Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Jesus. Ok, it's all right to have a little bit of suspicion with regards to motives here, but "Manhattan 1984"? That's a bit much, isn't it?
Also, how does this qualify as having to do with Our Rights Online?
To prevent this day from getting worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD TH
We've had a similar system running in London for a while now here in the UK.
Now you too can look forward to people using fake license plates to avoid charges, or people who have been nowhere near the area being charged and/or fined because the number plate recognition software read a letter or number wrong.
Technically this is already feasible by ensuring that every single vehicle is equipped with a GPS receiver and a transponder that transmits its identity and its itinerary (in time and space} to collection stations.
As long as there is no congestion, and there are sufficient funds to keep all roads in good condition, the question doesn't appear. It becomes very different however when congestion starts blocking the grid, and when it's hard to find enough money for maintenance (of bridges for example}.
Under current conditions however, there is a strong incentive to toll. And yes ... there are privacy aspects.
Where electronically transmitted itineraries could be encrypted to prevent eavesdropping, someone has to do the billing ... and that someone can only do that if they can link the vehicle with a driver. And hence they will also be able to link vehicle, diver, and itinerary.
It's not quite there yet, but the signs are that it's only a matter of time. Unless someone can come up with a fool-proof alternative way of putting up the money *and* ensuring an acceptable level of service. In other words: don't count on it not happening.
After all ... what's privacy in the face of financial incentives?
But rest assured ... there probably will be a capped-fee paying option for those who really don't want their movements tracked and who can afford to pay the national maximum road price per mile where- and whenever they drive. Those subscribes don't need to submit their itineraries ... their subscriber ID will do.
The only snag is that the maximum road price will be about 20$ per mile. If your car does 50 mph, that would be 1000$ per hour maximum. So anyone willing (and able} to pay 365 x 24 x 1000$ per year would be allowed un-metered driving any time and any place. Anybody else will have to submit their itineraries and pay a road-use charge.
Oh yes ... and don't bore us with complaints that you already pay gasoline tax. What you *pay* in unimportant. What counts is the difference between what's needed for upkeep and congestion management and what's currently available.
If it keeps the paranoid from driving their cars around Manhattan, that's a bonus reduction in traffic. I'm all for it. In fact, publish the data if you can't satisfactorily explain why you need to take your car in. Make it hurt to not take public transport.
land of the free indeed....
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Manhattan is full of niggers
Clearly you meant "the working class", and you're correct. Manhattan is full of working class individuals who clearly have an interest past that of which is providing the employment. If you meant otherwise, then your conflation of racial division with division in class and/or earning potential is the point of discussion, at which point any rational individual would have to disagree with your assessment.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
As a British subject, it's nice to see our American allies catching up in the war on citizens^H^H^H^H^H^H terror.
George Orwell is one of the greatest British heroes to ever live, and now his ideas are spreading around the world. This must surely be England's finest hour.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I hate to play devil's advocate here, but this could be a much better system than a toll booth system. Either way it seems they are looking to make the traffic congested area a toll zone. Toll booths create a stop and go traffic nightmare. Creating a system that is automated (and like most things automated NOT perfect) would at least be a solid solution to not only DETER atleast some traffic, but also not hinder traffic flow. Now of course people will be screaming about how such a system will be used.
Obviously one major problematic scenario is law enforcement going wild with such a resource. You would hope there would be a secure system to prevent abuse, but it creates the infinite problem of who will watch the watchers, who will watch the watchers watching the watchers, etc. As long as the system does not needlessly collect data (such as a blanket camera system that tracks ALL movements within the zone) I dont think most people would mind. You have to remember that even at tollbooths your car is caught on camera (security cameras). True, security cameras dont have the retention this system would require (for billing purposes it would be atleast a month depending on monthly/quartly/yearly pricing) but again, imposes limitations on the use of such data could aid in ensuring the privacy of drivers.
