal court cases. A successful civil rights lawsuit against the "State" for unlawful deprivation of law was reaffirmed in "Gault vs Arizona," 87 SupCt 1428
1. The RIGHT to receive notice of charges.
2. The RIGHT of the assistance of Counsel.
3. The RIGHT to confront your accuser and to cross-examination of the complainants.
4. The RIGHT to exercise a privilege against self-incrimination.
5. The RIGHT to a transcript of the proceedings and,
6. The RIGHT to appellate review.
7. The RIGHT to subpoena witnesses and subpoena documentary evidence to support your position or contradict evidence presented against you.
8. The RIGHT to "Trial by Jury of Citizens at Common Law."
9. The RIGHT to receive Equal Protection of the Law.
10. The RIGHT to a "Presumption of Innocence" prior to trial.
11. The RIGHT to raise as an "Affirmative Defense" the protection of the U.S. and State Constitution Bill of Rights.
12. The RIGHT to raise as an "Affirmative Defense" any defense expressly created in statute and case law precedent.
13. The RIGHT to sue any U.S. citizen for "Unlawful Deprivation of any constitutional, statutory, or administrative right."
14. The RIGHT of access and use of any taxpayer-funded law library, government building, and courtroom.
P.S. can anyone show me where in teh constitution it says anything about seperation of church and state? There is that statement that congress shall make no law
A little Constitutional law will go a long way
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
In the UK there are several organised groups going around destroying speed cameras, such as MAD (Motorists Against Detection). (You can take a look at http://www.speedcam.co.uk/welcome.htm ).
It is a general feeling that speed cameras are not being used to improve safety, but as a means of raising extra revenue (i.e. tax) for the government. Indeed a lot of people feel that speed cameras cause accidents as everyone slams on the brakes to avoid getting caught by the cameras (often "hidden" behind trees or road signs) and immediately speeds up again afterwards. I know I do!
What's the goverment's response to this? Well it's to have a huge increase in the number of speed cameras. (Sorry I don't have the figures to hand, but it's a lot).
MAD are not an isolated group, there are several groups around the country, they are probably just the best known.
More stories, here and here.
There are just a *few* sites on the internet that can help with this :)