My problem with Clinton wasn't that he had an affair, although I think that the people that he chose to have affairs with showed a decided lack of judgment. The problem with Clinton was that he lied about his actions under oath after he got caught. Then instead of resigning in disgrace when he got caught lying he forced the country through an impeachment trial. If you contrast that with Gingrich you see there really is no comparison. Gingrich got caught, and resigned. Clinton just made up bigger and bigger lies.
To be honest, I am always somewhat surprised that John Edwards got crucified for adultery and Bill Clinton got little more than a reprimand for lying under oath and gross abuse of his power when the truth came out. That seems like pretty fuzzy thinking on the part of Democrats. I don't care (much) if politicians fool around. I am adult enough to realize that such behavior probably goes with the territory. What I don't want are politicians that feel that they can lie under oath, or use their power to cover up their misdeeds.
Probably because Google doesn't want to get into the Arduino hardware business, but they do want to make getting the proper board as easy as possible. If price is not an issue you can get precisely the right board from directly from Google. If you are on a budget, you can do a bit of research and save yourself some money. Everyone wins.
In many ways Oracle cares more about potential customers than existing customers. Switching away from Oracle is difficult, so existing customers often have little choice but to remain Oracle customers. The worst that existing customers can do is start trying to limit their use of Oracle software. Over time this will almost certainly translate to reduced revenues from the account, but Oracle execs (and salespeople) know that a lot can happen between deciding to move away from Oracle on principle and actually making that happen.
However, Oracle can't survive (and it certainly can't grow) by just exploiting its existing user base. If Oracle wants to remain a going concern it needs to add new accounts. With enough bad publicity Oracle could easily find itself in a position where potential customers are less willing to try Oracle software. Oracle has lots of competition, and even a slight change in the bias against Oracle can make a big difference in the amount of new sales.
I mentioned I did not care for Ratatouille (I paid to see it, but I did not purchase the DVD). I also thought that "Up" was a downer. I cried three times in the theater, and that is *not* why I pay to go see Pixar films. I did purchase the DVD though, and I have re-watched it several times.
The rest of the Pixar films are classics. "The Incredibles" is my favorite, but I enjoy watching all of them quite a bit.
I personally am a huge Pixar fan, and I tend to purchase DVDs of most Disney animated films (Ratatouille being the major modern exception). Surprisingly enough, when I turned off cable (for Netflix) recently the one thing that my family really missed was the Disney Channel. I thought I would miss Discovery and the History Channel, but there are quite a few interesting documentaries that I can stream.
Luckily Netflix has old episodes of Phineas and Ferb. Now if only they had Linux support.
It is important to note that the MPEG-LA does *not* protect people paying their license fees from patent holders that may or may not exist outside of their patent pool. In that regard H.264 is in precisely the same boat as WebM. Both Google and MPEG-LA state that they believe that they own all of the required patents for implementing their respective standards. Neither indemnifies you against the chance that someone else owns a patent that applies.
The difference, of course, is that Google is happy to grant you a free irrevocable license for their patents. MPEG-LA requires you to pay for that privilege.
The folks at MPEG-LA would certainly like you to believe that their standard is safer, but the reality is that the only real difference is that the MPEG-LA is far more likely to stoop to extortion.
In his defense most of the people that use these devices do so because they are concerned about their cargoes being hijacked or their children being kidnapped. If that is not the case, then more traditional means of tracking cargoes and children are probably more than adequate.
Assignment is probably the better word. However, I think that you need a better dictionary. Wiktionary is the only dictionary that I could find doesn't list "assignment" as the first definition for assignation. Just saying.
Anything which was free before Oracle is going to be better off forked from Oracle.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, for Oracle at least, most of the software, and all of the really interesting software, that Oracle bought in the Sun acquisition is Free Software. Oracle execs apparently assumed that they could throw their weight around a bit and that the projects would fall in line. In the case of LibreOffice that was definitely not the case. All of a sudden opinions like yours (and mine) are starting to look workable. Oracle could realistically lose control of several of their Free Software projects (including MySQL) if it is not careful.
