Manhattan 1984

Etherwalk writes "The New York Times is reporting on developments in the quest to charge driving fees for all vehicles headed below 86th Street in Manhattan. Notably absent from any part of the discussion is that a record is made of every car or truck that enters, together with the vehicle ownership information and the date and time of travel — either as part of EZ-Pass or in license-plate photos taken for subsequent billing."

Comments

Funny

[bytesex]

Thing is, I discussed this with my US cousin a few months back, and told him how in the Netherlands, we had all sorts of systems in place already to monitor traffic for billing and speeding registration purposes, using cameras that read license plates. He was sure that, for privacy reasons alone, such systems would never fly in the States.

Re:Funny

[smooth wombat]

People don't die due to speeding as they used to, Stockholm traffic isn't jammed every god damned day and the environment is happy happy which also means lives saved in the long run. Doesn't that hold any value when compared to privacy?

I'm going on the presumption you have never been to Manhattan so I'll try not to make too much fun of you.

First, the only way anyone can speed in Manhattan, during normal business hours, is if they are on a bike. Traffic is for all intents and purposes, a crawl during the day. There are a few minor exceptions such as Fifth Ave or so where, if you time the lights correctly and are going the correct speed, you can hit all the green lights. But then, so does everyone else in the pack you're traveling with so it's a zero gain.

Second, reducing the number of vehicles below 86th Street in Manhattan will have a very negligible effect on pollution. Considering Manhattan is across the river from New Jersey, and NJ is known for its concentration of industrial and chemical businesses, guess what happens when the wind blows from the west? Not to mention the sheer amount of grime that has built up over the decades which goes airborne in the hot weather (as we recently experienced).

Finally, one of many reasons the Founding Fathers of my country decided to part ways from merry old England was because of privacy. In those times, the Crown could send troops or other officials into your home on a whim, without a warrant, just to see if you were doing anything wrong. It was the Crown, it could do what it wanted. That is why there is that part in our Constitution which specifically says the government must get a warrant to do a search.

So no, giving up our right to privacy (despite Scalia saying it doesn't exist) is not a good trade off. Granted, the vast majority of the unwashed masses don't know squat about their rights except three; right to free speech, right to religion and right to bear arms, but even then they're too brainwashed and kept in a perpetual state of fear to realize that all the other rights our Founding Fathers wanted us to have are essentially null and void at this time.

Maybe you don't mind being tracked everywhere you go but I know I do. If someone wants to know where I was at a particular date and time, they can ask me. If I think it's a legitimate question, I'll answer them. If not, it's none of their business.

I know I've said this before but James Madison nailed it when he said: If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

Re:Awesome!

[timmarhy]

how is it paranoia when they ARE actually tracking you?

land of the free indeed....

Re:We already have this in the UK

[Serious Callers Only]

The system works reasonably well, but it doesn't really stop people driving in the "congestion" zones

Traffic has been reduced by 26% at the last count, so it has in fact stopped some people driving in the congestion zones, as intended. 'Reductions in congestion inside the charging zone over the whole period since the introduction of the scheme now average 26 percent. ' - from the 2007 report of Tfl.

Now - the mayor is proposing to charge different rates based on what type of car you have - small effecient compacts would pay nothing or next to nothing, while massive SUVs or anything with a 3+ liter engine would pay upto £25 GBP per day ($50 USD). The most likely outcome of this? Poorer people will use public transport, while for the richer bigger fines will just affirm their social status, or make them consider getting smaller cars.

I believe this is the intended effect, I doubt very much people would use fines as status symbols (proof of this?), and if they do, their stupidity would fund further public transport. No one who is poor in London can afford a car anyway (if you can afford a car in London, you have to pay parking, road tax, and fuel, not to mention upkeep), so they'll be happier with improved public transport.

As for the surveillance aspect - I'd be more concerned about their efforts to extend the length of time the police can hold people without trial (currently being misused to hold protesters against airport expansion), and routine use of torture (though thank goodness its use in court has been banned, much to the UK government's chagrin). Potential tracking of road use is the least of our worries.

Re:Awesome!

[MrNaz]

There's a difference to being in view in public, and having your whereabouts noted, and retrievable for all of eternity. I find it kinda disconcerting that I could one day be confronted by police with an exhaustive list of my movements for the last 10 years.

My uncle was visited by ASIO for suspected terrorism related stuff. We're Muslim, and it's a tradition donate food to poor people. He runs a butcher, and so sent meat to a Middle Eastern based charity organization. They then sent it to a regional distribution center which then distributed it to various community groups, one of which was apparently on an Interpol watch list of some description. Despite the layer upon layer of distance, my uncle's house was raised, all computer data was copied and he was questioned (bear in mind he sent a bunch of dead sheep, not a briefcase of hard currency or blueprints for nuclear related widget thingies).

He was presented with a list of every phone call he'd made in the last 10 years or so, and every call overseas he was required to explain. We're from South Africa, and are of Indian descent. Being Indian with a bloody huge families we have, we have relatives all over the place, and so we make heaps of overseas phone calls. Eventually, they decided my uncle was harmless, and left him alone. Nonetheless, ever since then I've been gearing up to move to a country that is not in the Western Axis, as I am increasingly getting the feeling that we as Muslims just aren't welcome. Plus, I don't like the idea that someone, somewhere has access to all of my movements.

Oh, and if you're going to give me the "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" line, please don't, I've heard it many times before and it sounds dumber each time I hear it.

What I don't get

[Capt James McCarthy]

Is how there is not any outrage, but there is acceptability, for the corupt nature of the whole situation. Gas taxes are supposed to pay for roads (maint & repair). That would go to figure, you use public roads, you should pay for them. But now here's a situation where the Federal Govt is giving NY 300+ million to charge people more money to use _PUBLIC_ roads. I guess "Public" no longer means paid for by the people's taxes, but means, paid for by the people's taxes, and rented out to the folks who can afford it.

Rerouting congestion does not solve the problem. NIMBY all over again. Those cars have to go somewhere. And as for the folks who think that public transportation is good enough, that could be viewed as another freedom taken away. Folks drive for many reasons, one being a sense of going where they want, when they want.