My rights as a citizen are being sodomized

I came home today and got an early birthday present in the mail.


It turned out to be one of those mail in tickets of a pic of your car's license plate. It turns out they gave me a ticket for taking a right on red which is actually legal.

What kind of indecency is it to have cameras that take pictures of that shit?

That is just wrong and totally invades our privacy. If a cop doesn't pull you

over you shouldn't be fucked over like that, especially when what I did was

completely legal.

I am 18 and have a part time job. The scissored down paycheck I already receive due to the fucking taxes they slap on us is going to be completely gone.

What right do they have to do this to us?

I'd send a letter back asking what the offense is. Be polite, and describe the situation in clear terms. Ask for a clarification on why you received the ticket.

That sucks Sook. I agree 100%. This remote surveillance BS is one hell of slippery slope. Traffic tickets are just the beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sook

I came home today and got an early birthday present in the mail.


It turned out to be one of those mail in tickets of a pic of your car's license plate. It turns out they gave me a ticket for taking a right on red which is actually legal.

What kind of indecency is it to have cameras that take pictures of that shit?

That is just wrong and totally invades our privacy. If a cop doesn't pull you

over you shouldn't be fucked over like that, especially when what I did was

completely legal.

I am 18 and have a part time job. The scissored down paycheck I already receive due to the fucking taxes they slap on us is going to be completely gone.

What right do they have to do this to us?

---

If they have the camera set up right, it will only take the picture if you don't come to a complete stop first.

Lets see... In my experience, only about 1 out of 10 people come to a complete stop when the traffic is clear at a stop sign or red light. Most just slow down and go.

Did you come to a complete stop? If not, it was illegal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Did you come to a complete stop? If not, it was illegal!

---

Think of the poster. This happened to a guy we kinda know online. Are you all about the cold legalities? :lol

sook should start with a polite letter (H/T, LNGR) that does not admit fault and requests a description of the offense. In some areas these systems are only being tested, and there may not be any offense to contest. If there is, he can fight it if he wants. I probably would.

i didnt think camera enforced tickets were real citations, they were more like parking tickets and just go against your credit, not driving record. If so fuck them dont pay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Think of the poster. This happened to a guy we kinda know online. Are you all about the cold legalities? :lol

sook should start with a polite letter (H/T, LNGR) that does not admit fault and requests a description of the offense. In some areas these systems are only being tested, and there may not be any offense to contest. If there is, he can fight it if he wants. I probably would.

---

I'm not criticizing him, but the law is black and white. The law says you must come to a complete stop first at a red light or stop sign. I personally would like to rewrite the law and change most stop signs with yield signs, and treat red lights as a yield sign, but it does means stop. Not yield.

The question remains. Was it a complete stop, or was the camera set up wrong.

Sook...

Before your court date, get the calibration information of the camera. Also, I don't know how it works, but the accused has the right to face their accuser. This does make photo enforcement difficult when done right. Others may have ideas about this.

It doesn't matter if Sook came to a complete stop, what was illegal was the right turn at a red, not the possible coasting through it.

What's at issue WC, isn't the legal conduct of America's citizenry and/or Sook, it's the electronic surveillance of said conduct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Before your court date, get the calibration information of the camera. Also, I don't know how it works, but the accused has the right to face their accuser.

---

There are lawyers that specialize in this sort of thing. If there is a citation based on electronically recorded information, questions about maintenance would seem to be germane.

This isn't a bad recommendation at all, WC. :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balli

What's at issue WC, isn't the legal conduct of America's citizenry and/or Sook, it's the electronic surveillance of said conduct.

---

Sure. The extent to which people don't even care about this anymore appalls me.

WC, apparently, not so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

i didnt think camera enforced tickets were real citations, they were more like parking tickets and just go against your credit, not driving record. If so fuck them dont pay

---

In my experience, parking tickets are citations too.


http://juicyplanet.files.wordpress.c...01/boot_dc.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balli

It doesn't matter if Sook came to a complete stop, what was illegal was the right turn at a red, not the possible coasting through it.