Some communities are able to get over signing copyright assignation forms, although it definitely creates some friction. Even the FSF has problems getting copyright assignation for GNU Emacs on occasion, and you have to be pretty paranoid if you are worried about the FSF misusing Emacs source code.
From what I understood, however, the problems went deeper than that. Even those people that were willing to assign their copyrights to Sun, and who provided patches that were clearly useful had problems getting things accepted. Unless you were a Sun employee you were not going to have much influence in the project.
Actually, LibreOffice has several features that the newest OpenOffice.org lacks. Sun/Oracle dragged their feet on accepting contributions from outsiders. Part of this was due to the fact that Sun/Oracle wanted to charge money for certain features, part was simple Not Invented Here syndrome. Either way, when LibreOffice split off from OpenOffice.org it was already the better fork.
Now that LibreOffice has shown that it can organize a community, set up the needed infrastructure, and make a release that is better than Oracle's release Oracle is starting to get concerned about what this says about Oracle's ability to lead in other Free Software communities. Larry Ellison paid a lot of money for Sun's various Free Software businesses, and he does *not* want people getting the idea that these communities would be better off if they were forked away from Oracle.
Microsoft already tried the embrace, extend, extinguish tactic on HTML standards. Back in the IE6 days they even had the standards guys on the ropes. However, instead of just extending HTML in incompatible ways Microsoft tried to really push home their advantage by switching web development from being browser based to being based on Silverlight. It would have worked too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids...
Oh wait, wrong show.
Knowing Microsoft it is going to try again. However, for that tactic to work they have to actually get ahead.
The father in me wants to respond that we simply need to get more creative about our punishments. There are plenty of things that are worse than a quick death. However, I recognise that as barbarism, even if it is the sort of thing that is likely to work in a practical sense.
As I said in another thread I am not convinced that most criminals have the mental capacity to make a rational choice when it comes to balancing out the risk and reward of crime. Combine that with the fact that the death penalty is invariably something that will be carried out in the far distant future, and I don't believe that it makes sense to set the statute of limitations (or the possible penalties) with the idea that criminals are going to make a rational decision about killing the victim.
Besides, as it now stands, it is unlikely that a kidnapper that releases a victim, especially unharmed, is going to get anything like the death penalty. Our laws already have wiggle room when it comes to sentencing and prosecution.
BTW, I appreciate the discussion. I still think that increased technology in law enforcement is inevitable, and that it is better to embrace technology and try and shape its use appropriately. However, you have certainly pointed out some pitfalls that need to be considered. In the end, I suppose that I even have to agree that it would be better to severely handicap law enforcement than to create the sort of abusive surveillance state that you are worried about.
I used improper in the sense that it isn't illegal, but that you don't necessarily want your neighbors to know about it.
Personally, I am pretty open minded about what other people might do. If it isn't illegal then that's fine with me. I respect honesty, even if you make lifestyle choices that I might disagree with for myself.
If it makes you feel any better, I have no problems believing that good people can have skeletons in the past. That is why I think that it is important that as technology becomes more important in law enforcement that we maintain a sane set of statutes of limitations. People can and do change their lives without having to be punished, and I think that is a good thing.
Heck, to the extent that we actually get better at catching criminals I think that it is important that we also become more lenient with people that are not habitual criminals. I am all for expunging records, deleting evidence over time and all sorts of other safeguards to balance the rights of victims with the rights of folks that commit criminal acts.
I just think that it is silly to assume that law enforcement is going to eschew technology. You probably carry around a camera 24-7. That sort of thing was unheard of when I was a kid, now nearly everyone has a video camera on them all of the time. It is much better to put systems and safeguards in place now with the assumption that technology is going to be more important in crime fighting than to simply bury your head in the sand and hope that police officers will be forced to rely on memory alone in an age where cameras have become ubiquitous.