Sorry to go anti-1984 here, but this system is far less frightening than say a CCTV blanket system like that already purposed for many downtown locations around the US, and already in wide spread use in England. While the article was scant on the operational details of the system, it felt like it was going to be used solely to track motorists entering an area and just for billing purposes (as much as we can trust that!).
After a earlier trial in Stockholm, Sweden the system is back online. The automatic license plate reading system is developed by IBM and only scans license plates when you drive into the toll zone or leaving it. It created a 20% decrease in traffic during the earlier trial and the average speed increased. The air pollution levels was reduced. The bus system, trains and subway noticed an increase in passengers but travel times was reduced still.
The information is kept until payment has been made, when it's removed from the system. With only 2 weeks to pay not much information can be recovered from the database.
With all the alarming reports about climate change and greenhouse gases it's probably a good idea to implement road tolls all over the world. In Stockholm environment friendly cars don't have to pay the road tolls. What is defined as a environment friendly car is subject to change every year as development goes forward.
This consolidates power in the hands of government. Right now, the UK government can be offensive, inappropriate, incompetent, all the traditional sins of government, but they do stop short of being outright openly evil. Alas, government is not a static reliable thing. Many of the functions of government are being gleefully handed over to corporations, either by market-worshipping dingbats who genuinely believe that the market can regulate itself, or by corrupt arseholes who just want the stock options.
Now, imagine the same systems in the hands of a major corporation. Now imagine that the corporation has very few legal restrictions on what it does. Now imagine you have pissed them off.
If that didn't scare you, you have a serious lack of imagination.
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.
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.
Because it's just like driving through any other toll plaza anywhere else. I've not heard of any that don't use cameras to track cars or give away the fact that you crossed the control point with your ETC transponder. How this information is any different from going through other toll plazas or border crossings is beyond me. Moreover, why it matters is also a puzzling thought. So a computer knows you drove into Manhattan. It's not like it would have been a secret without these toll plazas.
If "they" want to watch you, they can do it. That ability is not new, nor is it going anywhere. Attempting to attribute some lingering fear to the fact that you're visible to others in public is paranoid.
Actually there is a lot of sense to that. It has been proposed before that a government DNA database would virtually solve crime - obviously this is not true but it would be a very useful tool for detection and prevention.
n g-science/dna-database/
p orts/NationalDNADatabase.pdf
/. readers (yes thats a sweeping generalization) but it really is what I think.
But before you go off on one and start ranting lets look at the facts...
From the Home Office: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/usi
"Any intrusion on personal privacy is proportionate to the benefits that are gained.
By the end of 2005, about 200,000 samples had been retained that would have been destroyed before the 2001 change in legislation. 8,000 of these samples matched with DNA taken from crime scenes, involving nearly 14,000 offences, including murders and rapes.
In 2005-06 45,000 crimes were matched against records on the DNA Database; including 422 homicides (murders and manslaughters) and 645 rapes."
Thats 45 thousand crimes in one year. Think about that for a while.
And an anti database view: http://www.genewatch.org/HumanGen/Publications/Re
"Errors and false DNA matches have led to miscarriages of justice, and these can create major difficulties for those wrongfully convicted because, like fingerprint evidence, DNA is widely regarded as absolutely conclusive, meaning that those without strong alibi evidence will tend to be presumed guilty. At the moment the DNA database itself can be viewed largely (but not entirely) as a growing suspect list that is mainly used to check samples from new and unsolved crime, but the existing data can be (and has been) used for broader purposes, and the UK practice of retaining the sample as well as the data allows it to be used for further testing for other purposes as the science develops.
We're seeing glimpses of what is possible with familial testing, which establishes links to family members where the suspect's DNA might not be on the database, and although the first instance of this was viewed as a coup, if used widely the procedure would find relatives you didn't know about, and reveal that people weren't related to the people they thought they were. So what have you got to hide? You don't know, and maybe you don't want to know."
