Slashdot Mirror
French City To Use CCTV For Parking Fines
horza writes "The city of Nice, France is rolling out 626 CCTV cameras throughout town, giving it one of the highest levels of surveillance in the world (1.8 cameras per 1000 inhabitants). The usual rhetoric was given — that they will be used solely for reducing violent crime — but the city will now begin sending out parking tickets solely based on the CCTV video evidence."
Not so Nice after all...
This is the doing of Christian Estrosi, mayor of Nice and minister of Industry, whose education consisted in winning motorcycle races. He's at the forefront of applying repression at the city level, and actually wanted to fine mayors of other cities where crime is not sufficiantly fought in his eyes. Funny coming from the guy in charge of the city where the Russian Mafia is rampant... anyway the summary has is wrong, in terms of politically correct French. The French government wants everyone to stop using the ugly word 'videosurveillance' and instead opt for the friendly, wonderfully orwellian 'videoprotection'.
~~~ Paf. Le chien.
This is not the first time I've heard "this is for your own safety" arguments only to have them turn out as thinly veiled guises of trying to make money at your expense. Details escape me, but not too long ago, somewhere in the US, a town added red light cameras which took a snapshot of your car and sent you the fine for running a red light. In a matter of months, it was so successful that very few, if anybody, ran red lights anymore. You think they'd be happy - after all, they probably DID save lives. So why did they take them down? Because the revenue from tickets (those types anyway) was reduced to a big, fat 0
This also makes you wonder what else is being done "for our safety", when in reality it's just a way to take your money. Surely at least speeding enforcement must be exempt from this. Oh wait...
Rothbard was right when he said that governments only have destructive ways of making money (of course, he was referring to taxation at the time, but a valid point non the less)
You do not want this ... It is worse than living in East Germany under the Stazi. (or similar to the "great Terror" after the French revolution)
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
hehe you're going to hate me, but......
I used to dislike red-light cameras because they are used as revenue machines for the city, etc. Then I realized, wow, if they weren't using them as revenue machines, then I would have to pay higher taxes. So hey, I don't mind having my taxes subsidized by those people who are too stupid to figure out how to navigate a red light. If that's you, sorry about that, and thanks. And I think there must be a lot of people who feel like me, otherwise there would be no red-light cameras.
Now if they are catching people when they aren't actually breaking laws, that's another story. I'm against that. But that's not what you're complaining about.
Qxe4
There was a recent scandal here in Spain because the picture that comes with the fine showed the car passing in yellow, not red. Nobody was found responsible and nothing happened.
There's also been known cases of shortened yellow lights in the US that give the victims no time to stop before getting caught in camera.
Speed cameras are easier to use as bait, though, because as soon as the revenue goes down the "authorities" just set a lower speed limit, even far below the safe limit.
I'm part of a the NTBPT (No to Bike Parking Tax) demo group in London which protests at having to pay parking fees in Central London. The UK law stipulates that councils are not allowed to simply charge for parking as a revenue stream, there has to be some benefit to the local population/businesses such as relieveing congestion, and as bikes don't cause congestion we're currently fighting Westminster Counsil in the European Courts of the legality of the charges. http://www.notobikeparkingtax.com/
Westminster Council also employs CCTV cars that roam the streets of London spying on the populace & catching any "traffic violations", but we've caught on to that and now we follow the CCTV cars and we film them & alert motorists about them and occasionally post evidence of them committing their own traffic violations to Youtube :-)
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23883049-bikers-blow-cover-of-cctv-cars-snooping-on-drivers.do
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHOazGC7alk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QNfeL71ojg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cztfKB8SGCI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsZb9jIfGv0
If you don't like what your elected memebers are doing then 1] try and vote them out, 2] organise, protest & demonstrate 3] take direct action to hinder their effectiveness (all legal and above board direct action mind.
You are suffering from the failed logic that government actually acts rational.
In fact, the revenue streams won't decrease your tax burden, instead they just give raises to employees, elected officials, find a way to work bonuses or more/better benefits into the public sector, and end up spending more. Government is funny that way, they think once the money is in their hands, they have to spend it. Of course that's true to an extent, most jurisdictions (at least in the US) can only keep a certain percentage of revenue collected until a certain point is reached, the excess has to be spent or returned to the tax payer.
This is what has sparked most of the major budget problems we are seeing right now. You can't un-raise employees, so when the economy tanks and revenue drops, it's deficit hell or unpopular cuts in programs, or somehow raising taxes. None of which politicians want to do because it makes it hard to get reelected. Most governments went from "we need this to run" to how much can I spend. The later marks a shift in the deterioration of government and brings about favoritism, cronyism and the general environment of waste that seems embedded in the ineffective government we see today on most levels.
No, red light camera are not subsidizing your taxes, they are enabling government expansion.
Well said.
That, however, is worse than cameras (which does not diminish how bad cameras are). It's well known (from the examples of WWII Germany and so on) that states which encourage citizens to report each other become very nasty places to be.
You are suffering from the failed logic that government actually acts rational.
In fact, the revenue streams won't decrease your tax burden, instead they just give raises to employees, elected officials, find a way to work bonuses or more/better benefits into the public sector, and end up spending more.
You need to take off your teabagger hat. I work in the public sector, and I tell you that the last thing an elected official will do is give public employees a raise. We advertised for a traffic engineer; even in this horrendous job market it took 3 months to get 4 qualified applicants. Public sector pay is, for the most part, crap. I get about 75 cents on the dollar compared to private sector work. Most public service employees I know have some sort of side income - rentals, side business, etc - that increase their take home pay.
Government is funny that way, they think once the money is in their hands, they have to spend it.
You're right there, but the money is spent on pet projects, pie in the sky dreams, and stuff like that. They spend the money on what gets them re-elected, what YOU demand they provide YOU. They don't spend a dime on their own employees unless they have to. Any politician that would champion raises to staff, either as pay increases or better benefits, would not be re-elected next time around.
Once the economy improves, there will be a huge exodus of qualified public sector employees into the private sector, to the detriment of public service. Heck, I'm on my way out.
What happens is that once all the good people leave for better paying jobs, leaving mostly the lazy, indolent, and stupid, and a handful of people truly dedicated to service to the public. Then the politicians notice, run around in a panic, give everyone raises, thus rewarding the unqualified for their inability to find a better job.
OK, I suppose I should comment on this since I live in that city, and am only two blocks from the building where cops watch those video cameras. Actually, there are pros and cons to this idea (but mainly cons):
In short, this is a truly bad idea, but since no one cares (and since ethnic issues and the accompanying fear-mongering run high at the moment), politicians can happily bamboozle people into thinking they should accept any weird proposal in the name of security. Trying to explain the underlying issues to the average city dweller (which are basically seniors and right-wingers) will just get you a “think-of-the-children”-like answer (the best line I've found is pointing out how the cameras won't do shit to prevent an attacker from hitting them, and that their tax money would have been better spent on more policemen on the beat). I suspect it will be some time before people actually realise the dangers of this global surveillance system, and when they do, it may well be much too late. Just like all those people that go around yelling that the law “protects too much the criminals' rights”—until of course, a relative of them gets beaten at the hands of the police *sigh*
Xenu brings order!