Slashdot Mirror


Big Brother Will Be Watching You In Florida

An anonymous reader submits "The Florida Times Union is running a story about the city of Manalapan putting up cameras and an automatic optical recognition system to check the license plates of every car to drive through town. As usual the article spins the system as something positive to battle crime. Just one step close to Eric Arthur Blair's vision of 1984."

46 of 700 comments (clear)

  1. beat the system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    www.phantomplate.com

    1. Re:beat the system by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some moron moderated the parent offtopic. Check it out: phantom plates for your car. The spray on is the coolest; you spray the license plate and it doesn't show up on the cameras.

    2. Re:beat the system by Moofie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can always come up with a way that infringing on my liberties will Save the Children.

      That doesn't make it a good idea.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    3. Re:beat the system by B747SP · · Score: 4, Insightful
      the police will have to tell the parents they couldn't get the license number because the perv you kidnapped their kid had one of those things on his car.

      Yeah, and lemme guess, the only people who have anything to worry about are those who have something to hide, right?

      --
      I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    4. Re:beat the system by B747SP · · Score: 4, Funny
      Go to a mirror with a digital camera in a dark room. Be sure the flash is on. Stand way too close to the mirror. Take a picture.

      Yeah, I did that. This is the picture I got. Seems to work fine to me - what's your issue?

      --
      I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    5. Re:beat the system by Moofie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, but any time you are a government and you track everybody's movements by the aggregation of license plate image data, you are infringing on my liberties.

      Specifically, the presumption of innocence and the freedom from unwarranted search.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    6. Re:beat the system by trentblase · · Score: 5, Funny
      before too long there'll be RFID tags embedded in the number plates

      Actually, they ARE in there. I microwaved a stack of license plates and my microwave just about exploded. Obviously the goverment trying to hide the evidence.

    7. Re:beat the system by Moofie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You might think that "I have nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear!" is a good recipe for a civil society, but the American founding fathers disagree with you. And I agree wit them.

      Police power is ALWAYS abused. Always. That's why we need to be very careful when we extend that power.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  2. Eric Arthur who? by lambent · · Score: 5, Informative


    I was about to ask, until I discovered that George Orwell is a pen-name.

    1. Re:Eric Arthur who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The submitter is just a little too clever for their own good. Maybe he should have respected Mr. Orwell's privacy, and not leaked his real name. Now he's at risk for identity theft. ;)

    2. Re:Eric Arthur who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Knowing something is one thing. Being an absolute asshole about it -- trying to confuse people to look smart -- is something else. I know German. I don't post in it.

      Did saying "Eric Blair's 1984" have ONE IOTA of PURPOSE that made it perferable to "George Orwell's 1984?" No. Because the submitter is a twat.

      If I wrote this post in German, would that make for a clearer discussion, or would it make me look like a pedantic jerk? The latter. Like the poster.

      PS - The same goes for people who quote Cicero in Latin in their sigs.

    3. Re:Eric Arthur who? by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree with your ipse dixit despite your ad hominem, although prima facie evidence has indicated ad infinitum (as you noted a priori) that Slashdotters are cannot post sans such phrases a fortiori, being that said phrases are the de facto lingua franca of condescending morons et cetera and it is easier to insert such phrases than to begin with tabula rasa.

      Handy list of Latin phrases said morons use. Now you, too, can sound like a condescendant!

      --
      True story.
    4. Re:Eric Arthur who? by pnot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why is it that we think ignorance is some God-given right and get mad when anyone disspells it.

      The point here is that the extra information wasn't really relevant, and merely appeared to be inserted to boost the submitter's ego. It becomes more obvious if you rephrase it:

      "Just one step close to George Orwell's vision of 1984. Oh, and George Orwell was actually a pen name for Eric Arthur Blair."

      His real name DOESN'T MATTER here. It would matter if you were talking about his life rather than his books, but since the only reason for mentioning Orwell was the (tediously obvious) Nineteen Eighty Four reference, it was completely extraneous. I'd prefer less pretentious crap and more careful typing (he writes "close" for "closer").