--- I am *not* parroting a government line. Nor am I proposing GATACCA. I am simply stating that to dismiss this without thought on quaint and paranoid lines seems irrational and foolish. I realized that this viewpoint would run counter to many of the
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.
I hate printers.
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.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Hello Mr Troll,
No big deal?? I moved out of London because of the cost
Uh-hu. If you lived in London, you'd appreciate how expensive living here is, and that the congestion charge is inconsequential compared to the cost of a mortgage, or even renting a decent place. It's a paltry 8 quid a day and that's only if you happen to drive in to zone 1 (which is up to 20 GBP an hour for parking, and there are bugger all spaces, god knows why you'd even try) - and that's not including discounts.
It did noticeably cut congestion initially, but it's crept right back up again because the charge is so low (it costs far more if you actually want to park your car). Frankly, as Jeremy Clarkson has noted (tongue in cheek) it would need to be about 50 GBP a day to hold any hope of getting city boys to take any notice whatsoever. Even then that's going to be about the same as getting Taxi's about the place, and many will prefer the car.
I think it ought to be increased significantly (and given the narrow streets and the volume of people, closing off some of the road to traffic (or at least to buses only) would be a step in the right direction.
It's treatment like this that makes me currently hate most people here in Australia.
Most of the so-called "western world" (I abhor that term... how do you divide a sphere in east and west?) needs a real kick up the backside.
Ezekiel 23:20
I'm not sure exactly how toll plazas in the states work, with EZPass and other things, but there was a (slightly famous) case in South Africa where a toll plaza helped solve a murder.
This happened at least ten years ago, so I'm not sure if video surveillance was the norm back then. I know now that all toll plazas here have cameras that record licence plates, but payment is still entirely manual - you pay with cash or credit card... the most automated means of passing is by swiping your credit card yourself in an express lane. But anyways. Because some toll plazas are on roads that are used daily for people to get to work and back, some of them offer concession cards to people living in the area to get a discounted rate. So, you pull up at the toll booth, hand in your concession card, the attendant swipes it, it registers the discounted fare, you pay, get your card back, and leave. What not many people knew, was that since you had to apply for these cards, and the cards were issued on a per vehicle basis (the card has to match the license plate to prevent fraud), the card has the vehicle details and registered owner details stored in its magnetic strip, and when the operator swipes your card to register your concession, the card details are logged in a database somewhere.
What happened was, this guy decided to murder his employee to cash in on a life policy that he had taken out in the employees name. He took his family 3-4 hours away to a casino resort for the weekend, and asked the employee to check on the house while he was away. While the family was asleep, he got in his car, drove back home, killed the employee and made it look like a break-in, drove back to the resort, and appeared very surprised and upset at the break-in and murder in his house when he returned. Although it was very suspicious and lots of evidence pointed to him, he did have the alibi of having checked in in person at the resort for the weekend. Except that he used his concession card when he drove through the toll each time, which recorded his car details and the date and time that he passed through.
These days, the discount you get for having a concession card is the equivalent of less than US$1... back then it would have been closer to around 10-20c US each trip. So, if he hadn't tried to save himself around 50c and paid the full toll price, he could have gotten away with murder.
I'm not trying to justify data recording at toll booths nor put them down. Just thought it was an interesting, somewhat related story.
Sorry, but here in the States, anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place, as long as there is no specific statute or ordinance in place prohibiting such activity (military bases, etc.) Property owners can prevent you from taking pictures while on their property; however, they cannot prohibit you from photographing any visible part of that property while on public land. Literally, I could stand on a street corner and photograph every license plate that passes, every person, etc., and nothing could legally be done to stop me (some cops don't understand this). I could also set up a camera to record a public street and capture everything going on.
Most tollbooths are already recorded to make sure that they can collect from people who pass without paying: if you don't pay the requisite fee, you get a bill. This is the same damn thing: a state (or in this case, a municipality) is charging for the use of the roads that it has to fund.