What's at issue WC, isn't the legal conduct of America's citizenry and/or Sook, it's the electronic surveillance of said conduct.

---

I understand what you are saying and want to agree, but we shouldn't ignore the parts of law we don't like and expect no repercussions. Are we a nation of laws, or anarchy?

When's the last time you got high WC?

I agree that we're a nation of laws. I agree that people should accept responsibility for their illegal behavior if they're caught. I don't agree that we should be using computers and cameras to catch people... Unless there's a living person on the other end of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Sure. The extent to which people don't even care about this anymore appalls me.

WC, apparently, not so much.

---

It doesn't bother me to monitor public places. Why should it bother anyone? If you are doing something not to be seen, do it in the privacy or your home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balli

When's the last time you got high WC?

---

April.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

i didnt think camera enforced tickets were real citations, they were more like parking tickets and just go against your credit, not driving record. If so fuck them dont pay

---

With every city in America facing budget crunches you can bet that ticket collections are going to be taken more seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It doesn't bother me to monitor public places. Why should it bother anyone?

---

Ay, carnal!

It's because they're not you! :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Ay, carnal!

It's because they're not you! :lol

---

The way I see it, a camera should be no different than a stranger walking down the street. If you do something wring, you could get reported.

Ok no it wasn't a "Complete" stop but it was pretty darn close, a bit of a roll but this is fucking unfair!

I'm not paying a $150 ticket, thats like 17 hours of work I'm using to fucking pay for college not throw out the door because a fucking camera took a picture.


I will call them and try to remain as polite as possible...but tihs isn't right!

40 years from now people will get public indecency tickets because they took a piss on the side of the road a camera happened to catch.

6th amendment gives you the right to face your accuser. However, I have heard an urban legal legend that this exact issue has been raised with the camera tickets and was unsuccessful. I would go and see a traffic lawyer, they might be able to give you some sound advice for $150-200.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sook

40 years from now people will get public indecency tickets because they took a piss on the side of the road a camera happened to catch.

---

This happens more often then you would think in parking garages.

I guess WC would like it in Britain. They have cameras EVERYWHERE.
They have cameras hidden in "decoy" trashcans in alleys to see who is putting their trash out on the wrong days.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_2jOGAC3rwgc/...ce+society.jpg

Quote:

---

the average person in London is filmed 300 times a day.

---

They need to upgrade to video. A still photo is insulting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

6th amendment gives you the right to face your accuser. However, I have heard an urban legal legend that this exact issue has been raised with the camera tickets and was unsuccessful. I would go and see a traffic lawyer, they might be able to give you some sound advice for $150-200.

---

That's where they get you. If you have to get a lawyer, it becomes more expensive to fight it.

Losers pay anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

They need to upgrade to video. A still photo is insulting.

---

Now I agree. With modern electronics, video is the way to go. Then again, it can be more damning...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bender

I guess WC would like it in Britain. They have cameras EVERYWHERE.
They have cameras hidden in "decoy" trashcans in alleys to see who is putting their trash out on the wrong days.

---

That is one thing I think they did right. Remember now, they found the subway bombers that way.

You cannot expect to have privacy in public places. Now I don't like the idea that there is becoming such a need, but it's less expensive than placing a police officer on every corner.

As for the enforcing sanitation laws... I hope we never get to such a place where we have such laws to begin with. However, laws need to be enforced.

I'll bet you'd be singing a different tune if a loved one was killed, and the only witness was a camera. If there was no way to bring the killer to justice without such evidence, and they ended up spending their life in jail afterward, what would you say then?

Now I don't mean as the only evidence, but for identifying the suspect to begin with. Plate number, face, etc. Have to find the right person before forensic evidence can be matched, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

6th amendment gives you the right to face your accuser. However, I have heard an urban legal legend that this exact issue has been raised with the camera tickets and was unsuccessful. I would go and see a traffic lawyer, they might be able to give you some sound advice for $150-200.