      I eagerly await the next YRO story -- I'm hoping for something like:

      "Is this just one step closer to a Jughashvilian state? Oh yeah, Jughashvili was Stalin's real name, by the way. I'm pretty fucking smart, me."

  3. ONE good thing by PornMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They say they'll destroy the data after 3 months. While this whole thing reeks evil to me, at least [they say] they're not going to be storing all this info in perpetuity.

    -PM

    1. Re:ONE good thing by splatonline · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Surely you don't believe a '3 month' promise on this particular issue counts for much.

      There is no problem with the act of people's number plates being scanned in Florida (its not even a place I am going to visit in the next few years.)
      The only problem here is the fact that as technology lets people do this, it will happen more and more. The 3 month rule could change next week.

    2. Re:ONE good thing by packeteer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As soon as it is discovered that someone who was wanted for murder and was previously scanned (but the records were destroyed) drives through town and kills someone everyone will freak and say that if they extend it to a year it could have saved a life. Nobody will complain when the time limit is extended bit by bit untill the records are permanent.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    3. Re:ONE good thing by kryonD · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You people seriously need to stop playing Illuminati!

      I write software that does similar things to this, except way more indepth than just a license plate scan.

      You know what hapens when you do a lookup on a plate that has no crime associated with it? Nothing! No one is reading your biography or analyzing your porno rentals just because you drove through their town. The only info that will pop up is if the Vehicle is actually the subject of an alert. These alerts are generated one of two ways. #1 The vehicle was witnessed at a crime scene, or #2 the owner called 911 and reported the vehicle missing. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who commits a crime just voluntarily exposed themselves to public inquiry. And if it was your car that was stolen, I'm sure you'd be quite happy that the plates were being scanned. The only people who have anything to fear are those that are trying to hide something.

      Just last week, our software allowed all the police officers in Utah to have access to the citations history of the highway patrol...including warnings given out. The very next day after we activated it, a kid got pulled over doing 94 in a 65 and gave the patrollman the usual BS story of "honest officer, I've never been pulled over...I was just trying to pass someone." Turns out he had been warned twice in the past month for 76 in a 65 and 82 in a 65. Tell me how he didn't deserve the reckless driving citation they gave him after seeing his apparent complete disregard for speeding AND BEING WARNED TWICE about it.

      1984 My A$$! God forbid the folks who risk their lives to provide for the public safety actually have some decent tools to help them out.

      --
      I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
    4. Re:ONE good thing by ewhac · · Score: 4, Informative
      You know what hapens when you do a lookup on a plate that has no crime associated with it?

      • Name
      • Address
      • Zip code
      • Social Security Number (mandatory since 1994 to obtain CA license; true in FL?)
      • Automobile particulars:
        • Make
        • Model & year
        • Engine number
        • Financing institution (if loan not yet paid off)
      • All past offenses, including speeding and parking infractions.

      So the real question is, what will the computer (and the human reviewer) actually be shown when they run the query on my license plate? If the computer only shows, "No outstanding warrants," then I'm fine with that.

      Something tells me, however, they'll be shown a lot more.

      Schwab

    5. Re:ONE good thing by Radical+Rad · · Score: 4, Insightful
      at least [they say] they're not going to be storing all this info in perpetuity.

      Of course not. Why should they do that when the Office of Fatherland Security can store it for them much more efficiently including redundant backups?

      Seriously though, one of the ways that the fourth amendment is being attacked is by convincing the public that the word "reasonable" means something to the effect of "not objectionable to most people" (as in 'Come on into Crazy Eddies, I've got the most reasonable prices around!') Then telling the public we have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' and continually reducing that expectation bit by bit over the years.

      But the Founders wrote the Constitution using legal definitions not colloquialisms. A reading of the amendment specifically mentions oaths, affirmation, and specificity of any search to be performed. The concept of reasonableness as it is used in the Constitution is more along the lines of "able to be reasoned (deduced) from actual evidence or charges made by accountable persons". If we don't object to this hijacking of the original intent of the document then we are surrendering our freedom without a fight. Stand up and be counted. Study the 4th amendment then write your congressman and let him know that you understand what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote it and you want him to uphold our highest law as it was written.