Yes, but one of the nice things about video evidence is that you don't have to be an expert to interpret the result. All of us have a lot of experience using our own eyes. If a piece of video isn't conclusive then you can show that to a jury (or judge) and they are likely to persuade people. If a police officer says that he saw you sneaking out of a bank late at night there is no way to refute that evidence even if he is mistaken.
I live in Utah. Things are a bit different here than on the coasts.
Speeding tickets serve a purpose, unlike jay walking which is basically only useful as a way for police officers to harass people.
Even in the jaywalking example I still think that the correct solution is more technology, not less. The real problem with jay walking laws is that too much leeway is given to the officer of the law. The law is selectively enforced, and that is unfair. If the law were universally enforced then the problem would soon go away. Either people would give up jay walking (unlikely) or the laws would get changed. After all, even the bureaucrats would want to see the laws changed (as they would be negatively effected too).
I actually would argue that the Statute of Limitations should be extended on sex crimes, but that is only because I regard these crimes as particularly heinous. I think that it is disingenuous to say that this means that soon the statute of limitations will be abolished for all crimes. As technology becomes more important in law enforcement (which I believe is basically a given) the statute of limitations actually becomes more important. For precisely the reasons that you outline.
I also agree that we have a hard time controlling the abuses that go on in the system now. The real question is whether things are likely to get better if we handcuff law enforcement agencies into using outdated technologies and relying on human memory, or if they are going to get worse. Personally, I would much rather rely on impartial technology than police officers, and I *like* police officers. Give me video evidence any day of the week over the "memories" of the best police officers in existence.
You are afraid that video surveillance will be used against you. I, on the other hand, am quite sure that if I were accused of a serious crime that video surveillance is far more likely to exonerate me, assuming that the video surveillance exists.
Yes, it is important that as these systems get built they get built with the sort of safeguards that will help guarantee that they aren't misused. An example I used elsewhere is that I am comfortable with the idea that the police can follow my car to and from work. I am considerably less comfortable with the idea that the same cameras might know when my 12 year-old daughter is home alone. If use of the video logs is properly audited, however, it should be possible to keep a stalker (who happens to be in a position of authority) from following my daughter's every movement with impunity. Such activity should leave a trail.
If that is not the case, then I actually agree with you. No one wants a police state where un-named bureaucrats can follow your every move anonymously without fear of being caught. I just happen to think that there is a middle way. Properly audited and maintained a public camera system could be a real boon to law enforcement and to innocents that are wrongfully accused as well.
Yes, some people truly get a raw deal in how they are born into this world. It basically goes without saying, however, that crime is not a rational choice. In our society the potential rewards do not even come close to balancing out the risks. For most criminals it isn't a question of putting their own survival and well being ahead of someone else. Instead, it is the same fuzzy thinking that leads people to think that they are going to be able to go to Vegas and win money gambling.
In the short term it is possible to make crime pay, and some people are attracted to the lure of "easy" money, notoriety, etc.
I see your point, but jay walking is not a particularly good example. For one thing, in sane jurisdictions jay walking is not a crime. The fact that it *is* a crime in L.A. simply means that you have a law that should be fixed. What's more, if fining someone for jaywalking required video proof, it *would* be fixed, basically overnight. Either an increase of automated jay walking fines would cause public outrage, or a lack of evidence would get everyone off of the hook.
Jay walking is the sort of law that is basically used to harass people. Police officers use it when they want to stop someone that they are pretty sure is doing something more serious. You are right to be upset with this sort of law enforcement. That does not mean that cameras can not be effective in other types of law enforcement.
It is interesting that you would quote wikipedia and leave out the sentence that precedes your first sentence.
The purpose of a statute of limitations or its equivalent is to ensure that the possibility of punishment for an act committed sufficiently long ago cannot give rise to either a person's incarceration or the criminal justice system's activation. In short, unless the crime is exceptionally heinous in nature (for example, murder, which generally has no statute of limitations), social justice as enacted through law has compromised that lesser crimes from long ago are best let be rather than distract attention from contemporary serious crimes.