---

ROFL. You still care about the Constitution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

With every city in America facing budget crunches you can bet that ticket collections are going to be taken more seriously.

---

Right. The cops will be out hunting the law abiding on the roads while the criminals will be tracking those marks at home. But one wears a uniform. And sells fancy stickers so somebody else gets pulled over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elbamba

6th amendment gives you the right to face your accuser. However, I have heard an urban legal legend that this exact issue has been raised with the camera tickets and was unsuccessful. I would go and see a traffic lawyer, they might be able to give you some sound advice for $150-200.

---

wow, i can't face my accuser because it is a fucking camera, so i have to dish out twice as much cash just to fight it. Wrong on so many levels

I'm sure many struggling college students would choose to fight it :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That is one thing I think they did right. Remember now, they found the subway bombers that way.

You cannot expect to have privacy in public places. Now I don't like the idea that there is becoming such a need, but it's less expensive than placing a police officer on every corner.

As for the enforcing sanitation laws... I hope we never get to such a place where we have such laws to begin with. However, laws need to be enforced.

I'll bet you'd be singing a different tune if a loved one was killed, and the only witness was a camera. If there was no way to bring the killer to justice without such evidence, and they ended up spending their life in jail afterward, what would you say then?

Now I don't mean as the only evidence, but for identifying the suspect to begin with. Plate number, face, etc. Have to find the right person before forensic evidence can be matched, right?

---

:rollin

Ah yes, the "libertarian conservative." When you're through shitting on the Bill of Rights, let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sook

wow, i can't face my accuser because it is a fucking camera, so i have to dish out twice as much cash just to fight it. Wrong on so many levels

---

Again, before you go to court, get the calibration data. If it is either expired, or they wont give it to you, make sure the judge knows that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

:rollin

Ah yes, the "libertarian conservative." When you're through shitting on the Bill of Rights, let me know.

---

Please explain to me how that is shitting on the bill of rights? Maybe I'm misinformed about it. Please... change my mind. People seem to think the one I have is wrong anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Again, before you go to court, get the calibration data. If it is either expired, or they wont give it to you, make sure the judge knows that!

---

alrighty thnx bud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Please explain to me how that is shitting on the bill of rights? Maybe I'm misinformed about it. Please... change my mind. People seem to think the one I have is wrong anyway.

---

You're fine with the government violating our rights so long as the feds can come up with a bullshit excuse for it that involves the military, fear of Islamic terrorists lurking in our garbage cans, or the possible annihilation of Iran, and not anything that sounds vaguely socialistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Please explain to me how that is shitting on the bill of rights? Maybe I'm misinformed about it. Please... change my mind. People seem to think the one I have is wrong anyway.

---

Do you really think that garbage can cameras would have garnered the approval of Jefferson and Madison?

Get your authoritarian ass out of here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

You're fine with the government violating our rights so long as the feds can come up with a bullshit excuse for it that involves the military, fear of Islamic terrorists lurking in our garbage cans, or the possible annihilation of Iran, and not anything that sounds vaguely socialistic.

---

You didn't tell me how that violates our rights. I hguess you can't. OK, I understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You didn't tell me how that violates our rights. I hguess you can't. OK, I understand.

---

LOL. I guess you're for a Constitution that grows, or better, for a textual parsing of it that kills the spirit of it altogether. If you want your life subject to the eye in the sky, move to the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Do you really think that garbage can cameras would have garnered the approval of Jefferson and Madison?

Get your authoritarian ass out of here.

---

I think that's going too far. But that the UK, not here. I would say the owners of the collection service have such a right if they chose to, but really... do we have alternating day laws anywhere?

If we have a law, shouldn't there be a mechanism to enforce it? I'm not arguing the morality of the law, just that we try to take the laws we have serious, or eliminate them.

I am libertarian. You go beyond that to the extreme of an anarchist I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

LOL. I guess you're for a Constitution that grows, or better, for a textual parsing of it that kills the spirit of it altogether. If you want your life subject to the eye in the sky, move to the UK.