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
      These words are simple to understand. They were written by eloquent men, who didn't have cell phones, instant messaging, or voicemail. They wrote letters to communicate. They were good at writing what they meant. We shouldn't let ourselves be confused by replacing exacting legal definitions with informal, modern usages.
    6. Re:ONE good thing by sfe_software · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only people who have anything to fear are those that are trying to hide something.

      And that's where it starts. The thing is, we have (at the moment) a right to privacy. While this particular story isn't all that big a deal, we continually accept more and more invasions on privacy.

      Life inherently contains risk. You can't protect everyone all of the time, without making life completely miserable. So while a particular technology may have some benefits, it also may destroy any enjoyment of life.

      Think about health nuts (vegans, etc). They refuse to eat meats, etc, or perhaps they work out 4 hours a day. Whatever it is, they may prolong their life by some amount (a few years perhaps) but when your whole life revolves around extending it, what good is it?

      I'm willing to take a risk that someone might get away with a crime here and there, in exchange for not having my every move monitored by camera, GPS, credit cards, or whatever. And if I get killed as a result -- then I guess my number came up. At least I had fun while I could.

      Just my two cents.

      --
      NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    7. Re:ONE good thing by freejung · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not on a public street, you don't.

      Good point. For instance, I can take a picture of you on a public street and keep it as long as I want.

      But it's a little different when the government is doing it. Sure, this kind of surveillance is legal. But should it be? That is the question, and it is a good question. I for one am against it, but I also see it as inevitable. "The only privacy you have anymore is the inside of your own head, and maybe that's enough." -- "Enemy of the State".

      You do not have a right to privacy in public. But you do have a right not to be surveilled by the police without some sort of check by the judiciary. This is the principle of checks and balances.

      The important question to ask about these sorts of things is not whether they are permitted by the constitution, but whether the Founding Fathers would have forbidden them if they had any idea that they were possible. With the advance of technology, it is important to reevaluate our principles frequently. I just can't imagine Jefferson, for instance, being in favor of this sort of thing. It just doesn't sound like him.

    8. Re:ONE good thing by general_re · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Sure, this kind of surveillance is legal. But should it be? That is the question, and it is a good question.

      Precisely. If I had a nickel for everyone who conflates the issue of how the law is with how the law should be, I'd be Bill Gates-rich ;)

      You do not have a right to privacy in public. But you do have a right not to be surveilled by the police without some sort of check by the judiciary.

      But that's not a blanket protection against all forms of surveillance - that right isn't absolute. Generally, the judiciary only comes into play when the police want to go somewhere where you have some reasonable expectation that what you're doing is not something that the public at large is privy to - your house, your place of business, your telephone, and so forth. The police don't need a warrant from a judge to simply follow you around all day and take notes on where you go as you're out and about on your daily business. Should they? I'm not so sure - walking through the mall, your presence is obvious to anyone who cares to look, but essentially we'd be asking the police to ignore that which is directly in front of their faces.

      The important question to ask about these sorts of things is not whether they are permitted by the constitution, but whether the Founding Fathers would have forbidden them if they had any idea that they were possible. With the advance of technology, it is important to reevaluate our principles frequently. I just can't imagine Jefferson, for instance, being in favor of this sort of thing. It just doesn't sound like him.

      Perhaps. But I'm not so sure they would have endorsed a blanket right to what we might call "public anonymity", where one is not, say, speaking or writing anonymously - that I think they would have understood, with the probable exception of John Adams ;) - but rather having anonymity retrofitted on to your actual physical presence. I don't think the concept of "disappearing in the crowd" had quite as much meaning for them then as it does for us now - the crowd was a lot smaller back then, and it was just harder to be anonymous in public. Nowadays, we enclose ourselves in our metal boxes as we travel, and like to think that the feeling of insularity that this engenders is something we're somehow entitled to. But historically speaking, that insularity never really existed as it does now - if you wanted to travel from New York to Boston in 1789, you were most likely either walking or riding a horse, but either way, your face was out there for the world to see as you did it. And even if you'd never been to Boston before, I don't think the Founders would have signed on to the notion that nobody in Boston, including the local authorities, should have the ability to find out more about you.