You are right to be concerned about a future in which this no longer holds true. However, concerns about a future dystopia where this sort of fairness no longer exists is at best orthogonal to using cameras in law enforcement.
I think that it goes without saying that police are going to increase their use of cameras in law enforcement. Personally, I would much rather push for intelligent laws than push for stupid law enforcement. Cameras are inexpensive, leave a clear trail of evidence, and can be automated so that it is difficult to game the system. Police officers are human, they can be bribed, and they can use poor judgement. Sure, we clearly need to protect ourselves so that the information gathered can not be easily abused. However, the abuses that you mention in this particular post are already a) unlikely, and b) illegal.
If you want to worry about your bad judgements following you around forever delete your facebook account. Don't worry about traffic cameras. You are already protected by the statute of limitations for most laws.
It is impossible to hide evidence of your public behavior, proper or improper, from your nosy neighbors. If you don't believe that, then you have never had truly nosy neighbors.
The fact of the matter is that the number of cameras being used at any given time is only going to increase. Heck, you probably carry one around with you 24-7. I think that it is only logical that law enforcement take advantage of that to help catch criminals. Why in the world should we pay for more police officers when so many of the things that we pay police officers to do can be automated with inexpensive cameras and a bit of software?
Yes, we need to audit how the information is created and used, so that we can protect ourselves from abuse, but I think it is simply ridiculous to think that this particular genie is going to hop back in the bottle.
Keeping the information in reserve is patently wrong. On the bright side, it is also illegal to do this, and I would bet that the statute of limitations on something like that is pretty short anyhow. So feel free to sleep at night again, you are safe.
Automating the ticketing from the stop sign, on the other hand is a *great* idea. If you roll through a stop sign you should get a ticket in the mail. Taking police out of the system entirely makes sure it is fair for everyone. With just a touch of technology we could make rolling stops a thing of the past, and make sure that this particular law was applied 100% fairly.
Slashdot Mirror
My problem with Clinton wasn't that he had an affair, although I think that the people that he chose to have affairs with showed a decided lack of judgment. The problem with Clinton was that he lied about his actions under oath after he got caught. Then instead of resigning in disgrace when he got caught lying he forced the country through an impeachment trial. If you contrast that with Gingrich you see there really is no comparison. Gingrich got caught, and resigned. Clinton just made up bigger and bigger lies.
To be honest, I am always somewhat surprised that John Edwards got crucified for adultery and Bill Clinton got little more than a reprimand for lying under oath and gross abuse of his power when the truth came out. That seems like pretty fuzzy thinking on the part of Democrats. I don't care (much) if politicians fool around. I am adult enough to realize that such behavior probably goes with the territory. What I don't want are politicians that feel that they can lie under oath, or use their power to cover up their misdeeds.
Perhaps you feel differently. That's fine.
Didn't Newt's adultery happen in the 90s? Apparently Republicans are just better at forgiving *past* offenses.
Probably because Google doesn't want to get into the Arduino hardware business, but they do want to make getting the proper board as easy as possible. If price is not an issue you can get precisely the right board from directly from Google. If you are on a budget, you can do a bit of research and save yourself some money. Everyone wins.
In many ways Oracle cares more about potential customers than existing customers. Switching away from Oracle is difficult, so existing customers often have little choice but to remain Oracle customers. The worst that existing customers can do is start trying to limit their use of Oracle software. Over time this will almost certainly translate to reduced revenues from the account, but Oracle execs (and salespeople) know that a lot can happen between deciding to move away from Oracle on principle and actually making that happen.
However, Oracle can't survive (and it certainly can't grow) by just exploiting its existing user base. If Oracle wants to remain a going concern it needs to add new accounts. With enough bad publicity Oracle could easily find itself in a position where potential customers are less willing to try Oracle software. Oracle has lots of competition, and even a slight change in the bias against Oracle can make a big difference in the amount of new sales.