---

Loser...

You don't have an answer for me.

Once again, how does a camera in public violate the bill of rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Loser...

You don't have an answer for me.

Once again, how does a camera in public violate the bill of rights?

---

LOL. Unreasonable search, for one.

How might a camera "in public" trained on your front door not violate the Bill of Rights? But, the camera is "in public" so it's cool, no?

Further, it clearly violates the spirit of the Bill of Rights, unless you believe that Jefferson, Madison, Benny F, and the gang thought it was perfectly cool for the redcoats to stroll down your neighborhood and scoping your ass out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I think that's going too far. But that the UK, not here. I would say the owners of the collection service have such a right if they chose to, but really... do we have alternating day laws anywhere?

If we have a law, shouldn't there be a mechanism to enforce it? I'm not arguing the morality of the law, just that we try to take the laws we have serious, or eliminate them.

---

Expedience? Motherfucker the whole point of the Constitution is that our rights are more important than the efficiency of the authorities. Again and again and again you chose to side with the state instead of the individual. That is why you are no individualist.

Quote:

---

I am libertarian. You go beyond that to the extreme of an anarchist I think.

---

HAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHHHA. You're as much a libertarian as Barack is a capitalist. You only latched onto that label because you managed to piss all over the conservative label. A libertarian's first reaction isn't, "hey, cops with cameras watching my every move, FUCKING AWESOME!!!11".

Get the fuck outta here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bender

I guess WC would like it in Britain. They have cameras EVERYWHERE.

They have cameras hidden in "decoy" trashcans in alleys to see who is putting their trash out on the wrong days.

---

Yes, essentially.

It's perverse to me that self-respecting norteamericanos promote the automated enforcement of law, but I guess anyone who worships the power of the state is liable to fantasize about its perfection or at least, its maximum efficiency.

Quote:

---

If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear.

---

If nothing is hidden, everything may be taken. WC would strengthen the hand of the state against its own citizens. Against us.

Yoiks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You cannot expect to have privacy in public places. Now I don't like the idea that there is becoming such a need, but it's less expensive than placing a police officer on every corner.

---

So if cost wasn't an issue you'd want a cop at every corner? Turn every city into Habana or Tijuana?

As reliable as a cuckoo clock, WC chirps in with full "conservative" support of institutions over citizens, like his equally radical conservative cuckoo buddies on the Supreme Court.

Move to France, and many other countries, where the political and judicial systems exist to keep the state supreme, no matter the cost to the citizens. It's all very subtle, even sophisticated, and secretive, most of the time, but if you look for it, it's pervasive.

Of course, the "state" is always the corrupt, kleptocratic, oligarchic plutocracy, within and outside of government, with their venal, rapacious hands on the levers of state power. The US is exactly the same, it's just that most US citizens have been hood-winked into believing the school-boy Myths of Supreme America The Beautiful.

Assholes like WC think that the magnificently terse phrase of "price of freedom is eternal vigilance" means the state's vigilance and 1984-ish control over its suspects, aka, citizens, when of course the phrase applies to citizens being vigilant about the eternal, inevitable abuses of power by the state.

Shut the fuck up, take off your shoes, and get in line to be scanned, Citizen Suspects. This charade is for your own good. :lol

To be fair, at least WC supports the right to own guns.

Of course, with cameras everywhere, the cops can just wait til he's out shopping to confiscate them. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Assholes like WC think that the magnificently terse phrase of "price of freedom is eternal vigilance" means the state's vigilance and 1984-ish control over its suspects, aka, citizens, when of course the phrase applies to citizens being vigilant about the eternal, inevitable abuses of power by the state.

---

I think that's the smartest thing I've ever heard you say...

The reason why cameras are considered 'acceptable' is because they're remote, hidden away. I'm sure if you had a cop who sat on the sidewalk watching your house, or sitting on a street corner watching every move, it'd be quite unnerving.

I don't like these kinds of cameras, but there's no real constitutional issue here.