      It may have been slower and less formal than it is now, but I have trouble believing that they would have had serious objections to the Boston authorities writing a letter to the New York authorities, one that says that a shifty, suspicious looking fellow who calls himself "freejung" and says he's from New York just showed up in town, and do you know anything about him. And that is, in essence, a background check, the nature of which is not so far removed from what we do now - the only real difference is that such inquiries are both faster and more accurate now than they were in the past, and something makes me doubt that the Founders would see speed and accuracy as inherently bad things.

      --
      ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  4. Easily Remedied ... by auburnate · · Score: 5, Funny

    All you have to do is drive into town in reverse!!!

  5. Re:Cue "That town can kiss my turist $ goodbye" po by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Funny
    Cue "That town can kiss my turist $ goodbye" posts

    For a slashdotter, that means not buying anything from an ebay seller who lives there.
    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  6. You mean like in Singapore? by fembots · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Over there, cars are installed with a fare-paying device which automatically pays road-toll depending where and when you're driving on which section of the road.

    It's bad, but nothing shocking.

  7. covers? by theguitarizt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    aren't there covers you can put on license plates so cameras can't read your digits?

  8. Allready happens in UK by linuxpoweredtrekkie · · Score: 5, Informative

    In London we have cameras which recognise numberplates to check if people have paid the congestion charge to enter city centre. Numberplate recognition is also used on speed cameras to automatically send speeding tickets to offenders.

  9. and this for? by tsunamifirestorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if they want to catch people running red lights they could just do photos at intersections. this would not be helpful for tracking people, because cars don't neccessarily mean that the owner is in it.

  10. Well... by LordK3nn3th · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Normally, I would be against "big brother", but in this case aren't cameras basically able to see only what the general public would be able to see anyway?

    Computers obviously are less discriminatory and hopefully more reliable than a human, if the software is done right. However, the issue is privacy, so I digress. But, computer vs. policeman aside, what difference does it make if a police officer was stationed looking for people?

    If a camera was focused on private property (like on a house), then that would certainly be an invasion of privacy (that kind of survellience is hopefully illegal), or the government had "special" means that cannot be easily monitored such as those security blimps then I would agree it's a loss of privacy.

    I'm certainly for as little government as possible. But in this case is privacy really being lost? The same thing can be done with humans, afterall, and no one complains about loss of privacy by seeing a police officer legally on public land looking for criminals.

    --

    ---
    Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
    1. Re:Well... by SquadBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Becuase a cop looking for people does not leave a permanent record of it. So yes by installing a unblinking eye that creates a permanent record of who drove by it is a very large loss pr privacy.

      Another way of explaining it is you go from a person who has limited ability to observe things and so in practice has to have some reason other than the fact that you drove by to look up your license plate number and compare it to things to a device that will look up every single license plate that drives by. This is a bad thing.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    2. Re:Well... by rblum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is not the act of watching. The problem is the fact that a computerized system is able to record *everything*, and people are able to search through that data long after.

      What this effectively means is that I either give up privacy, or the right to travel freely. Before, with the human watching things, I could always choose to drive at nighttime, or in a convoy, and assume that he'd quickly forget I was there.

      The problem with data collection is that computer memory never forgets, and it is frighteningly easy to cross-reference with other data. *That* is the real problem. If it would only compare the license plate to a list of stolen cars, and then discard the data, no problem.

      But keeping data around allows people to get insights into private lifes that you don't want to share.

  11. From Florida by doombob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This coming from the same state that also tails rappers when they come to shoot their music videos.


    The only reason that I'm really worried is that I like to drive without my pants on sometimes.

  12. Nothing to fear by switcha · · Score: 5, Funny
    Big Brother Will Be Watching You In Florida

    Fortunately, in Florida, Big Brother is 87, confined to a Rascal scooter, and has very poor eyesight.