I mentioned I did not care for Ratatouille (I paid to see it, but I did not purchase the DVD). I also thought that "Up" was a downer. I cried three times in the theater, and that is *not* why I pay to go see Pixar films. I did purchase the DVD though, and I have re-watched it several times.
The rest of the Pixar films are classics. "The Incredibles" is my favorite, but I enjoy watching all of them quite a bit.
I personally am a huge Pixar fan, and I tend to purchase DVDs of most Disney animated films (Ratatouille being the major modern exception). Surprisingly enough, when I turned off cable (for Netflix) recently the one thing that my family really missed was the Disney Channel. I thought I would miss Discovery and the History Channel, but there are quite a few interesting documentaries that I can stream.
Luckily Netflix has old episodes of Phineas and Ferb. Now if only they had Linux support.
It is important to note that the MPEG-LA does *not* protect people paying their license fees from patent holders that may or may not exist outside of their patent pool. In that regard H.264 is in precisely the same boat as WebM. Both Google and MPEG-LA state that they believe that they own all of the required patents for implementing their respective standards. Neither indemnifies you against the chance that someone else owns a patent that applies.
The difference, of course, is that Google is happy to grant you a free irrevocable license for their patents. MPEG-LA requires you to pay for that privilege.
The folks at MPEG-LA would certainly like you to believe that their standard is safer, but the reality is that the only real difference is that the MPEG-LA is far more likely to stoop to extortion.
In his defense most of the people that use these devices do so because they are concerned about their cargoes being hijacked or their children being kidnapped. If that is not the case, then more traditional means of tracking cargoes and children are probably more than adequate.
Assignment is probably the better word. However, I think that you need a better dictionary. Wiktionary is the only dictionary that I could find doesn't list "assignment" as the first definition for assignation. Just saying.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, for Oracle at least, most of the software, and all of the really interesting software, that Oracle bought in the Sun acquisition is Free Software. Oracle execs apparently assumed that they could throw their weight around a bit and that the projects would fall in line. In the case of LibreOffice that was definitely not the case. All of a sudden opinions like yours (and mine) are starting to look workable. Oracle could realistically lose control of several of their Free Software projects (including MySQL) if it is not careful.
Some communities are able to get over signing copyright assignation forms, although it definitely creates some friction. Even the FSF has problems getting copyright assignation for GNU Emacs on occasion, and you have to be pretty paranoid if you are worried about the FSF misusing Emacs source code. From what I understood, however, the problems went deeper than that. Even those people that were willing to assign their copyrights to Sun, and who provided patches that were clearly useful had problems getting things accepted. Unless you were a Sun employee you were not going to have much influence in the project.
Actually, LibreOffice has several features that the newest OpenOffice.org lacks. Sun/Oracle dragged their feet on accepting contributions from outsiders. Part of this was due to the fact that Sun/Oracle wanted to charge money for certain features, part was simple Not Invented Here syndrome. Either way, when LibreOffice split off from OpenOffice.org it was already the better fork.
Now that LibreOffice has shown that it can organize a community, set up the needed infrastructure, and make a release that is better than Oracle's release Oracle is starting to get concerned about what this says about Oracle's ability to lead in other Free Software communities. Larry Ellison paid a lot of money for Sun's various Free Software businesses, and he does *not* want people getting the idea that these communities would be better off if they were forked away from Oracle.
Microsoft already tried the embrace, extend, extinguish tactic on HTML standards. Back in the IE6 days they even had the standards guys on the ropes. However, instead of just extending HTML in incompatible ways Microsoft tried to really push home their advantage by switching web development from being browser based to being based on Silverlight. It would have worked too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids...
Oh wait, wrong show.
Knowing Microsoft it is going to try again. However, for that tactic to work they have to actually get ahead.
