I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV......but I think it all depends on how the picture is used. YOU have no right to take a photo of me engaged in a provate activity w/o my consent and use it for profit, for example.

My point about privacy may not be legally correct, but what I meant was that such a photo might show someone in an activity other then was intended.

Allowing people or the government to take photos of us at will is at best, a slipperly slope and not something that we really want.

On the other hand, such technology could be used for good reasons such as finding a missing person.

I guess you have to take the good with the bad, but I am not real thrilled with the idea of someone taking my photo going through a light.

 

Funny!

 

and thats how liberty dies...because big brother takes an inch at a time....and theres always gonna be someone who cheers it on by thinkin, "well its there for a reason" i dont like second hand smoke but i think a smokin section is good enough...i dont think smokin should be outlawed indoors with cameras providin evidense....look people we are all adults here...well, mostly...anyway...as an adult you have a fundamental knowledge of right and wrong...how much are you willing to allow yourselves to be told what to do? how much are you willing to be filmed? how much privacy are you willing to give up? you now have cameras on your street corner, cameras at red lights, cameras in stores, you dont just have cameras in airports, now you have xray devices that allow security to see your naked body under your clothes, so when they are smilin at your wife...now you know why....and of course, cameras on highways now...all for a good reason.....well hell boys, how long till they decide to combat molestation by putting cameras in your bedroom? dont forget, sodomy is against the law in most states....lets enforce that one too...its wrong

 

Wait a sec... are you implying that enforcing speeding laws is the same as big brother?

I have no issue with cameras in public places, as long as they are used for reference only, IE: help find the guy who stole that ol ladys bag when she reports it was stolen.

Stores, etc, they have the right to use security cameras to protect thier property just as i have a right to use surveillance systems to secure my own property.

However, that is a far cry from govt putting cameras in our houses to invade our privacy.

I'm for any security precaution that will prevent another terrorist attack and any precaution that will help garauntee our safety, as long as they do not infringe on our rights as americans.


Unfortunatly,too many precedents have already been set, too many of our rights are gone, public protests against the govt are now considered hostile in nature and no longer allowed. They can listen to any of our phone conversations, etc.

the idea of "if yer nott doing anything wrong it isnt a problem" is rediculous.


Just IMGINE, if you got automatically got a citation for EVERY lawe you break. Every time you speed. Every time you have a glass of wine with lunch then drive, every time you do ANYTHING.

i dont think many americans realize how maany laws they break on a regular basis without really thinking much about it.

ugh... i'd move

 

What if... we email our congressmen and send them a formal letter informing them that we feel that these big brother moves and speed cameras are becoming an issue and we don't like them. I think partly some of these things happen is because the congressmen only hear from the old ladys who get upset over everything and less from everyday people like you and me. They might feel that the majority of the population back home agrees with them because they don't get complaints sent in for what they are doing.

 

i never imply...what i said was i have a problem with all the cameras

 

My city had them but it did not last long. Basically they would look at all the speed violations every month and send out a certain number of them. If they were to have sent out all the tickets it would have been rediculous. Its a flawed system and will always be that way.

 

how do those cameras even work? is it in those areas that have like the ticks on the road a bunch of white lines that are horizontal and then they just measure the time it takes you to get to each one?

 

lol...

no.. it is a radar gun with a camera attached to it.

 

ah I wonder what the things are that I see its only on a small stretch of the interstate that I drive on when I'm going though Milwaukee, WI on I-94. They gotta have something to do with speed and viewing from above.

 

Well see, they have little sensors on them that detect motion, and follow it. There is also two M2 Browning .50caliber HMGs with 250 rounds of armor-piercing incendiary ammunition attached to it. That's how it catches speeders. If you're going 35mph over the speed limit, it fires a TOW anti-tank missile at the vehicle.

 

lol damn I gotta get myself one of those!

 

Apparently they have all been sent to Iraq, but not for speed-enforcement.

 

lol... found this out, i geuss colorado wants to approve speed cameras in work zones...

 

here in washington they have the red light cams but they are not that efective because all you have to do is say it wasnt you driveing and that one that day you let some one barow your car. inless they can prove any diferant then they let you out of the ticket.

 

dude you are cool and everything but you have got to buy a dictionary... I may not be the spelling bee champ but jeezus....isnt there a ton of paperwork to fill out when you arrest somebody?

 

well i just got my speeding ticket today. its all in german and i dont have a scanner so i cant copy and paste it to babelfish. i was going 100 clicks in a 80 click zone no pictures just some gibberish. i have to get one of the german civilians in my shop to translate for me. there were no numbers next to a EURO symbol so i dont know if i have to pay money yet. i may have to appear in court or some bullshit, **** them.

what i dont get is i remember getting flashed but there is no picture of my car or me driving it... in america i would just throw this **** out. due to this SOFA agreement i would probably lose my license if i threw this ticket away.

 

lol..

 

I know i cant spell worth a **** and it dosnt bother me, and yes there is a lot of paper work to fill out but on the computer and i have spell check on that program. the computer i use at work wont let me use the spell check on this site.

 

Well you had every word but 1 correct in that post....good job..lol

 

thank you im working on it. lol

 

have you tried using firefox? it has a built in spell checker

 

i use a computer at my work and we have all kinds of fire walls so i cant get anything like that

 

That is probably because they want you out busting meth labs instead of chatting on mustang forum boards,

 

well i wish i could do that but i work the control room in a jail

 

down here the FHP uses a plane to clock how long it takes you to get from one white line to the other. only place i've seen them was on the interstate. but i have seen them on a few desolate roads, go figure that one.

the way i see it, if you're speeding on a vacant road, the only person you have the potential to hurt is yourself. they give speeding tickets to stop you from potentially hurting other people. i'm NOT saying it's right, but like jack said earlier it's a lesser degree of wrong.

 

thats just like geting a ticket for no seat belt. the only one that will hurt is me and isint that my right to chose

 

If I am not mistaken, this was a central arument against seat belt laws way back when they were created. Those that argued in favor of the laws were able to convince the lawmakers of two things:

1 - Someone NOT wearing a seat belt was least likely to avoid an accident when faced with an evasivie manuerver, because wearing a belt holds the driver in place.

2 - Not wearing a belt put other drivers in a bad position, because they might kill someone rather then just causing an injury.

IMO, a driver should be allowed to not wear a belt if they wish. However, I think passengers should be required and certainly kids.

This is one of those laws wear public opion and public safety seems to take a greater position then what might be constitutional. Slipperly slope....because you could make the same argument about a lot of other things.

****, more people die from obesity then car accidents.

 

i still think it should still be secondairy law.

 

so true...more people die from:

second hand smoke
road rage
drunk driving
unprotected sex
construction accidents
eating a chicken bone
snitchin on the mob
snowboarding
skiing
scuba diving
stepping on a gang members sneakers
******* the neighbors wife
being bitten by a poisonous creature




than they do from "spirited driving" (or streetracin) in a sportcar