    --
    You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
  13. Reminds me... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    of a story my brother told me (my big brother as it happens) about a speed camera that was put on the road somewhere in england. It was pointed against the traffic and took pictures of speeding vehicles from the front. Some pictures showed motorcyclists going through at 110mph with the middle finger sticking up!

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  14. Re:Calm down... by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So now that they have these cameras set up to "protect our rights", who is going to stop them from pointing them into your homes? Are you going to? I doubt it, they'll put a guise over it and say there have been cat burglers or something and they are trying to catch them. Pretty soon you will be under surveillance in your own home.

    It's not what they're doing right now, but what they CAN do. This is just one step towards that direction.

  15. Re:Blocking the cameras by morcheeba · · Score: 5, Informative

    I doubt it's pure infrared cameras - that would be expensive. It's probably a normal camera that is panchromatic and is illuminated with IR light - the advantage there is that it is also sensitive to what the eye sees, while not blinding drivers at night.

    One solution is to take advantage of the limited exposure range of the camera by illuminating your license plate with lots and lots of infrared light - it'll look normal to people, but not the camera. Hopefully you can make it appear to be just a white blob. Actually, you don't even need to do the whole plate, just a letter or two.

  16. Let them live the way they want to live by mc6809e · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really, why must there be a single standard for everyone?

    Let them be.

  17. Re:Calm down... by MichiganDan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are two problems with this, and they are both problems that require looking backwards and forwards simultaneously, something that is extremely difficult.

    Problem 1: ABUSE. Every example wherein more power has been given to the "authorities" has led to abuse, either personal (as in Bill Clinton's use of FBI files) or institutional (the FBI keeping many of those files to begin with). Certainly, giving up some power is necessary and good; this is the basis of democratic theory for everone from Locke to Mill. But every new power taken by the authorities must be met with a benefit-cost analysis of the risks involved versus the potential rewards. I think we will mostly agree that letting the state enforce rules about who may drive is generally a good thing; it means that you have to show competence in driving before being set loose to potentially hurt innocent people. I believe (tho' many /.ers will disagree) that mandatory instruction on gun safety should be a prerequisite to purchase a firearm or a hunting license. But this is a subject that reasonable people can disagree on; those against argue that it will lead to an abuse of power in the form of the government collecting our guns.

    Problem 2: SLIPPERY SLOPE. This is somewhat overused as a cliche, but it's a valid point. Once we are desensitized to one thing, it becomes that much easier for the next thing to happen. The Third Reich (Godwin's law does not apply; I am not comparing any /.er to a Nazi!) did not go from election to Final Solution overnight; it took a gradual dehumanization of the Jews to get there. But if it's cameras checking our cars today, will we have to have RFID chips in our drivers licenses tomorrow to monitor our movements? Those could help catch speeders -- but at what cost?

    The adage that "if you're not doing bad, you have nothing to fear" only works if 1) there is never any abuse of police power, and 2) the criminals all obey the rules.

    Unfortunately, these two conditions are never possible.

  18. First of all.... by lgordon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Manalapan is basic the south, richer end of Palm Beach. Palm Beach County. The only thing in Manalapan is ~200 $4 million+ homes, all situated on a thin strip of land between Lake Worth (the lake) and the ocean. Basically the residents want to turn their town into a gated community. This policy would allow the police to identify traffic into and out of the community as desirable or not, just as any gated community. With the synergies of information from the PATRIOT act, they can easily identify who is a "worker" "resident" or potential thief (or worse, a real estate agent).

    The police in Manalapan are already looking at what color the people are who are driving, but it's difficult to tell if brown people are working there, instead of (naturally) robbing houses. As far as I'm concerned, the residents of Manalapan are a bunch of well-back rich bastards with nothing better to do than whine and complain. This is just another in a long line of questionable governmental actions/decisions coming out of Manalapan.

    As far as my credibility, I've lived most of my life in Jupiter, FL (about 20 miles north).

    For those who don't know, a "well-back" is a derogotory term for a transplanted New Yorker/New Jerseyite.

    For instance --

    Well, back in New Jersey, we got good deli...