The father in me wants to respond that we simply need to get more creative about our punishments. There are plenty of things that are worse than a quick death. However, I recognise that as barbarism, even if it is the sort of thing that is likely to work in a practical sense.
As I said in another thread I am not convinced that most criminals have the mental capacity to make a rational choice when it comes to balancing out the risk and reward of crime. Combine that with the fact that the death penalty is invariably something that will be carried out in the far distant future, and I don't believe that it makes sense to set the statute of limitations (or the possible penalties) with the idea that criminals are going to make a rational decision about killing the victim.
Besides, as it now stands, it is unlikely that a kidnapper that releases a victim, especially unharmed, is going to get anything like the death penalty. Our laws already have wiggle room when it comes to sentencing and prosecution.
BTW, I appreciate the discussion. I still think that increased technology in law enforcement is inevitable, and that it is better to embrace technology and try and shape its use appropriately. However, you have certainly pointed out some pitfalls that need to be considered. In the end, I suppose that I even have to agree that it would be better to severely handicap law enforcement than to create the sort of abusive surveillance state that you are worried about.
Very well said.
I used improper in the sense that it isn't illegal, but that you don't necessarily want your neighbors to know about it.
Personally, I am pretty open minded about what other people might do. If it isn't illegal then that's fine with me. I respect honesty, even if you make lifestyle choices that I might disagree with for myself.
If it makes you feel any better, I have no problems believing that good people can have skeletons in the past. That is why I think that it is important that as technology becomes more important in law enforcement that we maintain a sane set of statutes of limitations. People can and do change their lives without having to be punished, and I think that is a good thing.
Heck, to the extent that we actually get better at catching criminals I think that it is important that we also become more lenient with people that are not habitual criminals. I am all for expunging records, deleting evidence over time and all sorts of other safeguards to balance the rights of victims with the rights of folks that commit criminal acts.
I just think that it is silly to assume that law enforcement is going to eschew technology. You probably carry around a camera 24-7. That sort of thing was unheard of when I was a kid, now nearly everyone has a video camera on them all of the time. It is much better to put systems and safeguards in place now with the assumption that technology is going to be more important in crime fighting than to simply bury your head in the sand and hope that police officers will be forced to rely on memory alone in an age where cameras have become ubiquitous.
Yes, but one of the nice things about video evidence is that you don't have to be an expert to interpret the result. All of us have a lot of experience using our own eyes. If a piece of video isn't conclusive then you can show that to a jury (or judge) and they are likely to persuade people. If a police officer says that he saw you sneaking out of a bank late at night there is no way to refute that evidence even if he is mistaken.
I live in Utah. Things are a bit different here than on the coasts.
Speeding tickets serve a purpose, unlike jay walking which is basically only useful as a way for police officers to harass people.
Even in the jaywalking example I still think that the correct solution is more technology, not less. The real problem with jay walking laws is that too much leeway is given to the officer of the law. The law is selectively enforced, and that is unfair. If the law were universally enforced then the problem would soon go away. Either people would give up jay walking (unlikely) or the laws would get changed. After all, even the bureaucrats would want to see the laws changed (as they would be negatively effected too).
I actually would argue that the Statute of Limitations should be extended on sex crimes, but that is only because I regard these crimes as particularly heinous. I think that it is disingenuous to say that this means that soon the statute of limitations will be abolished for all crimes. As technology becomes more important in law enforcement (which I believe is basically a given) the statute of limitations actually becomes more important. For precisely the reasons that you outline.
I also agree that we have a hard time controlling the abuses that go on in the system now. The real question is whether things are likely to get better if we handcuff law enforcement agencies into using outdated technologies and relying on human memory, or if they are going to get worse. Personally, I would much rather rely on impartial technology than police officers, and I *like* police officers. Give me video evidence any day of the week over the "memories" of the best police officers in existence.
You are afraid that video surveillance will be used against you. I, on the other hand, am quite sure that if I were accused of a serious crime that video surveillance is far more likely to exonerate me, assuming that the video surveillance exists.