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Classic, first of all you denounce the entire UK as a bunch of right wing Sun reading racists and then in the very next sentance you moan about people making sweeping statements about sections of society. A case of double standards here perhaps ?
The majority of people in the UK are not right wing Sun reading racists, although some of us are and some of the more religiously inspired members of the Muslim community are really not interested much in integration.
If you actually want to do something to help both the right wing racists and the isolationist muslims it's best to see people as they actually are rather than relying on broad caricatures.
I would love it if someone said that to me.
If someone did say that to me - a man, in this example - then I could ask him what his wife's favourite sexual position is, or which co-worker he would turn gay for, or which one person he would kill if he could get away with it.
I don't really care what his answers would be, but that's not why I'd want to ask. I would want that person to decide for himself whether he would tell me or not. If he doesn't feel comfortable telling me, or feels offended that I'd ask, he won't answer, even if he can. That's exactly the point.
If you've got nothing to hide, you really do have nothing to fear. This is true, for as far as it goes, and I'm sure the people who say it believe it. The catch is simple: everyone has something to hide, and not everyone realises it.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
Ha ! I live in the Midlands not London, I've never even been to London and I don't give a stuff how much you're paying for driving around or whether your poxy businesses are managing to attract a sufficient number of lardy southern pansies to make a profit.
Fitzrovia, Westminister CC, who cares - it all sounds like nonce talk to me so why don't you to just cut out this girly cat fighting and give each other a big slobbery kiss on the lips like you're obviously both gagging to do, you damn southern pansies.
But Christianity and Judaism are okay, despite following the same "God"? I say we get rid of them all, since they've been making countries less free since their conception!
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
How the heck did this get modded as insightful? This is a positively xenophobic interpretation of Muslims and Islam.
I've worked with many Muslims over the years. I've enjoyed working with them as much as I enjoy working with anyone. In *my* country, Muslims are certainly welcome. Are there murderous, extremist Muslims out there? Sure. And there's murderous, extremist people in every religion. (For example, see whitehouse.gov.)
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand" - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
"But Christianity and Judaism are okay, despite following the same "God"? I say we get rid of them all, since they've been making countries less free since their conception!
In the real world, Christianity and Judaism have been usefully weakened so they don't pose as much of a threat. (I'm an atheist so I like none of them.) The idea that we should strive equally for some impossible ideal outcome as a matter of principle does not make intelligent social policy.
In which society, right now, would your rather live given the choice between predominately Christian, Jewish, or Muslim countries?
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Because all Muslims are just like those crazy brown guys you saw on 24 or Fox News. All Muslims do nothing but plot then act on plans for converting the world to Islam. There are no "normal" people who also happen to follow the faith of Islam. Of course, the same is true for all other religions. We don't want Jews because they spread Judaism. We don't want Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, or any other Christian denomination because they spread Christianity. But why stop there? Let's make sure that those with different skin colors or culture heritages are kept the hell away too. My Daddy already taught me anything worth knowing and I don't need someone who looks, talks, or thinks differently putting confusing thoughts in my head.
The spread of Islam cannot be considered desirable by non-Muslims because of the societies it creates. You mean like the cities of Spain and the Middle East a thousand years ago? Those Muslim cities that happened to be centers of enlightenment and scientific learning, while Christian Europe was in the midst of the Dark Ages? Or perhaps you mean the secular democracy in Turkey, a Muslim nation? Islam is an exceptionally oppressive religion in practice, and practice trumps theory.Religion is an exceptionally oppressive organization in practice... Fixed that for you. Islam is not special.
I've seen the best you can do even with massive wealth (KSA, and the Gulf Emirates) and do not want MY country to be like them.I agree on this point, but I've also seen what has happened and continues to happen in the best "Christian nations" and do not want MY country to be like them.