  19. Got that beat by gclef · · Score: 5, Funny
  20. Quantitative difference in expectations of privacy by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Informative
    Previously in public I might not have had a full expectation of privacy, but I had an expectation of humanity. We all did. A policeman glances at you. Unless he knows you, he doesn't have your name. Even if he does, unless he writes it down he won't remember much more than "I saw Fred earlier this week, perhaps near Crispy Cream?"(1) He knows nothing about where you were or where you're going if you're out of his view.

    A camera tapes you. If one tape-reviewer doesn't know you, he can ask until he finds someone who does. The tape can be matched with other tapes to see where you were and where you're going. The tape will be stored and reviewed by ever better automatic recognition tech, and those results stored in ever larger and cheaper databases.

    I think this is a quantitative change in the "expectation of privacy" one has in public.

    We are getting very close to "P-day" (coined by Brad Templeton): the last day of privacy, because from then on all our actions will be tracked retroactively if not currently. Or, as he puts it: "So you're already being watched. The computer that is watching you just hasn't been born quite yet."

    Two good essays on why this type of surveillance hurts society and violates our rights:

    • From the Best Essay Ever on why privacy is a fundamental right: [Its not too long- just go read it]

      "[Talking about Canada...] If these measures are allowed to go forward and the privacy-invasive principles they represent are accepted [then before long] our movements through the public streets will be relentlessly observed through proliferating police video surveillance cameras. Eventually, these cameras will likely be linked to biometric face-recognition technologies ... [indentifying] us by name and address as we go about our law-abiding business in the streets... I am well aware that these scenarios are likely to sound, to most people, like alarmist exaggeration. Certainly, the society I am describing bears no relation to the Canada we know. But anyone who is inclined to dismiss the risks out of hand should pause first to consider that the privacy-invasive measures already being implemented or developed right now would have been considered unthinkable in our country just a short year ago."

      The place to stop unjustified intrusions on a fundamental human right such as privacy is right at the outset, at the very first attempt to enter where the state has no business treading. Otherwise, the terrain will have been conceded, and the battle lost...

      Imagine, then, how we will feel if it becomes routine for bureaucrats, police officers and other agents of the state to paw through all the details of our lives: where and when we travel, and with whom; who are the friends and acquaintances with whom we have telephone conversations or e-mail correspondence; what we are interested in reading or researching; where we like to go and what we like to do...

      If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl...Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.

    • A Watched Populace Never Boils "People often ask why a loss of privacy... is a restriction on freedom. ... Some welcome it, feeling that the extra surveillance will cut down on crime, and provide some increased level of safety or imagined safety. But the truth is that invasions of privacy invade our freedoms quite directly. This is true even if the surveillance isn't abused by the watchers, even though history shows that it always is.

      When we feel watched, we feel less free. We censor ourselve

  21. "Professional Courtesy" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014891.php

    April 04, 2004

    YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK (FOR THEMSELVES):

    The law requires everyone to follow the speed limit and other traffic regulations, but in Suffolk County, exceptions should be made for cops and their families, police union officials say.

    Police Benevolent Association president Jeff Frayler said Thursday it has been union policy to discourage Suffolk police officers from issuing tickets to fellow officers, regardless of where they work.

    "Police officers have discretion whenever they stop anyone, but they should particularly extend that courtesy in the case of other police officers and their families," Frayler said in a brief telephone interview Thursday. "It is a professional courtesy."

    Frayler's comments echo views expressed in the spring union newsletter, in which treasurer Bill Mauck exhorts "you don't summons another cop" and says that when officers decline to cite each other, "the emotion you feel should be that of joy."

    Maurice Mitchell, a project coordinator with the Long Island Progressive Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group, said the PBA's position undermines taxpayer confidence in law enforcement.

    It's bad enough that they do this, but it's even worse that they brag about it. But wait, it gets worse:

    Angie Carpenter, a Republican lawmaker from West Islip and chairwoman of the legislature's public safety committee, said she didn't have a problem with the PBA's policy because she believes it will be applied judiciously.