There is no expectation of privacy in public places.

This is no different than a tagger getting caught by a surveillance camera in a parking lot.

However, if it was a legal turn, or if you think you can convince them of that, then go ahead and go through the legal process and get it overturned, its a little bit of a pain, but its your right to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

The reason why cameras are considered 'acceptable' is because they're remote, hidden away. I'm sure if you had a cop who sat on the sidewalk watching your house, or sitting on a street corner watching every move, it'd be quite unnerving.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I am libertarian.

---

So you oppose the Patriot Act?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

So you oppose the Patriot Act?

---

No, he supported it. Like a good "libertarian" would.

I'd think real hard before challenging the ticket. If you know you didn't come to a full stop, then you really don't have a case. I got one of those tickets for running a red light. It was a very close call and it was a day when we had ice and slick roads. I knew if I tried to stop, I'd probably slide thru the intersection anyway - and I wasn't speeding.

I contacted a lawyer and he said very, very few people are successful in challenging the camera tickets - and here in Arlington, if you lose the challenge, they tack on another $25 for "court costs"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

I'd think real hard before challenging the ticket. If you know you didn't come to a full stop, then you really don't have a case. I got one of those tickets for running a red light. It was a very close call and it was a day when we had ice and slick roads. I knew if I tried to stop, I'd probably slide thru the intersection anyway - and I wasn't speeding.

I contacted a lawyer and he said very, very few people are successful in challenging the camera tickets - and here in Arlington, if you lose the challenge, they tack on another $25 for "court costs"!

---

man, what a dump arlington has turned into. i lived there over 10 years ago and it's changed for the worse, in my eyes. hopefully the stadium will change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

man, what a dump arlington has turned into. i lived there over 10 years ago and it's changed for the worse, in my eyes. hopefully the stadium will change that.

---

For making you pay court costs when you lose? Or just in general, its turned into a dump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

LOL. Unreasonable search, for one.

---

It's not a search.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

How might a camera "in public" trained on your front door not violate the Bill of Rights? But, the camera is "in public" so it's cool, no?

---

I believe that is already illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

Further, it clearly violates the spirit of the Bill of Rights, unless you believe that Jefferson, Madison, Benny F, and the gang thought it was perfectly cool for the redcoats to stroll down your neighborhood and scoping your ass out.

---

Bullshit. You're making things up. It doesn't violate freedom any more than anyone in public watching from a public vantage point.

What the redcoats did was way different than a camera, or a police officer passing by. They did as they pleased with impunity.

You ain't got shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant

A libertarian's first reaction isn't, "hey, cops with cameras watching my every move, FUCKING AWESOME!!!11".

Get the fuck outta here.

---

camera's are not my first choice. I however acknowledge that there are legitimate need of enforcing the law. You seem to want to tie the hands so law enforcement is neutralized.

"establish justice, insure domestic tranquility"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

So you oppose the Patriot Act?

---

No, I acknowledge the constitution.

What liberties has it infringed on?

Now I'm furious about how they made air travel so much harder, but that's not what you are speaking of.

What liberties do the way we use cameras infringe on our liberties?

You have to be reasonable about these things.

Again, What liberties do cameras and the Patriot Act infringe on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Again, What liberties do cameras and the Patriot Act infringe on?

---

Mmmm...not sure. This guy thinks they violate due process, whatever that is.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opini...ll-as-more.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam1617

For making you pay court costs when you lose? Or just in general, its turned into a dump.

---

in general.