Yes, it is important that as these systems get built they get built with the sort of safeguards that will help guarantee that they aren't misused. An example I used elsewhere is that I am comfortable with the idea that the police can follow my car to and from work. I am considerably less comfortable with the idea that the same cameras might know when my 12 year-old daughter is home alone. If use of the video logs is properly audited, however, it should be possible to keep a stalker (who happens to be in a position of authority) from following my daughter's every movement with impunity. Such activity should leave a trail.
If that is not the case, then I actually agree with you. No one wants a police state where un-named bureaucrats can follow your every move anonymously without fear of being caught. I just happen to think that there is a middle way. Properly audited and maintained a public camera system could be a real boon to law enforcement and to innocents that are wrongfully accused as well.
Yes, some people truly get a raw deal in how they are born into this world. It basically goes without saying, however, that crime is not a rational choice. In our society the potential rewards do not even come close to balancing out the risks. For most criminals it isn't a question of putting their own survival and well being ahead of someone else. Instead, it is the same fuzzy thinking that leads people to think that they are going to be able to go to Vegas and win money gambling.
In the short term it is possible to make crime pay, and some people are attracted to the lure of "easy" money, notoriety, etc.
I see your point, but jay walking is not a particularly good example. For one thing, in sane jurisdictions jay walking is not a crime. The fact that it *is* a crime in L.A. simply means that you have a law that should be fixed. What's more, if fining someone for jaywalking required video proof, it *would* be fixed, basically overnight. Either an increase of automated jay walking fines would cause public outrage, or a lack of evidence would get everyone off of the hook.
Jay walking is the sort of law that is basically used to harass people. Police officers use it when they want to stop someone that they are pretty sure is doing something more serious. You are right to be upset with this sort of law enforcement. That does not mean that cameras can not be effective in other types of law enforcement.
It is interesting that you would quote wikipedia and leave out the sentence that precedes your first sentence.
You are right to be concerned about a future in which this no longer holds true. However, concerns about a future dystopia where this sort of fairness no longer exists is at best orthogonal to using cameras in law enforcement.
I think that it goes without saying that police are going to increase their use of cameras in law enforcement. Personally, I would much rather push for intelligent laws than push for stupid law enforcement. Cameras are inexpensive, leave a clear trail of evidence, and can be automated so that it is difficult to game the system. Police officers are human, they can be bribed, and they can use poor judgement. Sure, we clearly need to protect ourselves so that the information gathered can not be easily abused. However, the abuses that you mention in this particular post are already a) unlikely, and b) illegal.
If you want to worry about your bad judgements following you around forever delete your facebook account. Don't worry about traffic cameras. You are already protected by the statute of limitations for most laws.
It is impossible to hide evidence of your public behavior, proper or improper, from your nosy neighbors. If you don't believe that, then you have never had truly nosy neighbors.
The fact of the matter is that the number of cameras being used at any given time is only going to increase. Heck, you probably carry one around with you 24-7. I think that it is only logical that law enforcement take advantage of that to help catch criminals. Why in the world should we pay for more police officers when so many of the things that we pay police officers to do can be automated with inexpensive cameras and a bit of software?
Yes, we need to audit how the information is created and used, so that we can protect ourselves from abuse, but I think it is simply ridiculous to think that this particular genie is going to hop back in the bottle.
Keeping the information in reserve is patently wrong. On the bright side, it is also illegal to do this, and I would bet that the statute of limitations on something like that is pretty short anyhow. So feel free to sleep at night again, you are safe.
Automating the ticketing from the stop sign, on the other hand is a *great* idea. If you roll through a stop sign you should get a ticket in the mail. Taking police out of the system entirely makes sure it is fair for everyone. With just a touch of technology we could make rolling stops a thing of the past, and make sure that this particular law was applied 100% fairly.
Personally, I think that would be a win.