Highway Monitoring Systems

Is it ethical for the government to monitor highways?

Should the government be allowed to install cameras on poles and send you a ticket?

If you were tracked every place you go would you be free?
The Victory Act or Patriot Act II will allow this to happen.


http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist2/cctv/allcams.shtml

http://www.utahcommuterlink.com/ie.htm

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION4/camerapages.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9698139/

 

Let's see here. The government owns the highways, does it not? And, regardless of whether I actually own my house, I do have the right to install video cameras where I live, do I not? And if you break into my house and shoot my kitty cats and any other life forms living here and turn the entire house upside down, do not the appropriate people have the right to serve you notice to appear in court based on what they saw on that video?

 

What is freedom?

Yes, but are you free?

 

Re: Re: Highway Monitoring Systems

No Ted - we own the highways. The goverment merely maintains them (and CalTrans does a suck job at that!)

 

Re: What is freedom?

Since the government owns the highways, the government is free to install videos. If you or I or anyone else get caught in a speed trap, that just tough. The solution to that problem would be to try not to get caught too many times in one year so that the cops don't jerk your license away. Or elect representatives that will take away the videos. Or elect representatives that will abolish speed limits. Or run for public office yourself.

 

There is no expectation of privacy in a public place, and a highway/street is about as public as you can get.

The main problem I have is sending a traffic citation to the owner of the vehicle. There's a fairly good chance that someone other than the owner is driving, so I don't think that's really fair.

 

Re: Re: Re: Highway Monitoring Systems

We, the people, do not own the highways directly. We, the people, do, of course, own the government, which, in turn, owns the highways. But, since each individual one of us that collectively makes up we, the people, only owns about 1/285 millionth of the (federal) government (and a rather bigger fraction of our respective state and local governments), no one individual owns the whole damn road. Since we, the people, seem to have consented to certain traffic laws, then the options are to obey those traffic laws or start political action to abolish traffic laws or write new traffic laws more to one's liking.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Highway Monitoring Systems

When was the last time you personally consented to a specific traffic law? Or - when was the last time you think your legislature gave a rats ass what you thought about them passing a specific law?

When I saw "we", I am of course referring to the collective "we" (taxpayers, tax dodgers, etc)

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Highway Monitoring Systems

I think the political theory notion of the social contract is that someone (or even many someones) amongst my ancestors did personally consent to the formation of a government when they were emerging from the state of nature into civilized society. And that subsequent generations, including myself, have consented thereto by remaining within civilized society. And, if I don't like it, I can find some place where I can go live beyond the pale (assuming I've learned the survival skills to do so).

 

Big Brother is Watching. Big Brother is Watching. Big Brother is Watching...

 

The way the British system gets around this is to send you a notice that your vehicle was involved in a speed violation. You get about 30 days to return the notice with the information on the driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident. The driver then gets the fine and points on the license. The system seems to work well.

 

Re: What is freedom?

Free to do what?
Jack

 

Re: Re: What is freedom?

Of course, people are free to break the law if they wish. But the government's free to arrest them if they are caught doing so.

 

I think it is OK to place cameras in highways. The state, not the government, owns the highways and roads. Governments just exploit them and maintain them, I think. It has nothing to do with privacy but with law enforcement. The other day I read in an American paper that in a NY county they will use GPS photos to detect marihuana plantations in the area.

Here, since the traffic is often very heavy, there are parts of the highway (entrance and exit to Amsterdam, for instance) which you can only access if the car is occupied by at least two persons (they do it to encourage car pooling). I think they use artificial intelligence and cameras to discern whether the car is occupied by more than one person. I think it is great since that way those parts of the highway are truly faster.

Last year they put a new camera in my way to work and I didn’t notice it until I received four or five fines for driving only 5 km/h over the limit (3 miles an hour). I never break the law, I never drive fast, I always respect everything, but they screwed me over three miles and hour excess. Honestly you feel like orchestrating a popular revolution and chop some heads (literally). Especially when you see how many people drive 180Km/h (120 miles/h) and get away with it.

 

Before I forget I don´t see much difference between having a cop hiding in a car with a speedometer and installing a camera. It is cheaper for the government to have the process automatized, and it is equally reliable.

 

The terms "the state" and "the government" are one and the same.

 

Probably where you live. In many other parts of the world, you have, for instance, the British state and the British government, two separate entities.

 

Lay-off Cops?

JLV,

So are you suggesting we lay-off police and install cameras?

 

Re: Lay-off Cops?

Are you suggesting we should spend more money continuing to employ cops when their jobs can be done by video cameras? Boy, private sector employees certainly don't have the luxury of having their jobs protected when the boss discovers a new technology that can replace the workers!

 

Re: Lay-off Cops?

I think technology can help in making the states (or governments or whatever you wanna call it) more efficient. However, I had a close friend who was a Lieutenant Coronel of the NYS Troopers, and he told me that most of the criminals are trapped when pulled over by unrelated traffic violations. So the answer to your question is not entirely clear to me.