Quote:

---

AZ County Prosecutor Throws Out Criminal Speed Camera Citations

Motorists will no longer be sent to jail on the mere accusation of a machine in Maricopa County, Arizona. County Attorney Andrew Thomas yesterday announced that he will dismiss all criminal speeding and reckless driving cases brought to him when the only evidence presented is a photo radar ticket. Thomas condemned the process that imposes jail time on those accused of driving 20 MPH over the speed limit without any human witness to the alleged crime.
“The bottom line is, the way the law is written and the way our Constitution is written, to bring criminal prosecutions based on photo radar evidence only is not something our office can do, or frankly should do, given the Constitutional mandates,” Thomas said.
In 2008 the legislature specifically eliminated license points from tickets issued under the statewide freeway ticketing program (view law). Lawmakers understood that motorists would be more likely to pay tickets without challenge if the only penalty was a $181 monetary fine that did not boost insurance rates or threaten a license suspension. This revised legislative language prohibits criminal prosecution.
“Notwithstanding any other law, if a person is found responsible for a civil traffic violation or a notice of violation pursuant to a citation issued pursuant to this section, the department of transportation shall not consider the violation for the purpose of determining whether the person’s driver license should be suspended or revoked,” Arizona Code Section 41-1722 states. “A court shall not transmit abstracts of records of these violations to the department of transportation.”
[Under state law, criminal speeding is a class three misdemeanor that carries license points and the possibility of license suspension, plus thirty days in jail and a $500 fine.]
Thomas’ decision is a slap in the face to the state Department of Public Safety (DPS) which has used high-profile photo ticket arrests as a public relations tool. In August, for example, a young motorist was led in handcuffs out of the Sky Harbor International Airport with a DPS camera recording the event for distribution to local media. Last week, DPS issued another press release citing similar arrests as a justification for the automated ticketing program.
“Ongoing apprehensions of major violators are further evidence enforcement works,” the press release stated. “DPS recently arrested three suspects for reckless driving and criminal speeding. Video and photos of the suspects are available on request.”
Thomas says he became personally involved after looking more closely at what the state police was asking him to do.
“DPS keeps pressing us on this,” Thomas said. “The cases we are receiving underscore why we have these constitutional rules. Some of the cases that were brought to my attention — there was one case in which the defendant was male but the driver in the photo appeared to be female. In another one the age didn’t match, and a much older woman, someone in her seventies, was the defendant but it appeared that someone else was driving the vehicle.”
Thomas said the proper way to prosecute the crime is to have a live police officer witness the offense, identify the individual responsible and testify to these facts in court.
“You have to have a witness,” Thomas said. “It isn’t something you can just ignore…. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a broad interpretation of the rights of defendants under the Confrontation Clause… Arizona courts have interpreted this clause as giving defendants the right to question and cross-examine witnesses. There is no opportunity to question or cross-examine a camera.”Thomas did not offer an opinion on the legality of the civil photo radar citations because his office does not handle them. In January, Maricopa County Justice Court Judge John C. Keegan declared the civil speed camera tickets unconstitutional (view decision). The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office is one of fourteen in the state, although many of the other jurisdictions look to Maricopa County for guidance.

---

Freedom from surveillance in public is not in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers probably did not envision a time when machines could keep tabs on all our public activities. Because we live in a time where you can't spit without breaking the law, pervasive surveillance means that the government always has a way of coercing you if it chooses. I'm not very libertarian and even I can figure out the end game here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It's not a search.

---

Sure it is.

Quote:

---

I believe that is already illegal.

Bullshit. You're making things up. It doesn't violate freedom any more than anyone in public watching from a public vantage point.

---

Watching everyone all the fucking time. Yeah, that's entirely consistent with a free society.

Quote:

---

What the redcoats did was way different than a camera, or a police officer passing by. They did as they pleased with impunity.

You ain't got shit.

---

LOL. And you're all for the state acting with impunity. You would've made a perfect Tory with your mouth around King George's royal shaft.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crookshanks

I contacted a lawyer and he said very, very few people are successful in challenging the camera tickets - and here in Arlington, if you lose the challenge, they tack on another $25 for "court costs"!

---

You did it again...

If my state sent me a a "camera ticket", I would take a picture and send them "camera money".

The way these work in Phoenix, you hold onto to the ticket and do nothing, 90% of the time nothing happens. The other 10% they serve the ticket to you and the same thing happens that would have if you did something in the first place.