Many of us don't care about political correctness, and don't want even "reasonable" Muslims in their midst. Sure. You are of the same lot as the whites who don't want blacks in their neighborhood, heterosexuals who are afraid they may catch Gay if a homosexual lives near them, and men who understand that women are subservient to them. You need the world to be divided into neat classes and you know that the bucket you are in is the best. In fact, your group (gender, culture, race, sexual orientation, religion, political party, etc) is the only correct one and has inherent dominance over the lesser groups. If Muslim society is good and righteous, Muslims might prove their loyalty by moving back to the Caliphate. This statement doesn't even make sense. I don't need them. I don't want Islamic changes in MY society. I don't want Muslims to have leverage by increasing their population in MY country. To reiterate, Different is bad and Same is good. I suppose you're okay with the Muslim influences that pulled Christian Europe out of the Dark Ages and lead directly to its scientific and industrial revolutions? Just because Islam is a "religion" doesn't mean it should not be viewed as a political ideology. I am free to oppose Islam (everywhere but Islamic countries) just as I am free to oppose Maoism or Stalinism. To the extent my country becomes Islamic I will be less free, so anything that induces Muslims to leave suits me fine. The Ottoman empire began creating a constitutional democracy 150 years ago and secularized their government fifty years later. There have been hosts of authoritarian and autocratic nations through the centuries, some religious, some secular, and some adamantly anti-religious. Just like every organized religion, there are political movements within Islam but that does not make it a political ideology. All major religions can be separated into the faith and organized religion, you are opposed to the organized religion but lumping the faith with it in your fear and ignorance.personally i think they should turn a random town in new jersey into a parking lot, and force people to take trains into the city. cars ruin midtown. i hate cars. all streets should become pedestrian thoroughfairs. make times square a permanent street fair. turn the taxi fleet into a bunch of pedicabs, scooters, and small european style microcars. make all truck deliveries during a certain hour of the night
and then i turn to slashdot, and i find a bunch of spin that frankly doesn't get the situation at all. a lot of the discussion here is about accepting a loss of freedom
loss of freedom?! you mean GAIN of freedom. the oppressive fascist presence here being CARS, not the government!
hello, i live here, i think i understand better than the average slashbot about what is going on with this plan. i don't see it as mourning a loss of freedom. i see it as celebrating a loss of CARS
let's put it this way: in the fight against what you perceive as an intrusive government and loss of privacy, try to understand what people on the ground are actually thinking about the situation, and pick the right fight. don't misinterpret the situation and come charging in horns ablaring about this issue or that issue that frankly, no one is actually concerned with and doesn't even apply
or rather, for the sake of argument, let's take the absurd position that the slashbots here are correct about this being an intrusive government issue and not a clogged traffic issue. ok, well then, now you understand that those who live in midtown manhattan welcome the devilish scheme of emperor palpatine to take away their freedoms under the guise of a bait and switch maneuver that the issue is something else entirely. fine: now try to understand what emperor palpatine is baiting us with, and use that issue as a starting point for your own words. the point being, it doesn't pay to march into a situation with the discussion already all figured out in your head without any input or attempt to persuade the people who are actually the targets of the plan in question
know your audience, speak to their concerns. or don't bother speraking at all. because they're not going to listen to you if you don't try to understand where they are coming from
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
People should not be allowed to reference 1984 (or say "Orwellian") unless they've actually read the thing. It describes a totalitarian state that makes Stalin look like a libertarian. It's not just about a government that spies on its people (though only the upper classes). It's about people willfully changing their own memories of the past and a ruling party that claims to control reality. All of this is set in a world of permanent war and grinding poverty for almost all of humanity.
People are right to be concerned about the government spying on them. But most of the intrusions that people are up in arms about is a long way from "1984" territory. Being added to a database every time you drive into Manhattan does raise privacy concerns, but it's many orders of magnitude away from the nightmare Orwell described.
Warning: it's illegal to follow the above Gutenberg Australia link if you live in the U.S. or some other country that has effectively made copyrights permanent. That's a bad thing, but it's not "Orwellian" either.