    "It's the same way they would offer a professional courtesy to a doctor pulled over on the way to the hospital to deliver a baby," she said. "Besides, I can't imagine that if some police officer was to commit an egregious offense that they wouldn't be cited, regardless of who they are."


    So much for political oversight. So a doctor en route to an emergency is the same as a cop who's just driving too fast? Sheesh. Are these people for real?

    UPDATE: Rand Simberg observes:
    While this is outrageous in itself, it would seemingly put the lie to the notion that the purpose of such laws in for public safety, since it's no "safer" for a police officer's wife to speed than it is for anyone else. It's a tacit admission that it's all about revenue generation. . . . Remember this the next time you hear a lecture from a cop about how dangerous it is to exceed the speed limit.

    Indeed.

    Posted by Glenn Reynolds at April 04, 2004 04:27 PM



  22. Seems a violation by linuxtelephony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems like this takes the approach that everyone is guilty until they are proved, by a police scan of the license plates, to be innocent.

    When they started doing random seatbelt and sobriety tests, they skirted the issue by making it "random", i.e. every 10th car or something, instead of based on "perception" by the officers. Since they were not checking everyone, it wasn't guilt until proven innocent, and since it was random, it wasn't targetting any specific group based on outside appearances.

    Of course, in our post-9-11 loss of sensibility, I doubt anyone will seriously challenge this.

    Benjamin Franklin has a couple of appropriate quotes:

    All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse.

    And most appropriate of all:

    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    --
    . 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
  23. It is merely a small step among many by praedor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Leading to a police state in what used to be the USA. The "Patriot" Act and similar nonsense merely nibbles away at a few rights. Just a minor annoyance or inconvenience, right? Then there are "minor" annoyances like the Prez being able to willy-nilly label someone an "enemy combatant" whether you were actually picked up on some field of battle somewhere and tossed in a cell indefinitely with no recourse. No contact with family, lawyers, judges, newspapers, nothing. Oh yeah, and it is only during "wartime". A "war" defined such that it NEVER ends (the "War on Terror"). Then there are minor plantings of surveillance cameras here and there as in the story. Nothing big. Just watching for "evil doers" with warrants out on them...then it is for minor traffic/parking infractions...then it is for odd or "suspicious" behavior. In any case, just a minor adjustment in each case. Just baby steps. Problem is, eventually we get backed into a deep, deep hole and think, "How the HELL did we get here?"


    In psychology, it is termed "successive approximation". You can't get someone to outright do some thing or agree to something so you merely walk them towards the desired end by having them take innocuous, minor "baby steps" toward the desired goal. The person has no real problem taking these "minor" steps. On their own they are nothing. In the end, you have them doing something or going along with something that they NEVER would have agreed to if you'd put it to them outright.


    Baby steps. Thousands of baby steps can carry us a long distance in a direction we do NOT want to go.

    --
    In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  24. Re:I been wondering about these by Wolfrider · · Score: 4, Funny

    (Florida local news, approximately 2 weeks from now)

    Newscaster: "And in other news, Manalapan local commerce has apparently dried up due to a sudden and prolonged lack of incoming traffic. Commuters are seemingly going out of their way to avoid the town completely, and speculation is rampant that Manalapan is about to become a ghost town. Ongoing negotiations with Wal-mart developers have been stalled for the past 3 days, and rumors of a mass exodus due to newly-proposed tax increases are running wild..."

    --
    .
    == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  25. It's trivial to beat the system - Cloning by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In fact it's utterly trivial to beat the cameras, and the criminals do it every day, in their *thousands* in the UK.

    We have what can only be described as comprehensive coverage by CCTV and speed cameras here, including automatic numberplate recognition cameras for the congestion charging zone in London.

    If you want to get round the cameras, simply copy down the numberplate of a car of similar make, model and colour, have a plate made and put it on yours. Simple.

    Thousands of people in the UK are now automatically being issued invalid speeding tickets (and having their licenses removed) from cloned cars and are being charged for driving in London when they were never there. And it's up to you to prove your innocence because they have photos of "your" vehicle.

    Static, automatic camera systems are useless, it needs police on the ground manually checking license plates and even that only catches a miniscule fraction of them.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.