I've gotten cammed 4 times and have paid $0 for any of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

If my state sent me a a "camera ticket", I would take a picture and send them "camera money".

---

This is the funniest thing I've heard all day and sig worthy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sook

I came home today and got an early birthday present in the mail.


It turned out to be one of those mail in tickets of a pic of your car's license plate. It turns out they gave me a ticket for taking a right on red which is actually legal.

What kind of indecency is it to have cameras that take pictures of that shit?

That is just wrong and totally invades our privacy. If a cop doesn't pull you

over you shouldn't be fucked over like that, especially when what I did was

completely legal.

I am 18 and have a part time job. The scissored down paycheck I already receive due to the fucking taxes they slap on us is going to be completely gone.

What right do they have to do this to us?

---

All I know is that I want my avatar to make your sig.

Also, if you want to see your rights sodomized, visit the National Archive. There's a toothpick sized hole smack dab in the center of the Constitution made by Dick Cheney himself. I guess he does more than shoot people in the face for fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

If my state sent me a a "camera ticket", I would take a picture and send them "camera money".

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE

The way these work in Phoenix, you hold onto to the ticket and do nothing, 90% of the time nothing happens. The other 10% they serve the ticket to you and the same thing happens that would have if you did something in the first place.

I've gotten cammed 4 times and have paid $0 for any of them.

---

The same thing with me. I got one for running a red light, and I didn't pay it. My license is up for renewal in a couple of weeks, and I got a letter saying I wouldn't get my license renewed due to unpaid tickets. So I called the number on the letter, and it was from a ticket I got for not wearing my seat belt. I guess it doesn't matter if you don't pay those tickets. :king

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

If my state sent me a a "camera ticket", I would take a picture and send them "camera money".

---

I seem to recall reading about somebody that did just that. I'm not sure how it worked out for them.

Have you taken a course of action yet? I'd throw it in the trash along with any idea of supporting big brother.

Electronic surveillance is a waste of materials, electricity, network bandwidth, money, time, and a further way for the state to encroach on personal freedoms.

Upgrading these cameras to video feeds would be an insult to what it means to be free. The cop on every corner analogy is perfect. No one would tolerate that outside of whatever is left of the neo-conservative movement.

If you don't see how cameras reduce freedom you are clueless quite frankly. They are authoritarian symbols; they instill fear and submission to the people around them. People lose the freedom to say what they want and do what they want for fear that big brother will send them a ticket or lock them up.

Imagine video and audio surveillance in every public area. Who the heck is going to do or say anything? Exactly. This is how freedoms die. Here are examples of how authoritarian symbolism diminishes freedom.

1. Jimmy's dad wont let him fly his R/C plane in the park. They could violate some obscure airspace law.
2. Bob won't tell Sally some racist joke even though no one is around; the cameras are listening and we dont want hate speech
3. Joe was about to make a remark to his buddy that involved a hypothetical about assassinating a public figure. Cameras are listening.
4. Jen was going to cross the street since no cars are coming -- but there's a camera and she wouldnt be on a crosswalk
5. Troy needs to take a piss in the bushes. No one is in this rural area... but there is a camera.
6. Fred was about to throw his spoiled food onto the roadside, but theres cameras!
7. Sook was making a legal right turn and broke some technicality, he will be more cautious in the future, and a little paranoid

I mean, does it have to be spelled out how these things are a slippery slope for destroying liberty? These things all seem trivial, but they are what separate places like the U.S. and North Korea in ideology. The only thing electronic authoritarianism does is instill fear and paranoia in people. Even if this is on an unconscious level and a small factor, it is the beginnings of 1984.

:tu

good post sabar. slippery slope is exactly what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

Electronic surveillance is a waste of materials, electricity, network bandwidth, money, time,

---

I disagree. I used to be against it, but a few things have happened to change my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

and a further way for the state to encroach on personal freedoms.

---

Explain just how please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

Upgrading these cameras to video feeds would be an insult to what it means to be free. The cop on every corner analogy is perfect. No one would tolerate that outside of whatever is left of the neo-conservative movement.

---

Maybe the murder that happened a couple blocks from my house would be solve. Maybe victims of hit and run accidents can jet justice. The list goes on. In fact, I often turn my cell phone video camera on when driving. I'll bet the hit and run accident I helped solve that was in front on me was appreciated by several, except for your ultra libertarian friend who ran from the accident scene. I stopped at the acci9dent scene, got the email address of the victim and police officer, and emailed it to them when I got home. Hope that bitch in the green SUV is in jail still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

If you don't see how cameras reduce freedom you are clueless quite frankly.

---

No I'm not. I agree they can be abused by individuals who have access to them, but please give me a real world situation how they reduce freedoms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

They are authoritarian symbols, they instill fear and submission to the people around them.

---

No they aren't, no more than the confederate battle flag is a symbol of racism. That is your own prejudice that makes you perceive a camera that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

People lose the freedom to say what they want and do what they want for fear that big brother will send them a ticket or lock them up.

---

So are you saying a criminal no longer has the freedom to commit a crime in public for fear they are going to be recorded? There is nothing to fear if you don't break laws. These things sit passive, and are not manned to be seen constantly. The data is seldom ever looked at unless there is a need to see it.

Do you complain about the cameras outside you local convenience store too? Shit, the assault case by gang members I was on a jury for would have never had a guilty verdict without the plain as day attack on camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

Imagine video and audio surveillance in every public area. Who the heck is going to do or say anything?

---

I work in a location with dozens of camera. I don't worry about it, or even worry about what I say. The video is only looked at in case of theft on the building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

Exactly. This is how freedoms die.

---

I agree that it can be abused. However, the justice department would never concern themselves with trivial things on cameras. They have a hard enough time with the caseloads they already have with real crimes. The only reason why I welcome cameras is because there isn't enough money going to the justice system any longer. Fewer cops, overcrowded jails. Criminals are booked and released too many times. I would be against cameras as well if we actually put people in jail long enough to detour them from recommitting crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

1. Jimmy's dad wont let him fly his R/C plane in the park. They could violate some obscure airspace law.

---

And a park police could be walking by and fine you if there was such a law. They come around far more often than someone might review a tape, then if they do, would it be worth the effort to find out who you are? In fact, the frequency of park police may decline bay a factor of 10, making it far less likely to be ticketed if you were doing such a minor illegal activity!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

2. Bob won't tell Sally some racist joke even though no one is around; the cameras are listening and we dont want hate speech

---

Fail... It's not hate speech when you are not directing it as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

3. Joe was about to make a remark to his buddy that involved a hypothetical about assassinating a public figure. Cameras are listening.

---

If it's hypothetical, then it is also stated as much, or joes Joe make his friends wonder if he might really mean it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

4. Jen was going to cross the street since no cars are coming -- but there's a camera and she wouldnt be on a crosswalk

---

The chances of someone watching the video for no cause is miniscule compared to a police officer rounding the corner and giving her a ticket. However, the camera is now evidence if it becomes a he-said-she-said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

5. Troy needs to take a piss in the bushes. No one is in this rural area... but there is a camera.

---

There's a camera in the bushes? Wow, isn't that a bit overkill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

6. Fred was about to throw his spoiled food onto the roadside, but theres cameras!

---

Shit, I want that asshole ticketed myself!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sabar

7. Sook was making a legal right turn and broke some technicality, he will be more cautious in the future, and a little paranoid

---

Yep, he failed to come to a complete stop. Police officers give tickets rather frequently for those California Stops. So what, a camera got him rather than a real police officer, which would have also cost him 10 to 20 minutes for the stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

If my state sent me a a "camera ticket", I would take a picture and send them "camera money".

---

they didn't like that when i did that.

When some ARAB shit goes around bombing coutnry you'll know exactly what Wild Cobra was talking about

Saber...

No response? Is it possible you are agreeing with many of my points?

Did you pay the ticket?